Rules, interprations and how they have changed.

[ChrisA]

After reading about the idea of removing scrums from our game, I had a little think about the rules and how much they have changed over the last 10-15 years.

First off scrums, people want them removed ? if scrums got removed I would seriously wonder whos running the game, and what really is the point of watching it. What should happen is that scrums should be scrutinised and refs should be made to do their jobs proper, instead of some jerk in an office RL head quarters making some stupid decision that we should just let things slide. Then we wouldnt have to read stupid posts about scrums being removed from the game altogether.
Players should be made to play the ball properly, not make a slight movement with the foot and the refs let it go, players should have to tap the ball from the ground from a tap penalty, passes that are level should be called as forward passes as it states in the rules, the ball has to travel backwards, level should be deemed as forward as is the rules. All these are rules of our game that have been exploited, and with the full backing of the so called superiors running our game, for the simple reason that the hierarchy want the game speeding up because they believe in some crazy way we will catch up to the Aussies, which isnt going to happen just becasue we bend the rules, all it does is make a team already better than us in so many ways play even faster.

Rant over.

[robjoenz]

ChrisA posted:
First off scrums, people want them removed ? if scrums got removed I would seriously wonder whos running the game, and what really is the point of watching it. What should happen is that scrums should be scrutinised and refs should be made to do their jobs proper, instead of some jerk in an office RL head quarters making some stupid decision that we should just let things slide. Then we wouldnt have to read stupid posts about scrums being removed from the game altogether.

It's a matter of opinion mate, some people want to remove scrums, you might not agree (I don't) but it doesn't make it a stupid post. It makes it an opinion.

Although looking at scrums now, what is the point? The forwards may aswell all stand in a circle and the scrum half could take a tap restart. It would have the same effect would it not. Would just look a bit daft.

Players should be made to play the ball properly, not make a slight movement with the foot and the refs let it go, players should have to tap the ball from the ground from a tap penalty, passes that are level should be called as forward passes as it states in the rules, the ball has to travel backwards, level should be deemed as forward as is the rules. All these are rules of our game that have been exploited, and with the full backing of the so called superiors running our game, for the simple reason that the hierarchy want the game speeding up because they believe in some crazy way we will catch up to the Aussies, which isnt going to happen just becasue we bend the rules, all it does is make a team already better than us in so many ways play even faster.

I agree here. Players ought to be made to play-the-ball, it's the simplist technique there is, there's no excuse for not getting that right, it's just laziness.

As for forward passes, the touch judges especially aren't alert enough, although I'm pretty sure the referees tell them not to signal unless he asks them their opinion. Reading the rules (downloadable from RFL website) I got the impression that the TJ should not say something if it might over rule the ref. On flat passes, don't the rules say that they are permitted and it is only prohibited if the ball is thrown towards the opponents line (hence where the momentum theory comes in).

I also believe referees allow far too many offsides and lying on just to stop complaints if they give too many penalties away. I was quite frustrated by the lying on Friday, but had he penalised every time they lay on Karl Harrison would have been moaning. The guy in the middle cannot win unless Cummings officially stated the policy his refs should follow, leniency or to the letter of the law (I prefer the latter).

[cpwigan]

I have done a modest amount of refereeing and beforehand thought I could spot forward passes easily. I reached the conclusion very quickly that it is almost impossible to do so from the referees position. The people who can and should be spotting them are linesmen.

Scrums should be retained IMO. For those who hark to when scrums were a real contest, actually most scrums led to a penalty for illegal striking etc I believe scrums are important in terms of offering back lines an opportunity to attack their opposing backs and as such more priority should be given to stopping forwards from breaking too early from the scrum. Quite happy to see feeding.

[ChrisA]

robjoenz posted:

ChrisA posted:
First off scrums, people want them removed ? if scrums got removed I would seriously wonder whos running the game, and what really is the point of watching it. What should happen is that scrums should be scrutinised and refs should be made to do their jobs proper, instead of some jerk in an office RL head quarters making some stupid decision that we should just let things slide. Then we wouldnt have to read stupid posts about scrums being removed from the game altogether.

It's a matter of opinion mate, some people want to remove scrums, you might not agree (I don't) but it doesn't make it a stupid post. It makes it an opinion.

Although looking at scrums now, what is the point? The forwards may aswell all stand in a circle and the scrum half could take a tap restart. It would have the same effect would it not. Would just look a bit daft.

Players should be made to play the ball properly, not make a slight movement with the foot and the refs let it go, players should have to tap the ball from the ground from a tap penalty, passes that are level should be called as forward passes as it states in the rules, the ball has to travel backwards, level should be deemed as forward as is the rules. All these are rules of our game that have been exploited, and with the full backing of the so called superiors running our game, for the simple reason that the hierarchy want the game speeding up because they believe in some crazy way we will catch up to the Aussies, which isnt going to happen just becasue we bend the rules, all it does is make a team already better than us in so many ways play even faster.

I agree here. Players ought to be made to play-the-ball, it's the simplist technique there is, there's no excuse for not getting that right, it's just laziness.

As for forward passes, the touch judges especially aren't alert enough, although I'm pretty sure the referees tell them not to signal unless he asks them their opinion. Reading the rules (downloadable from RFL website) I got the impression that the TJ should not say something if it might over rule the ref. On flat passes, don't the rules say that they are permitted and it is only prohibited if the ball is thrown towards the opponents line (hence where the momentum theory comes in).

I also believe referees allow far too many offsides and lying on just to stop complaints if they give too many penalties away. I was quite frustrated by the lying on Friday, but had he penalised every time they lay on Karl Harrison would have been moaning. The guy in the middle cannot win unless Cummings officially stated the policy his refs should follow, leniency or to the letter of the law (I prefer the latter).

Sorry Rob, but I think removing scrums is an absolutley redicoulous thing to say, and to do it would just be plain stupid, thats my oppinion. Removing one of the oldest aspects from our game would be a sad loss and the traditionalists amongst us would all feel that I would guess. Scrums used to need specialist players, they dont now, thats why they look so pathetic, but instead of removing, hes a bright idea, how about we actually enforce the rules ?

[cpwigan]

Oh BTW, silliest rule which seems to have been introduced tbhis year is the one when your dragging an attacker over the touchline and if his team mate places his hands on the tackle to help him, the tackling team are penalised if they continue to drag the attacker over the touchline.

[robjoenz]

ChrisA posted:
Sorry Rob, but I think removing scrums is an absolutley redicoulous thing to say, and to do it would just be plain stupid, thats my oppinion. Removing one of the oldest aspects from our game would be a sad loss and the traditionalists amongst us would all feel that I would guess. Scrums used to need specialist players, they dont now, thats why they look so pathetic, but instead of removing, hes a bright idea, how about we actually enforce the rules ?

Aye, I agree mate, it's the way you called it a 'stupid post' some people may be feel intimidated by such wording. I totally agree about enforcing the rules. I think referees should follow the rules and if that means giving 30 penalties a game or a penalty early on in the count then so be it, help to clean up our game a bit.

[cpwigan]

Just a thought (I'm against high penalty counts), why not sin bin players for 5 minutes, then 10 rather than keep awarding penalties.

[ChrisA]

I grew up having to play the ball with my foot, tapping the ball from the ground, feeding the middle of the scrum, striking for the ball at the play the ball, stealing the ball in a tackle whether theres 2 men in it or not, passing backwards. They were all rules I learned and stuck to, to keep the ball you had to work hard, and to win the ball at a scrum you had to work hard. All this has gone now, and it detracts from the game I grew up playing. This is why we hear posts about scrums being removed, which totally baffles me to be honest. The people who say it must surely have never actually played the game when these rules were enforced. Otherwise they would understand that they should still be part of our game, and not removed becasue the officials let so many things slide, or the people ruinning the game changed the rules to suit.

[robjoenz]

cpwigan posted:
Just a thought (I'm against high penalty counts), why not sin bin players for 5 minutes, then 10 rather than keep awarding penalties.

You mean as a deterent?

Why not keep it at ten, it acts as more of a deterent, although maybe you mean the referee wouldn't be as cautious at giving them out if it were halved?

I think everyone is against high penalty counts but at the end of the day it's down to the coaches tactics and the players discipline as to how many penalties are conceeded. Of course there are bound to be a few accidental high shots and the odd offside but most are stupid things, like not getting back the full ten or interfereing at the play-the-ball.

[cpwigan]

I may be wrong cos they change these rules so much but there has/was a facility to sin bin for 5 or 10 minutes. I think sin binning a player for 5 minutes hurts that team more than purely conceding a penalty. There are teams that once in front will conceded penalties as opposed to tries.

I concur that teams cheating needd to be punished. Take London, for me v Hull they were utilising slow the play of the ball tactics in the tackle frequently, grappling/mauling the head of the attacker / doin an Ellery (putting their hands on the ball) You could have penalised all night, 5 minutes / 10 minutes sin bins let the game flow and really punish that team in the long term context of the match. Sometimes I tink referees can use common sense too. For example teams lying offside, take them back 12 yards to get your 10 yards.

The ball stealing rule is a nightmare