What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Round 1 2015 Team

Barry O'Speedwagon

Barry O'Speedwagon

Coach
Messages
19,724
The Engineers Room said:
Until they officially change the names of the positions, we should just stick with what they are actually called.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by 'actually called'. The position names in the official rules are not necessarily the most commonly used names for positions. e.g. 'scrum half', 'right wing threequarter', 'left centre threequarter', 'stand-off half or five-eighth'. And bizzarely No. 8 is 'prop', and number 10 is 'Front Row Forward'.

http://www.nrl.com/portals/nrl/RadEditor/Documents/NRL%20Rules%20book%202013FINAL.pdf
 
Poupou Escobar

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
95,880
We'll call them what we call them. Ten years ago I had never heard of 'edge forward'. Now most of us know what it means.
 
L

lingard

Coach
Messages
11,539
Poupou Escobar said:
Well I don't think it does. Just having a passing game and wearing jersey 11, 12 or 13 isn't the same thing. Especially because all those blokes play on the edges (except Watmough who used to up until 2011).



It's not the type of player at the position, it is the actual role played by the player. A 'lock' who gets 20 touches and makes 20 runs in 60 minutes is not playing the same role as the 'lock' who gets 30 touches and makes only 10 runs in the same period of time.

If the coach has told them both to take the third tackle hit up on every set and one of them is passing two thirds of the time then he is not playing the role his coach wants and he will get rissoled quick smart.



We would, which is why we need only do it for the three players collectively known as 'middle forwards'. because plenty of people still think there are two 'props' and a 'lock' and no other variations (or questions) are possible.



I'm not big on tradition mate. In fact I think it hurts discussion and understanding of the modern game. An example is when people say Sandow is shit because he can't 'lead a team around the park' because that's apparently what 'the halfback' does. Corey Norman already said it's his job to 'lead the team around the park' and Sandow is to play what he sees. So clearly either Norman is the 'halfback' despite his jersey number, or it isn't the job of the 'halfback' to 'lead the team around the park'. Regardless, the old way of looking at a 'halfback' and his role has led to criticism of Sandow that was rendered demonstrably wrong by his performance in Dally M voting this year.

And I'm aware that there have been 'organising' five-eighths prior to Corey Norman, which is just my point - 'halfback' and 'five-eighth' are poor labels because they make a false or inaccurate distinction between two more or less interchangeable positions (left and right half). Obviously some left and right halves handle the ball far more often than their halves partner, but the jersey number appears to say very little about who is more dominant or how they play their role.

Anyway, I love watching how the game evolves, but the straitjacket of the game's language does plenty to hide the evolution of the game, and lose many of the changes - back and forth through different trends - from history.
Click to expand...

So the halves who only make 30 touches a game (Hodkinson and Reynolds) are playing a different role to the halves who have 60 touches per game (Sandow and Norman) - but they're all still halves, right?
The point is that NO position name definitively describes the role of a player in that position. Not all edge forwards play exactly the same way, just as no two five-eights are clones of each other. There is more than one 'role' for each position on a football field. Each position has a number of roles - and some players focus more on some aspects of their role within the team than on others. That's where we get our different 'styles' of five-eights, locks, 'edge forwards', etc.

As far as halfbacks are concerned, sure, 'leading a team around the park' has been recognised as one of the roles of a halfback - but maybe that's a bit of a misconception as well. Some halves have been very good at that - players like Sterling, Mortimer, Billy Smith, Andrew Johns, even Jeff Robson - but there have been many others who have been very good at certain aspects of half-back play but not so good at 'leading a team around the park': maybe players like Greg Alexander, Chris Sandow and Albert Kelly might fit this description. But they are all called half-backs, because they all fulfil enough (but not all) of the criteria for being called a half-back.
 
L

lingard

Coach
Messages
11,539
Poupou Escobar said:
That's right. 'Second row' no longer describes the position, and in fact tends to get conflated with jersey numbers 11 and 12, regardless of what position the player plays. An example is former Manly 'lock' Anthony Watmough, who was always described as a second rower.

Edge forward is better because it accurately describes the position (many people still think one or the other 'second rower' should be getting more involved in the middle) and allows discussion of those 'second rowers' that wear jersey 13 without people getting shirty and calling him a 'lock forward'.
Click to expand...


I think you are getting too caught up in nomenclature. The traditional names for players' positions were never as constricting as you are implying here and in previous posts. There was always a recognition of the great variation in styles and 'roles' within each position. There's always been second rowers that wear 13, and locks that wear 11 and 12; or fullbacks that wear 2 or 5. I don't think that stifles discussion or creates arguments.
I agree that the term '2nd rower' has very little to do with what the player actually does. But what of the term 'half-back'? Does that describe anything meaningful? What of the term 'football'? Or even Rugby League? Is there really any need anymore to proclaim that we are a break away from Rugby Union? Surely we are established by now as a totally separate (and superior?) entity?
 
Poupou Escobar

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
95,880
lingard said:
So the halves who only make 30 touches a game (Hodkinson and Reynolds) are playing a different role to the halves who have 60 touches per game (Sandow and Norman) - but they're all still halves, right?
Click to expand...

I think so. They are still unmistakeably the left and right halfback. The difference is merely one of involvement.

The point is that NO position name definitively describes the role of a player in that position. Not all edge forwards play exactly the same way, just as no two five-eights are clones of each other. There is more than one 'role' for each position on a football field. Each position has a number of roles - and some players focus more on some aspects of their role within the team than on others. That's where we get our different 'styles' of five-eights, locks, 'edge forwards', etc.
Click to expand...

Nope, all wingers, centres and edge forwards play the same role, even where they have different playing styles. It's easy to see - you just count numbers in from the sideline.

I do agree not all halves play the same role, which is why I prefer to just call them 'halves', usually distinguished by left and right. One may be dominant, in which case I might make that distinction where the discussion needs it.

As far as halfbacks are concerned, sure, 'leading a team around the park' has been recognised as one of the roles of a halfback - but maybe that's a bit of a misconception as well. Some halves have been very good at that - players like Sterling, Mortimer, Billy Smith, Andrew Johns, even Jeff Robson - but there have been many others who have been very good at certain aspects of half-back play but not so good at 'leading a team around the park': maybe players like Greg Alexander, Chris Sandow and Albert Kelly might fit this description. But they are all called half-backs, because they all fulfil enough (but not all) of the criteria for being called a half-back.
Click to expand...

Yeah agreed. And that's why teams have universally gotten rid of the redundant 'five-eighth' and brought in a second halfback - to cover all bases.
 
Poupou Escobar

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
95,880
lingard said:
I think you are getting too caught up in nomenclature. The traditional names for players' positions were never as constricting as you are implying here and in previous posts. There was always a recognition of the great variation in styles and 'roles' within each position. There's always been second rowers that wear 13, and locks that wear 11 and 12; or fullbacks that wear 2 or 5. I don't think that stifles discussion or creates arguments.
I agree that the term '2nd rower' has very little to do with what the player actually does. But what of the term 'half-back'? Does that describe anything meaningful? What of the term 'football'? Or even Rugby League? Is there really any need anymore to proclaim that we are a break away from Rugby Union? Surely we are established by now as a totally separate (and superior?) entity?
Click to expand...

Well obviously you are happy with the old terminology lingard, but for many others (including modern coaches and players) there is new terminology that better reflects what is happening on the field, even if has been happening since the 60s.
 
Twizzle

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
155,276
All this terminology is just commentators trying to make us think they are smart, except in Daley's case.

I remember when Daley was a commie, he talked about wide receivers, rather than edge forward. He used to refer the red zone alot as well. You'd think he was commentating on an NFL game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top