Striking at the play the ball

[WA Eel]

The play the ball is probably the most talked about area in the modern game. It's the root of all evil, wrestling, grapple tackles, ripper tackles, flops etc are all based around needing to slow the play the ball. I believe this mess can be resolved by reversing one of the more ridiculous rule changes implimented in the late 90's - the ability of the marker to strike at the ball.

Put it this way, when the marker was entitled to strike at the ball, the ball player was forced to get to his feet, make sure he was balanced, then carefully play the ball. Looking at many of the attempted play the balls you see now in the NRL, someone like Benny Elias would have had a field day. There's no better deterent against a sloppy play the ball than the very real posibility of losing it - unfortunately, at present a sloppy play the ball is more likely to win you another set of six instead in the form of a penalty.

Striking at the play the ball was always a big play, something which will either give away another set of six or win you posession. It was also one of the few areas of the game where possession is contested.

Put the play the ball rule to what it was and you'll fix grapples, flops, milking penalties by placing the ball either too early or behind the marker's foot etc. The man playing the ball would slow the play the ball to ensure he's set and ready and the marker would want to get off the tackled player to give himself a chance to contest posession.

What's your thoughts on this, or other recent rule changes which should be reversed for the benefit of the game?

 

[dragonfire]

why would players try to speed the play the ball up in this instance? they would hod him down as long as possible and then still have a go at the ball and it will give the defensive line extra time to set. The wrestling in tackling not only slows the ruck down but also allows the defender to get into the best position to get up from. For me i would say no

 

[Bigfella]

Every play the ball would be a riveting contest like those scrums in the England v Australia RWC match the other night ...

 

[The Camden Leisure Pirate]

There is enough problems in the ruck area already, let's not complicate things.

 

[Pierced Soul]

one thing i lament about modern league is the contest for the ball. with the removal of striking in the play the ball, the banning of stripping unless one on one and the joke of scrums, teams with good ball control just grind out games and it all becomes predictable.

I'm not sure bringing back striking in the ruck cos it'll just be really messy, but i'd liek for scrums to be proper scrums again and have teams push. thatw ay we'll stop seeing this stupid idea of chucking in 80kg fullbacks into the lock position, it'll also make hooking an art form again and not be as predictable.

i'd also like players to be able to strip the ball again no matter how many players are in the tackle. it will encourage far betetr ball security and the big props may not just keep doing boring runs up the middle of the ruck where they know they're going to be targeted by 3 blokes trying to rip the ball out so they'll have to start focussing ons econd phase play.

 

[Butters]

one thing i lament about modern league is the contest for the ball. with the removal of striking in the play the ball, the banning of stripping unless one on one and the joke of scrums, teams with good ball control just grind out games and it all becomes predictable.

I'm not sure bringing back striking in the ruck cos it'll just be really messy, but i'd liek for scrums to be proper scrums again and have teams push. thatw ay we'll stop seeing this stupid idea of chucking in 80kg fullbacks into the lock position, it'll also make hooking an art form again and not be as predictable.

i'd also like players to be able to strip the ball again no matter how many players are in the tackle. it will encourage far betetr ball security and the big props may not just keep doing boring runs up the middle of the ruck where they know they're going to be targeted by 3 blokes trying to rip the ball out so they'll have to start focussing ons econd phase play.

Im gonna have to agree completely, i hate seeing half the scrum break before the balls even out. And with strips legalised you won't see refs blowing penalties whenever a player loses the ball in a two man tackle, strip or no.

 

[Kurt Angle]

Striking the Ball

The removal of the strike for the play the ball was the wish of one man, and one man only.

Bill Harrigan.

When Super League started, he basically wrote the rule book for them.

His pet hate was the strike for the play the ball, up to 1994, he pretty much elimintaed it from games he was refereeing.

The rule was a marker could not lift his leg to motion to strike the ball until the tackled player had placed the ball on the ground.

Bear in mind the real rules of the play the ball to this day are the tackled player must rise competely to his feet with the ball in hand, before then lowering the ball to the ground.

However, back to Harrigan, a tackled player could pretty much stand up, place the ball on the ground, then have a stretch, scracth his balls, wave at the bench, then finally lift up his leg to roll the ball back. If the marker ever struck at the ball Harrigan would blow a penalty, no matter how clear it was the strike was legal.

He.. him personally, didn't want the rule in the game anymore, and he alone pretty much made sure it is not in the game anymore.

Reintroducing IMO would cause an entire season or do dominated by ruck penalties.

For starters players do not play the ball properly any more, they tend to place the ball on te ground when they are tackled, then use that to lift themselves off the ground and roll it under their legs while still in a crouch position, for quick play the ball. If the ball never leaves the ground, it's hard to determine when is the permissible time to strike for the ball.

Technically the it should be the minute the ball is placed on the ground, but you will have guys on one knee having their hands kicked. Technically its legal, but players tackled players will dive, or penalties will be blown against the marker. Players will take more than 2 weeks to adjust and coaches will whinge incessantly about an 'unnecessary rule change'.

Scrums

RL scrums were different as the front row would bind around the shoulders not the waist, this meant is was much less dangerous on the neck, but less stable. Also only having 6 reduced stablity. Scrums were a mess, I mean really bad. For the sake of re-introducing a rake contest in the scrum, it just isn't worth it in my opinion.

That said, the question about scrums gets raised every month. We do need something to replace it I agree, and it needs to be resolved sooner rather than later.

Stripping

The current stripping rules were introduced to promote offloading.

A guy tackled around the waist will now tend to look for these bullsh*t, outrageous offloads because he knows as he has loose arms, he is protected from the ball being stripped.

That is why the focus in tackling today is always on the arms, not the legs.

3 guys in a tackle with the aim of stripping the ball means guys in training will only do biceps and forearm strenghtening to ensure they can tuck the ball under the jumper and be strong enough to keep it.

This would make our game more like NFL than anything. I do feel the ref needs more discretion to blow up for poor ball security, too many players plead (and get awarded) for penalties from poor ball security and handling.

 

[Azkatro]

To be honest I would quite enjoy seeing this rule brought back in.

 

[Twizzle]

To be honest I would quite enjoy seeing this rule brought back in.

same here

 

[reptar]

Bring back the days of Backdoor Benny and Boxhead Walters going the strike!

 

[The Engineers Room]

I think it is good and it would also open the way for the tackled player to play it forward and take off. Perhaps they could tie it in with dominant tackle. Where only in dominant tackles can they strike for the ball and a dominant tackle would be the defender diving at the feet, a player pushed backwards in a two man tackle or a one on one tackle where first impact is below the elbows.

 

[Quidgybo]

Stripping

The current stripping rules were introduced to promote offloading.

A guy tackled around the waist will now tend to look for these bullsh*t, outrageous offloads because he knows as he has loose arms, he is protected from the ball being stripped.

That is why the focus in tackling today is always on the arms, not the legs.

3 guys in a tackle with the aim of stripping the ball means guys in training will only do biceps and forearm strenghtening to ensure they can tuck the ball under the jumper and be strong enough to keep it.

This would make our game more like NFL than anything. I do feel the ref needs more discretion to blow up for poor ball security, too many players plead (and get awarded) for penalties from poor ball security and handling.

In another thread I suggested removing all restrictions on stripping the ball in combination with limiting defences to two men at a time in the tackle. The effect of this would be four fold. Firstly it would open up the game or at least keep it open, by allowing more oppounities for off loads in tackles and less defenders to slowly peal off in the tackle. Secondly it would help eliminate grapple type tackles and lower body twisting injuries sustained in gang tackles by preventing multiple defenders going for limited upper body space while a third player takes away the legs. Thirdly it would eliminate the questionable penalty/scrum when the defensive player reefs believing they are the only one in the tackle or when the referee believes he sees two men involved in the tackle when there is really only one. And fourthly it would put the onus back on the attacking player to maintain ball security instead of playing for penalties or running with a loose carry.

But any limit against three men in the tackle (or gang tackles) would require some specific interpretation to ensure it doesn't become an equally controversial and penalty ridden area to the current stripping law. Firstly the defense could still have more than two in the tackle defending off their own goal line or with-in their own in-goal. So the referee isn't going to penalise you if you're trying to hold up an attacker in-goal or push a player back from the goal-line. Second the defense can still have more than two in the tackle when trying to trap an opponent in his own in-goal. The rule is meant to change general play, not make last ditch defense less effective.

After that you get into the common sense areas of interpretation. If you have one man around the ball, and one man is slipping off the legs then the the third man coming in low shouldn't be penalised just because he makes contact momentarily before the man slipping off loses contact. As a general rule two men low and one man high, while technically illegal, would probably be let go unless the referee thinks the team is consistently and deliberately offending. But two men high and one man low or any other combination of three or more would be enforced. And a three man strip would always be penalised. The limit to two men tackling would ensure that the attacker either has one man around his legs and only has the withstand one player trying to steal the ball out or if he has two men trying to strip the ball, he'd still have his legs and could use them to keep pushing towards the defenders. He's never have his legs being dragged one way while more than one man pulls at the ball in the other direction.

The optional aspect to this rule would be that the referee would not enforce it out of the blue. Like the bouncer in Test cricket, the ref would not call a no-ball on every occasion. He'd officially warn the captain, "Hey I've seen your boys make a couple of three man tackles in the last few minutes, I'll penalise the next one". The point of this rule isn't to create another area of the game that generates 50-50 penalties and match turning refereeing controversies. It's to cut down on high injury risk gang tackles; eliminate the stripping penalty lottery and force attackers to take responsibility for ball security; and encourage more second phase play by reducing the number of players coming in high around the ball and the head.

Leigh.

 

[*Paul*]

I can't say I particularly want it back, but it was a clever play if you could pull it off. Totally Ian Roberts was quite adept at doing it, along with The Door and Mario.

 

[nqboy]

When done well it was an absolute highlight. But the refs were too weak and the markers would be all over the man playing the ball and making a mockery of it. The New Raper and Gaylord were both among the best exponents and the worst offenders. Without a second ref to allow the main one to ref the ruck, it would be a joke.

 

[Coaster]

The thing is though with the striking at the play the ball, if they strike and miss it is automaticly 6 more tackles, so players wont be striking every tackle.

But if a team starts to get a roll on, and have you on the back foot, it would be worth a try to stop the momentum.

I like the idea of bringing it back in

 

[Razor]

Bring back striking at the ball and also playing the ball forward

 

[Nook]

Re Scrums

All we need IMO is a few refs with the balls to penalise teams for the blatant infringement of breaking early.

Letting the locks/2nd rowers (hell, even the props these days) break before the ball is anything approach out is the root of all evil as far as the scrum is concerned. Because players can break early, they don't bind properly. Because players can break early, the advantage to the attacking team is largely nullified.

Keep 'em in the f**king scrum until the ball is clear, for f**k's sake. If that happens we'll see more pushing in the scrum (not much more, but who wants full on scrums anyway? The other night in the England - Aus Union game there were about 30 attempted scrums and about 2 resulted in a team 'winning' the ball with the rest ended by resets or penalties). We'll also see better attack from the scrumbase. We don't need anything more than that.

 

[Common Wombat]

To be honest I don't see the point of scrums at all - why should a team who has made a mistake (ie knock on or in touch) be allowed to have a chance at regaining possession? I would replace scrums with a play the ball if it was up to me.

 

[simon says]

Bring back striking at the ball and also playing the ball forward

Agreed.......I miss both a lot and wold definitely enhance the game IMO.

 

[Red Bear]

I think we need a balence between modern day league and the days of old. We've gone to far in eliminating these aspects of the game. Would love to see striking of the ball and playing the ball forward both brought back. Scrums is a little more difficult to make a contest again, due to all the penalties etc. However if scrum plays can be encouraged that'd be better than just passing it to a prop waiting at 5/8 to hit it up.
If changing the stripping rule leads to less of the 3-4 in a tackle then do it, get sick of all these gang tackles when the best rugby league to watch is the tackling round the legs etc, textbook footy.
Interchange is one thats been talked about this year - personally i'd say if a back is interchanged (whoever is named in the backline at the start of the game basically) they cant come back on, whilst forwards allowed once off ie they go off a second time they cant come back on.