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!
Or Julian O'neill or Jeremy Schloss or John Hopoate or any of their relatives.
It's about the expectation of a quick play-the-ball. There are so many penalties because every attacker expects a quick play-the-ball, no matter how badly he was smashed, while the defenders expect to be able to get their line set and have both markers in position, no matter how damaging the run was. At least this way there can be some agreement - if the defence won the tackle the play-the-ball will be slow, and any bullshit will be seen as milking. But if the attacker won, by pushing through some defenders, then the play-the-ball will be quick and the defenders need to backpedal, with markers out of play.
I can't think of much worst.
I think it introduces a needless complication. How much advantage do you get, and does it increase the further through the line you go? If you bust the line you've already got an advantage, and the defenders backpedaling. Just police the markers and the ten as the rules say.
It's more about making clear whether or not there will be a penalty in a sloppy ruck. Dropped ball? Markers taken out or ball played off the mark? Is it the attacker's fault? The defender's? Especially when there's a dropped ball there needs to be a call. Who should have the advantage? It's not as black and white as you imply. The only thing they can do is give us some consistency. There will always be doubt so benefit of the doubt has to go somewhere. This call tries to address that.
a cryptic clue that may mean it's a player that likes to surf?
Possibly Antonio Winterstein.
Have we signed Sally Fitzgibbons? Trent may be the steak knives.
