cpwigan posted:
Actually calling held before tackles are completed whilst then in the same game awarding tried because the elbow has not touched the ground and thus the tackle is not complete is lunacy. Screeching at players to get off the tackled player when it is patently impossible to do so immediately is lunacy. Chatic rushed play of the balls encourage scooting and one pass running. Remind you of anybody? SL created GB
If the existing rules had been enforced none of the above would be happening.
For example the PTB. There won't be chaotic rushed PTB if players are penalised for not executing the PTB correctly. It is as simple as that.
The trouble is RL is doing exactly what RU has done recently and that is ignoring rules that have stood the test of time to change the nature of the game.
In RU it is down to pig headedness in my opinion as they try and speed up the game but won't do away with certain aspects of it that naturally slow it down. So they ignore the rules somewhat or change them e.g. to allow lifting in the line out to reduce penalties.
In RL there is no need ignore rules or invent new ones but instead of going back to first principles and applying the rules that have worked for long time they introduce more rules.
What RL is doing is treating symptoms rather than the cause of the problem.
There is simply no need for this dominant tackle rule if you apply the existing laws of the game properly.
Instead of doing that they introduce this rule that leaves fans screaming about lying on.
A tackle is completed. If it is a good tackle, the tacklers will finish on top of the attacker who shoud be on his back. The tacklers will number 2 or 3. Calling dominant simply means you are going to apply common sense and allow the tacklers the correct amount of time to get off the attacker.
Well doing a Google search on the subject throws up some interesting comments and the upshot is a bit more that that.
The reason the Aussies introduced it was to prevent a style of play typified by Melbourne where the ball carrier would dive into the defenders at hip height hoping to land on all fours thus be able to play the ball quickly. Repeated drives like this gained quick yards.
Their solution was the dominant tackle, which meant the defenders had time to set themselves up. It didn't matter if the defenders were on the floor or not.
On the face of it, it looks like the rule was introduced to nullify this particular tactic.
The above is a summary of this:
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:S ... firefox-a
However in my opinion diving into a tackle like that is very much a voluntary tackle. If the ref can see a player doing that and call “dominant” then they could equally well penalise the player for a voluntary tackle.
Of course that slows the game down as a penalty has been awarded but that is just another example of how the games administrators have lost the plot in my opinion. They simply will not use the existing laws of the game to eradicate bad practice if it means a period of higher penalty counts in games while players and coaches adjust.
Instead they add more laws and complexity to game that simply doesn’t need it.
To surrender in a tackle is not a voluntary tackle. It is simply the process of not resisting the tackle and ensuring your in the best position to play the ball quickly after held is called. London use this ploy in their own half. It is gamesmanship and encouages scooting. Rightly, referees have sought to stop this act by giving tacklers a few extra seconds to nullify the gamesmanship.
All the authorities had to do was merely state that diving into a tackle as described above would be considered a voluntary tackle and treated as such. In fact it seems obvious to me it
is a voluntary tackle as diving in and going to ground means the player is not making any attempt at taking the tackle properly.
However since you mention London that raises another interesting question.
If you look here:
http://www.londonbroncos.co.uk/site/ne ... ckle.html
You will see a completely different interpretation of what constitutes a dominant tackle.
They say: “If the ball carrier is tackled and knocked immediately backwards by the tackler/s and the ball carrier’s momentum is going backwards at the completion of the tackle, then the referee will call ‘dominant tackle'.”
That has nothing to do with preventing the Melbourne style tactics and the tackled player has to be
knocked back for it to apply which is nothing like the tackled player having dominant called against him for diving in !!!
So basically if a player
isn’t knocked backwards it isn’t a dominant tackle regardless of whether he dived in. The problem alluded to by the Aussies is not solved.
Now if a player in any tackle
is knocked backwards he is hardly likely to be in a position to do a quick PTB is he? If he tries to get away with a sloppy one having been driven back, penalise the incorrect execution of the PTB. If you do that why on earth do you need to call “dominant”? The defenders would have enough time to get back.
Of course if you didn’t have the 10m rule but the old 5 yard rule there would not be any need for this tinkering and we might find a more skilful game as players needed a bit more guile to get past defences. It seems to me such messing about with the rules is an attempt to mitigate the effects of the 10m rule which is in itself another example of the Aussies messing about with the rules to the games detriment.
Both strategies promote a solid correct POTB and give vital time for referees to get defences back the full 10 and ultimately promotes passing movements rather than scooting.
As I think I have illustrated if you apply the current rules as they were meant to be applied, then you would get that anyway.
Oh and whilst not everything may be perfect it is no coincidence the Aussies are much better than we are an as such we should damn well try everything possible to learn as much as we can from them. A certain Aussie (Harry Bath I think) came over here learned from the then best, the British and took it back to St George who proceeded to win the most successive championships in the history of the game. I do not care who, what, never be afraid to take, learn from and improve.
And did he do that by changing the laws of the game? No he didn’t. It is one thing to try and emulate the Aussies skills but I don’t see what that has to do with the merits (or lack of) daft rules emanating form down under.
Dave
