Rugby for Dummies (Trying to understand this sport!)

[T. Rubble]

T Rubble, you might find this interesting: http://www.leagueunlimited.com/article.php?newsid=21364

It's a media release and pretty typical of the type of fund raisers NRL clubs do.

Maybe years ago rugby league was a bloke's sport, but nowadays you go to a regular competition game and there'll be men, women and kids from all backgrounds. Families, seniors and young folk.

We sometimes criticise the NRL for being out of touch, but due credit for their promotion of the game to women in particular. The NRL has been one of the leaders in this regard, a fact that doesn't make the news often enough. The tabloids try to paint a different picture but of course they specialise in misrepresentating the facts.

Thanks, Willow! That was really cool! You, my friend, are a veritable encyclopedia of rugby knowledge!

**bows to Willow**

 

[T. Rubble]

Just pay attention to the Blues Number 10, Paul Gallen, one of the greatest Origin performances of all time.

Okay, BS, I'll keep a lookout for #10, blue, as I finish watching the game. (I assume you're talking about the State of Origin game, which I'm going to finish watching over the next few days?) Thanks for the heads-up!

 

[Jesbass]

Okay, BS, I'll keep a lookout for #10, blue, as I finish watching the game. (I assume you're talking about the State of Origin game, which I'm going to finish watching over the next few days?) Thanks for the heads-up!

Paul Gallen, (the #10 in blue), plays for New South Wales and in the NRL he plays for the Cronulla Sharks. As a Queensland fan and as a supporter of the Warriors in the NRL, I've never liked what I've perceived to be routinely foul play.

But there is no doubting his quality, and last night he put in an epic performance. And his foul play antics seem to be fewer and further between.

 

[Willow]

Just pay attention to the Blues Number 10, Paul Gallen, one of the greatest Origin performances of all time.

Have to admit it, I reckon big gal played the best game of his career yesterday. He might be NSW's shortest ever prop.

An unkind person would suggest that he likes playing with a winning side, but not me. I was barracking for the team on the pitch. Last night he was a New South Welshman.

 

[T. Rubble]

Okay, I'm stuck. I'm in the second half right now (about 7 min in), and the blue guys just tried to score, but screwed up and wound up kicking the ball out of bounds. But THEN the maroon guys (rhymes with "groan" when you say it; rhymes with "balloon" when I do) kicked it BACK to the blue guys and they got to keep the ball and start their count over even though (a) they hadn't scored, and (b) they'd totally blown their chance to score by fumbling. What am I missing here?

 

[innsaneink]

If the attacking team (Blues ) put an attcking kick into the in goal area and its not played at or touched by a defender (maroons) the defense (maroons) get possesion by way of a tap restart 20m out.
I cant recall the exact incident but maybe it was a high kick, if its caught ingoal on the full by defense its defenses restart with possesion tap restart 20m out

If its caught in the field of play by the defense, and they are tackled in goal, the defense must restart with a kick back to the attcking team from under the posts (goal line drop out using a drop kick) I think this is probably what happened

 

[T. Rubble]

Thanks, innsaneink!

Okay, it's Friday night, and I'm well into the party w/ the neighbors, so I'm going to try to finish the game tomorrow. BTW, in HD on a giant TV, its like these guys are playing in my living room. Very cool!

 

[foreel]

Okay, I'm stuck. I'm in the second half right now (about 7 min in), and the blue guys just tried to score, but screwed up and wound up kicking the ball out of bounds. But THEN the maroon guys (rhymes with "groan" when you say it; rhymes with "balloon" when I do) kicked it BACK to the blue guys and they got to keep the ball and start their count over even though (a) they hadn't scored, and (b) they'd totally blown their chance to score by fumbling. What am I missing here?

If you watch this play again, you'll find that the maroon defender came across and knocked the ball out of play before the blues players arrived, there was no fumble by the blues.

Actually this is a great example of why a grubber kick (a kick along the ground), can be superior to a bomb (high kick). If the kick had been a bomb, the defender would only need to catch the
ball on the full, for his team to gain possession of the ball (a full set of 6 tackles starting 20 metres out from their own try-line). With a grubber kick, the defending player would not only have
to catch the ball, they would then have to escape their own in-goal area, to gain possession and a full set of 6 tackles.

 

[T. Rubble]

If you watch this play again, you'll find that the maroon defender came across and knocked the ball out of play before the blues players arrived, there was no fumble by the blues.

Actually this is a great example of why a grubber kick (a kick along the ground), can be superior to a bomb (high kick). If the kick had been a bomb, the defender would only need to catch the
ball on the full, for his team to gain possession of the ball (a full set of 6 tackles starting 20 metres out from their own try-line). With a grubber kick, the defending player would not only have
to catch the ball, they would then have to escape their own in-goal area, to gain possession and a full set of 6 tackles.

So I did exactly that. Twice. The first time I only went back to the slow-mo instant replay, and it still looks from that angle as though the blue guy was the one who tipped out the ball. But when I re-wound farther, to the original play/different camera angle (and this time I knew what I was watching for), it was clear that the maroon guy was the one who tipped it out of bounds. THEN it all made sense! Good call, foreel. Thanks!

 

[T. Rubble]

Okay, new question:
How far "tackled" does the guy have to be before he's down and it flips to the next one (in the series of six)?

When these guys get tackled, they still keep struggling/wiggling against it, as though they're not really down and can keep playing the ball. Is there a certain percentage of their body that has to be on the ground for the play to be over? (In football, it's the guy's knee. If his knee touches the ground he's down.)

 

[Evil Homer]

Okay, new question:
How far "tackled" does the guy have to be before he's down and it flips to the next one (in the series of six)?

When these guys get tackled, they still keep struggling/wiggling against it, as though they're not really down and can keep playing the ball. Is there a certain percentage of their body that has to be on the ground for the play to be over? (In football, it's the guy's knee. If his knee touches the ground he's down.)

The tackle is completed when the ball-carrying arm hits the ground and there is at least one defender on the player with the ball. If the player hits the deck but nobody has hold of him, then he can get up and carry on running or pass to a team mate. Alternatively, the tackle can be completed if the referee calls 'held'. This is when a player has not gone to ground, but is being held by one or more defenders and momentum has clearly stopped.

If you see players wriggling on the ground after they have been tackled, it's because they are trying to get to their feet quickly to play the ball (roll it back to start the next play). The quicker the next play gets started, the less time the defence has to get ready and so there are more likely to be gaps. Plus, if the referee thinks the defenders are holding the tackled player down for too long they will award a penalty, so if players make an effort to try and get up quickly, then the defenders are under pressure to get off quicker or risk being penalised.

 

[T. Rubble]

The tackle is completed when the ball-carrying arm hits the ground and there is at least one defender on the player with the ball. If the player hits the deck but nobody has hold of him, then he can get up and carry on running or pass to a team mate. Alternatively, the tackle can be completed if the referee calls 'held'. This is when a player has not gone to ground, but is being held by one or more defenders and momentum has clearly stopped.

If you see players wriggling on the ground after they have been tackled, it's because they are trying to get to their feet quickly to play the ball (roll it back to start the next play). The quicker the next play gets started, the less time the defence has to get ready and so there are more likely to be gaps. Plus, if the referee thinks the defenders are holding the tackled player down for too long they will award a penalty, so if players make an effort to try and get up quickly, then the defenders are under pressure to get off quicker or risk being penalised.

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks, Evil!

But while I'm here, I GIVE UP!!!!! I'm almost 58 minutes into the game now (trying to finish in bits and pieces through my Saturday), and this game is counterintuitive to how I think! Over and over it seems as though the rules favor the offensive side, creating a constant uphill battle for the defense. There have been at least two knock-ons in the past 5 minutes, and while I get that a knock-on means scrum --> opposing team gets the ball, etc, I don't understand how they are calling these knock-ons to begin with! I've rewound, rewatched, and it's not making sense!!!! UGH!!! Blue has the ball, blue guy sends ball up in the air, maroon and blue guy both go for it, maroon catches--un-catches--blue touches--ball hits ground--bounces--maroon guy recovers ball on ground, something about a double-knock-on (?!?), and blue still gets to keep the ball. Even though the maroon guy had it in the end. Ugh!

I'm going to rewind and watch the last few plays AGAIN to see if I can get this figured out. For those of you who are still with me, I promise I'm not un-teachable. And thank you. *sigh!* You guys are REALLY patient. Thanks!

 

[Evil Homer]

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks, Evil!

But while I'm here, I GIVE UP!!!!! I'm almost 58 minutes into the game now (trying to finish in bits and pieces through my Saturday), and this game is counterintuitive to how I think! Over and over it seems as though the rules favor the offensive side, creating a constant uphill battle for the defense. There have been at least two knock-ons in the past 5 minutes, and while I get that a knock-on means scrum --> opposing team gets the ball, etc, I don't understand how they are calling these knock-ons to begin with! I've rewound, rewatched, and it's not making sense!!!! UGH!!! Blue has the ball, blue guy sends ball up in the air, maroon and blue guy both go for it, maroon catches--un-catches--blue touches--ball hits ground--bounces--maroon guy recovers ball on ground, something about a double-knock-on (?!?), and blue still gets to keep the ball. Even though the maroon guy had it in the end. Ugh!

I'm going to rewind and watch the last few plays AGAIN to see if I can get this figured out. For those of you who are still with me, I promise I'm not un-teachable. And thank you. *sigh!* You guys are REALLY patient. Thanks!

Don't think of it in terms of offence and defence. If a player from the defending team purposely touches a loose ball in any way then technically he was in posession, and it was the start of a new set with the ball for his team. If he then knocks-on straight away, then that counts as losing posession just as if his team had knocked-on at any other time, and so the opposition get another set of 6.

The situation you are describing sounds like both players knocked on. If the Maroons player tried to catch a kick and knocked on, then that would mean another set to the Blues. If the Blues player then fumbled it straight away without making any progress, then both teams have knocked on. As the Maroons knocked on first, Blues get the scrum and another set. The only exception to this would be if the Blues player had made some progress down field before knocking on, he would have been said to have 'taken the advantage' and the Maroons would then get the scrum. However it doesn't sound like he made any progress in the situation you are describing, so it was a double knock-on. Another thing to note is that, for a knock-on, the ball doesn't necessarily need to hit the ground - if it goes forward into an opposition player, then that is also a knock-on.

 

[T. Rubble]

Okay, I watched the replays on both of the knock-ons 4-5 times, AND I went back and re-read the Glossary of Rugby League terms on Wiki. I get what you're saying, Evil, about what happened in the play, but I really think the refs were splitting hairs because the ball was already in-motion going that direction, and when the maroon guy touched it, and then the blue guy did, neither of them changed the trajectory of the ball. It seemed like it was already going to go where it wound up landing. (Then again, maybe this is just how I saw it b/c I'm not that good at knowing what to look for yet.)

Now, on the other play (the recovery-on-the-ground one), I'm still not sure why they called it as they did, but I have figured out one of my other problems: when I listen to the announcers, in addition to filtering through the Aussie accent, I'm having to figure out the difference between rugby terms, the rugby positions, and the players' last names. Now that I've realized that this is one of my obstacles, I'm getting better at zeroing in on what I need to listen for.

Thanks again!

 

[Evil Homer]

Okay, I watched the replays on both of the knock-ons 4-5 times, AND I went back and re-read the Glossary of Rugby League terms on Wiki. I get what you're saying, Evil, about what happened in the play, but I really think the refs were splitting hairs because the ball was already in-motion going that direction, and when the maroon guy touched it, and then the blue guy did, neither of them changed the trajectory of the ball. It seemed like it was already going to go where it wound up landing. (Then again, maybe this is just how I saw it b/c I'm not that good at knowing what to look for yet.)

The previous trajectory of the ball doesn't matter - if the player fumbles the ball towards the opposition's try-line then it's a knock-on and the other team is always going to get posession, either from picking the ball up and taking advantage or from a scrum. If the ball is fumbled backwards then there won't be a knock-on and the play will continue - if the team that was in posession recovers the ball, then the tackle count continues. I've just watched the play that I think you are talking about, with the high kick. What happens is that Slater (the Maroons player) jumps, claims the ball and then fumbles it forwards straight away, resulting in a knock-on. As far as I can see, the Blues player (Minichiello) didn't really get a clean touch on the ball. The fact that Slater regathered the ball afterwards doesn't matter - as he had already knocked on, it was a scrum to the other team. When you see players trying to recover the ball like that after they have knocked on, it's to stop the other team from taking the advantage and possibly running away for a try, like in the NFL when players drop on the ball after a fumble to stop the defence from getting it. The difference in RL is that a knock-on will always result in a turnover of posession.

 

[Willow]

Over and over it seems as though the rules favor the offensive side, creating a constant uphill battle for the defense

While a key tactic is to control the ball (you can't win the game without the ball), a good defensive team can sometimes regain possession by forcing the attacking team back and into a handling error. Nowadays there are six tackles to the set, once upon time (pre-1967) it was unlimited tackles, so you can imagine the importance of defence and how the best teams would defend like they were attacking.

It generally comes down to who can control the ruck, that is, the area around the play-the-ball. The 'marker' (player in front the attacking player who is playing the ball) is crucial as is the' dummy half' aka 'acting half' (the player directly behind the player who is playing the ball). A lazy marker will see the dummy half run forward to gain some easy metres. The marker is supposed to be alert enough to cover such a move.

The speed at which the attacking team can clear the ruck is important. Meanwhile the defending team will come up as quickly as possible to attempt to limit the play. As a general rule, the opposing forwards try to control the ruck.

The basic tactic will see the attacking team run it out with the forwards for the first few tackles, one or two passes from the ruck. The later tackles will often see the ball being passed wider to the backs. The last tackle will usually see a playmaker kick for field position, often resulting in the possession turning over the opposing team down their own half of the field.

Of course it's not always that straight forward as there are set plays and variations around the ruck.

 

[T. Rubble]

Okay, I finished watching my first rugby league game. First of all, I think I'm starting to get the hang of it. Thanks to all of you guys here who "stayed" with me the past few days and spoon-fed me play-by-play translations in simple English.

But holy (insert expletive here). Positively cringeworthy: blood everywhere, audible body smacks, knees and elbows into faces...! Ugh!

Yet for some reason I'm kind of glad there's going to be a re-match in two and a half weeks.

Thanks, y'all!

 

[Twizzle]

so who are you on in the final game T. ?

 

[T. Rubble]

so who are you on in the final game T. ?

Um... does that mean who will I r---... er, cheer for?

Well, even though I've developed a healthy respect for the athleticism of both sides (and some of those blue guys were cute), the character I've been doing this research for is from Queensland's central coast.

So probably the maroon (rhymes with doubloon ;-)) team. (Do you all hate me now and rue the day you offered to help teach me rugby?)

 

[Twizzle]

Um... does that mean who will I r---... er, cheer for?

Well, even though I've developed a healthy respect for the athleticism of both sides (and some of those blue guys were cute), the character I've been doing this research for is from Queensland's central coast.

So probably the maroon (rhymes with doubloon ;-)) team. (Do you all hate me now and rue the day you offered to help teach me rugby?)

good to see you've picked up on alot of Aussieisms as well as Rugby League

we dont hate you.....................................yet

depends what NRL club you support