Raking

[Mr Fourex]

Uh-oh... another 'ideas' post.

Just curious to know what people think of raking at play the balls. Too messy? Or does it throw another contest into the game?

We allow one on one strips - how about when a player has made a one on one tackle, the defender can rake the play the ball?

Has the potential to be messy and confusing.

I do like the idea of slowing the play the ball down and allowing teams to set their defensive line by making the player playing the ball more conscious of how he does it.

This could also be achieved if the referee's policed the rules properly as they stand now and insisted that players must get to their feet and play the ball with their foot

EVERY TIME.

 

[koal4e]

I don't want our game over penalised and looking like Union.

But I was thinking that if it was a one on one tackle, then it's kind of clean and rewards an opportunity to that defending player for making the effort (rather than a gang tackle).

As long as the attacking player has his foot on the ball, then he should be controlling it any how.

I agree with Doc, one on one fine but gang tackles no way... I love league for what it is and dont want it to move any closer to its poorer cousin Union!

 

[Desert Qlder]

I'm a big fan of allowing the marker to strike for the ball, having advocated the ruling on this board many times.

However I see the possibility of it's reintroduction as remote. The problem for me lies with the advantage that defenders now have in the ruck. This has come about through the use of wrestling techniques and players being allowed to come and lie on their fellow defenders without taking part in a tackle. Any advantage the ten-metre rule had given the attacking side is now severely negated.

Further to this, the tackled player now regularly walks many metres passed the point in which he is meant to play the ball in an effort to combat that defensive advantage. Of course this was meant to be ruled against this season but yet again we saw a crackdown that lasted no more than three weeks. Oftentimes this means that players are crawling over scattering defenders or the other way round.

All in all the ruck is a gigantic mess, and a very unattractive part of the game. This being the status quo, I find it hard to see how something as potentially volatile as striking could fit in. Referees are simply not able to control the ruck as it is at present. Whether that is their fault or not is immaterial, but there is no way we could lay at their feet another judgment to determine in this messy area.

What I believe should be foremost in our thinking when it comes to major rule changes is a further reduction of the interchange down to eight, and the introduction of an eight-metre rule. This must be coupled with a far better policing of defenders in the ruck. The allowances being made there are outrageous at present. After that then yes, most definitely should we consider a reintroduction of striking.

Upon reflection, this all seems very radical and I doubt any of it is going to happen.

 

[Noa]

Im telling yous, my raking was a thing of beauty. It was like I was playing the ball after making a tackle.....oh the look on the poor fools face when he realised I punked him

 

[AlwaysGreen]

One of your worse ideas Docbrown. Stay away from the rules and stick to the other stuff. You are great at all that other stuff. TV ratings, TV rights, Match ups etc.

You've been told Doc. The question is, what does BDGS stick to, crowds :lol:, independent commision discussion :lol:, expansion :lol:?

Raking was fine when the game was under the 5 metre rule and the game was a war of attrition. Then, a rake and loss of possession was also a psychological blow. For better or worse the game has moved on from there. The game these days is about which team can exhaust (mentally and physically) a defensive line for a long enough period of time to score.

Raking in the modern game would just have the effect of a dropped ball, players would regroup into their defensive/attacking formations quickly and get on with it.

 

[koal4e]

I only "raked" against certain opponents and teams.
It was more like I would kick the living f**k out of the ball in an effort to harm the distracted opposition player with a sly forearm, headbutt or elbow than any genuine attempt at raking the ball although if said opponent had a hand or arm injury I would always have a lash at that too.

I was a heabutt or accidental flying fist man! Loads more fun than raking!!

 

[jonno_knights]

What are the actual rules of contesting the play-the-ball. Only starting league in the mid-to-late 90's I didnt get to see, or play to these rules. I've only seen some vision on shows like boots n all, and the roast. When is the marker allowed to strike for the ball?

 

[bottle]

What are the actual rules of contesting the play-the-ball. Only starting league in the mid-to-late 90's I didnt get to see, or play to these rules. I've only seen some vision on shows like boots n all, and the roast. When is the marker allowed to strike for the ball?

They're not anymore. Could once, in fact George Piggins won Souths the '71 GF by constantly raking the ball away from Saints and denying them possession. Brilliant really, bastard.
The player playing the ball could also play it forward. Brandy Alexander was a master at it, and scored a number of tries from it when close to the line. Also done away with.

 

[Red Bear]

Dont mind the idea. Would love there to be the option of tapping it forward again. And scrums.

But it wont happen

 

[jonno_knights]

They're not anymore. Could once, in fact George Piggins won Souths the '71 GF by constantly raking the ball away from Saints and denying them possession. Brilliant really, bastard.
The player playing the ball could also play it forward. Brandy Alexander was a master at it, and scored a number of tries from it when close to the line. Also done away with.

Yeh I know you cant now lol, but back in the day, was it just free-for all, or did the ball need to be placed on the ground first lol. I can imagine some sore hands.

And on playing it forward, by that do u mean that the play was allowed to tap the ball and run if there was no markers? (And even though it wouldnt be very smart, could u do it when there was markers?)

 

[bottle]

Yeh I know you cant now lol, but back in the day, was it just free-for all, or did the ball need to be placed on the ground first lol. I can imagine some sore hands.

And on playing it forward, by that do u mean that the play was allowed to tap the ball and run if there was no markers? (And even though it wouldnt be very smart, could u do it when there was markers?)

Sorry, misunderstood.
The rule was the ball had to be placed on the ground and then either player was entitled to make a play for it with the foot, ie marker or player in possession. As long as the ball was on the ground it was fair game, if you're hand was in the way, well, bad luck. Many penalties were given for striking too early (by the marker). Another ploy was to baulk or feign at the play the ball to fool the marker. From memory this was also illegal.
Could also play the ball forward any time. Alexander (not only him of course but he was a specialist at it) used to toe it through when jammed up on the try line and scoot past the markers to score. The marker could play it forward also. This was usually in the form of a solid kick to send it back past the ruck or to try and get a knock on.
If there were no marker at all the player could tap the ball forward and play on.

 

[LazyDreamer]

Sorry, misunderstood.
The rule was the ball had to be placed on the ground and then either player was entitled to make a play for it with the foot, ie marker or player in possession. As long as the ball was on the ground it was fair game, if you're hand was in the way, well, bad luck. Many penalties were given for striking too early (by the marker). Another ploy was to baulk or feign at the play the ball to fool the marker. From memory this was also illegal.
Could also play the ball forward any time. Alexander (not only him of course but he was a specialist at it) used to toe it through when jammed up on the try line and scoot past the markers to score. The marker could play it forward also. This was usually in the form of a solid kick to send it back past the ruck or to try and get a knock on.
If there were no marker at all the player could tap the ball forward and play on.

And with the play-the-ball-forward rule, stacks of penalties with the tackler trying to get back to marker and either (a) not making it & tackling the ball-player anyway, or (b) deemed to have made it & thus the ball-player being penalised for playing forward with a marker.

Like contested scrums/second row feeds/feet across, scrapped to reduce stoppages & unattractive play. All in the name of an attractive television product.

 

[wibble]

When contesting the play the ball was allowed, it was rare to see a defensive line "on the back foot" or retreating as the attack moved forward, except from a line break. This was from a combination of the defense being closer, the play the balls being slower (from the contest causing more care, more policing of playing the ball correctly, and also less of a focus on play the ball speed from players) and players didn't all look like 100 m sprinters.

Now, getting the defense retreating is the main focus of the attack, and hence the play the ball and wrestling in the tackle the main focus of the game. It makes some parts of the game better to watch, and others not as good. But the game is definitely more end to end.

I like the idea of the game not focused as much on "winning the ruck battle" (i.e. speeding up the play the ball as the attack, and slowing it down as the defense) as it has been, and contested play the balls might help, but I agree with others here that the ruck is already too messy with modern techniques to add more confusion.

One on one tackles should be rewarded more than they are. For consistency, I'd like to see a timed limit to how long players can hold down in the tackle, so that wrestling, one-on-one tackles, knees in the ruck etc all are treated in the same way- the defenders can do whatever they like (other than hurt the attacker or steal possession) in the 5? or so seconds after a "held" call, and then any contact between defender and attacker is penalised. That way players can still get to marker if they make one on one tackles, and gang tacklers have to try to peel off each other in time.

 

[ANTiLAG]

And with the play-the-ball-forward rule, stacks of penalties with the tackler trying to get back to marker and either (a) not making it & tackling the ball-player anyway, or (b) deemed to have made it & thus the ball-player being penalised for playing forward with a marker.

Like contested scrums/second row feeds/feet across, scrapped to reduce stoppages & unattractive play. All in the name of an attractive television product.

Yep. And I for one am all for that. But I think you should allow the person in possession to play it forward and go. Just not allow the defenders the chance to play for or at the ball.

 

[Sunshine Coast Tiger]

Raking should be allowed, not because it is a good thing in and of itself, but because of the subsequent effects.

If raking was allowed, attacking players would need to be more careful with how they play the ball. This would mean less messy play the balls. It would also slightly slow the play the ball down, leading to a more set defensive line and therefore reduce the effectiveness of dummy half and one out running. This would lead to more expansive play.

Everything is inter related and things have unintended consequences. A contested play the ball would be messy on occasion, but overall I think it's positive knock on effects outweigh that.

I am the opposite. I want to see a quicker play the ball. Look at 2005 when we had much quicker play the balls, some of the rugby league the tigers played that year is the best I have seen in my long time of watching.

 

[LazyDreamer]

Yep. And I for one am all for that. But I think you should allow the person in possession to play it forward and go. Just not allow the defenders the chance to play for or at the ball.

I'm not 100% sold on the idea. Apart from the two penalty examples I gave, the other problem with it is that it truly encourages walking off the mark, again attracting further penalties. I remember the most frustrating thing was the refs penalising the wrong guy - eg, the marker being openalised when he was back on position.

Maybe with two refs they might get the calls right...:sarcasm:

 

[StFigJam]

The play the ball may be faster now but the unpredictability has gone out of the game. Frankly it can be kinda boring at times.

Bring back a proper scrum and raking.

 

[LineBall]

Agree. And having played when you were allowed to strike for the ball, I'm pretty sure that they had changed the rule that you could only rake it backwards from marker, and weren't allowed to kick it forward.

When it was allowed, it didn't happen that often anyway, and is still a risky way to try and steal posession, as if it didn't come off - you gave the other team 6 more tackles.

Bringing it back in would also make them play the ball correctly IMO, knowing there is the chance they could lose possession if done poorly.

 

[betcats]

No way.

 

[Lego_Man]

and the introduction of an eight-metre rule.

What's the benefit of this?

Do you think referees are good at measuring 8 metres? Why do you think we have 10 metre lines on the field?

Would never work in practice. Has to be 5, 10 or zero metres.