Old Rules

[fatshark]

Those scrums in the gf were a bit of a joke. Though it is entertaining watching them crunch in instead of packing. I think they have changed because it was getting to dangerous as almost all of them collasped...though it was funny watching Sterlo wonder where the f**k the ball is and half the scrum has broken up and the ball is getting kicked around.

 

[Mr_Ugly]

What about tapping the ball and running again if there is no markers?

1998 that was outlawed wasn't it? Along with the rare "kick it ahead into the marker" ... resulted in a bizzare try to Mark Coyne in the 3rd game of Origin 96 from memory.

The rule used to be that the ball could be played in any direction at the play-the-ball, but it couldn't be touched with the hand until it had cleared the ruck. When there was no marker, there was no ruck to clear, which I suppose is why you could just pick it back up and run.

Ray Price was the first one I remember scoring a "kick ahead" try at the play-the-ball, and I remember it was a bit controversial at the time (although perfectly legal).

I don't know why they scrapped the rule to make to ruck uncontested .. it added another element of unpredictability to the game and they should bring it back!

I'm pretty sure that the current stripping rules (one man allowed, two man penalised) was a superleague rule that was then transfered into the NRL.

Actually it was an old QRL interpretation. Back in the 80s and probably the early 90s, the NSWRL used to interpret the stripping rule as pretty much anything goes (five on one or whatever), whereas the QRL used to interperet the rule as it is currently applied. Then they banned stripping altogether, but it turned out if the ball carrier knocked on (or deliberately let go of the ball), the defending team would get penalised about 90% of the time. They reintroduced the QRL interpertation to reduce this, but you still see defending sides penalised for the attacking player's poor ball security all the time.

 

[Mr_Ugly]

Those scrums in the gf were a bit of a joke. Though it is entertaining watching them crunch in instead of packing. I think they have changed because it was getting to dangerous as almost all of them collasped...though it was funny watching Sterlo wonder where the f**k the ball is and half the scrum has broken up and the ball is getting kicked around.

Safety may have had something to do with it, but I think for the most part scrums changed because having to constantly re-pack them, re-feed them and then ultimately give a differential penalty was just too slow and boring (... does that remind you of any other sport you might have seen?)

Having said that, I think they've gone too far the other way now, and are no contest at all. I think it worked okay in the days where the rule book said you had to feed the centre of the tunnel, but refs never really cared if you fed to your side.

 

[Mr_Ugly]

[/b]
if your'e referring to scrums, they haven't been


the rule of not putting the ball into the second row is just not enforced anymore

The rule for feeding scrums has been changed. It used to be that you had to feed the ball into the centre of the tunnel (although this was rarely enforced in the 80s and 90s). Now you just have to put it in the tunnel (and now this often isn't enforced)

[/b]

another rule that has not changed, but is ignored is the forward pass, they just call it a flat pass now and don't penalise it

Forward passes are still called pretty strictly. Where teams tend get away with them nowadays is generally at the first pass from dummy half, particularly if it a short pass - e.g. to a forward taking a hit up.

Teams started getting away with this at about the same tme that the 10m rule was brought in. I think it arises because the ref is generally standing in the defensive line at the play-the-ball, with the result that he is too far away from this pass, and also has less time to get the defending team on side and police the line compared to when the 5m rule was used.

The other time you will often see a ball go forward but not be called is when it is passed by a runner in flight. The interpretation is (and has always been to the best of my knowledge) that the ball must be thrown backwards in relation to the ball carrier. If he is running 15 km/h, and he passes the ball backwards at 10 km/h, then it actually goes forward relative to the ground at 5 km/h. The grey area with this interpretation is that if the bloke who offloads the ball gets hit immediately after, then he stops travelling and will generally get called for the forward pass.

I don't want to sound too down on union (I don't love the game, but I don't despise it either), but knock-ons and forward passes often seem to be deliberately ignored in that code, particularly when the attacking team has a roll on ... I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, just that it happens!

 

[CycloneSteve]

Actually the rules used to state (I am a referee) that when you placed the ball on the ground (in the play-the-ball) you could kick it in ANY direction you liked. However, in order to pick it up and run the ball had to be clear of the ruck (the area between the tackled players feet and the markers feet). So you could actually kick it forward between the markers feet, then dive through him to ground it over the line for a try.

I remember refereeing a local schoolboys game here in Goulburn one day when a player from a Canberra team did just that and I awarded the try. All the players and their parents on the sidelines were screaming at me "He had a marker, he had a marker!!!" But my ruling was correct and it was backed up by my referee's coach who was standing on the sideline. I was nearly lynched when I walked out of the ground, especially by the Chairman of the local Rugby League, who also happened to be the Mayor of the city, who screamed at me something fierce.

 

[Mr_Ugly]

Actually the rules used to state (I am a referee) that when you placed the ball on the ground (in the play-the-ball) you could kick it in ANY direction you liked. However, in order to pick it up and run the ball had to be clear of the ruck (the area between the tackled players feet and the markers feet).

Isn't that what I said?

The rule used to be that the ball could be played in any direction at the play-the-ball, but it couldn't be touched with the hand until it had cleared the ruck.

 

[T-Boon]

I am just watching a game from 1982. Parra got tackled on their 6th tackle inside their own half and a scrum is called and Parra get the scrum feed. Anyone know the logic here?

 

[Nuke]

Those ruck laws changed in 1993 I think you'll find (or around abouts then anyway), not NRL era 1998+.

* Additional: I just noticed I'm replying to posts from 2006..! *

 

[Nuke]

I am just watching a game from 1982. Parra got tackled on their 6th tackle inside their own half and a scrum is called and Parra get the scrum feed. Anyone know the logic here?

As others have said earlier in here, back in the day, scrums were fed by the team whose half of the field they were in when the error occured. Scrums were fed straight into the middle in those days so were an even contest.

A knock-on by TeamA could occur in their own half 1m their side of the halfway line and they feed the scrum. The exact same thing happens to the exact same team but 1m on the other side of halfway, TeamB feeds it.

 

[T-Boon]

As others have said earlier in here, back in the day, scrums were fed by the team whose half of the field they were in when the error occured. Scrums were fed straight into the middle in those days so were an even contest.

A knock-on by TeamA could occur in their own half 1m their side of the halfway line and they feed the scrum. The exact same thing happens to the exact same team but 1m on the other side of halfway, TeamB feeds it.

teams must have spent a significant amount of time practicing scrumming during the week.

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

I am just watching a game from 1982. Parra got tackled on their 6th tackle inside their own half and a scrum is called and Parra get the scrum feed. Anyone know the logic here?

Did you notice which team (hypothetically) had the loose head? Very likely the opposition.

I say "hypothetically" because the advantage of the loose head was dependent on the front rows packing correctly. As distinct from the more accustomed practice of veering around, then crashing into each other.

AFAIK until the mid 80s, the head and feed were usually divided. In accordance with criteria which were regularly changed and sometimes different between England and Oz.

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

On the subject of different rules in England and Oz -

Some fans over here think the value of a drop/field goal was reduced from 2 points to 1 in 1971 after 4 were kicked by Leigh in the Challenge Cup final against Leeds. In fact, we made the change in 1974.

However, NSWRL did implement the reduction in 1971. Some time back, while researching another topic (lowest scores in RL games), I found a result from the SCG May 12th 1973, Newtown 1 St. George 0. Prior to 1971, 2-0 would have been the lowest score possible. Apart from 0-0.

The 1973 Great Britain v Australia test series was played under the Aussie scoring system. Steve Nash kicked a 1-pointer in the first test for the Lions, Bob Fulton kicked a 1-pointer in the second test for the Kangaroos.

Back to the future when NRL reintroduced the 2-point FG beyond the 40m line. RFL have yet to follow suit.

 

[Matt_CBY]

On the subject of different rules in England and Oz -

Some fans over here think the value of a drop/field goal was reduced from 2 points to 1 in 1971 after 4 were kicked by Leigh in the Challenge Cup final against Leeds. In fact, we made the change in 1974.

However, NSWRL did implement the reduction in 1971. Some time back, while researching another topic (lowest scores in RL games), I found a result from the SCG May 12th 1973, Newtown 1 St. George 0. Prior to 1971, 2-0 would have been the lowest score possible. Apart from 0-0.

The 1973 Great Britain v Australia test series was played under the Aussie scoring system. Steve Nash kicked a 1-pointer in the first test for the Lions, Bob Fulton kicked a 1-pointer in the second test for the Kangaroos.

Back to the future when NRL reintroduced the 2-point FG beyond the 40m line. RFL have yet to follow suit.

Was there ever a time the UK and Australia played under the same rules?

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

Was there ever a time the UK and Australia played under the same rules?

Wild guess -

1908

 

[bazza]

Was there ever a time the UK and Australia played under the same rules?

Think there were even different rules in the NSWRL and QRL comps (usually minor things)
So when they played tests or state of origin they had to agree on the rules (usually called "international rules")

 

[Matt_CBY]

Think there were even different rules in the NSWRL and QRL comps (usually minor things)
So when they played tests or state of origin they had to agree on the rules (usually called "international rules")

Interesting thought experiment.

What constitutes a sport?

The rules
The organisation that runs it
A direct line of rules evolving

Hmm

 

[bazza]

Interesting thought experiment.

What constitutes a sport?

The rules
The organisation that runs it
A direct line of rules evolving

Hmm

it isn't unusual to have different rules for the same sport in different competitions. Pretty sure in basketball they had different court layouts in the NBA compared to internationals (till recently at least)
Similarly cricket used to have 8 ball overs when played in Australia but not overseas

 

[Matt_CBY]

it isn't unusual to have different rules for the same sport in different competitions. Pretty sure in basketball they had different court layouts in the NBA compared to internationals (till recently at least)
Similarly cricket used to have 8 ball overs when played in Australia but not overseas

I didn’t claim it to be unusual.

 

[Mike Oxbigg]

Did you notice which team (hypothetically) had the loose head? Very likely the opposition.

I say "hypothetically" because the advantage of the loose head was dependent on the front rows packing correctly. As distinct from the more accustomed practice of veering around, then crashing into each other.

AFAIK until the mid 80s, the head and feed were usually divided. In accordance with criteria which were regularly changed and sometimes different between England and Oz.

From memory, I seem to recall that the non-offending team got the loose head; a feed/loose head quinella gave you an advantage, albeit scrums were very much a lottery.

 

[siv]

Wild guess -

1908

Nope

England did not allow replacements

While NSWRL did