Try from the play the ball?

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

fittler is god

 

[Loudstrat]

The play-the-ball rule provided (actually, still does) that the ball was to be placed on the ground OR dropped on the ground. In the latter case, dropping the ball and then kicking it the very instant it rises back up from the ground, would constitute a drop kick, and therefore a legal drop goal if it could be kicked over the cross-bar.

All of which goes to raise the question - if dropping the ball is a knock-on, how the heck is a drop kick ever legal? How was a play-the-ball legal if you dropped the ball?

The answer is that dropping the ball downwards (even accidentially) is not dropping it forwards, and therefore is not a knock-forward....the play-the-ball rule (drop the ball to the ground) and the drop goal definition both provide evidence that merely dropping the ball isn't actually a knock-on, it is a drop downwards. And if you see games from the late 1960s and earlier, that is exactly how the referees and players (and fans for that matter) treated it.

I recall Jimmy Dymock in an Eels jumper with a neat innovation. Eels cop a penalty on the goal line - and find touch on the 30. Dymock took the tap, but instead of tapping it, he just kicked it, and nailed a 40/20. Ref allowed it.

Wasn't that Mark Laurie in 1990 at the WACA? i'm pretty sure it was...

Nope - def at Parra stadium

fittler is god

Wrong. Fittler is not Ray Price.

 

[Mr_Ugly]

I agree that they should bring back the contested ruck. It added an element of unpredictability to the game. It also didn't slow the game up like contested scrums would.

Ian Roberts was another one who was pretty good at winning the ball from marker.

 

[Pierced Soul]

one thing i think has led to the cries of 'predictability' in league is the fact possession is no longer contested. you cant strip it, you cant play at it in the play the ball and you cant push in scrums (well not in the nrl, whenever its won against the feed the ref resets it).

i would like to see more of a contest for possesion but i'm not convinced striking in the ruck is the way to go. whislt i also want to see more contests in the scrums i also dont want to see a scrum repacked 5 times cos the ball keeps getting booted out.

the only real change i'd like to see at the moment is the ability to strip the ball no matter how many tacklers there are. people will npo doubt then claim the abll will be stripped in every tackle but it didnt happen 20 eyars ago it wont happen now. i'm sick of players dropping the ball and then getting a penalty...but i digress...

 

[Loudstrat]

Contest for possession is not as crucial in League - you get it after 6 tackles anyway.

 

[Pierced Soul]

Contest for possession is not as crucial in League - you get it after 6 tackles anyway.

i know but it takes away the element of surprise. if you remember several eyars ago souths were beating brisbane at the sfs and in the last minute of the game tallis rips the ball out one on one and the broncos score to win. things like that dont happen often enough because of the two man rule. you see palyers with loose carries getting rewarded for poor ball security.

i used to love seeing alfie run in and reef the ball out and go under the posts. if we had more of a contest fornthe ball i dont think we'ds see as much one out stuff because doing that and losing the ball means there's no backup to dive on any loose ball (hopefully this is making sense)

 

[typicalfan]

went hand in hand with the marker raking the ball back as well, i remember Steve Walters used to try it and so did Jason Croker, Croker actually plays the ball forward in the 94 GF

 

[Ewan McGrady's Lovechild]

Ray Price was a chief exponent back in the late '70s

Benny Elias and Ian Roberts were great at it in the 80-90s..

 

[Ewan McGrady's Lovechild]

went hand in hand with the marker raking the ball back as well, i remember Steve Walters used to try it and so did Jason Croker, Croker actually plays the ball forward in the 94 GF

Yeah thats what I was referring to in my post above.

 

[krudmonk]

I agree that they should bring back the contested ruck. It added an element of unpredictability to the game. It also didn't slow the game up like contested scrums would.

Have you ever watched union? Most of the penalties (hands in, leaving feet, in from the side, etc) are at the ruck because it's such a mess that few can manage or even understand.

 

[innsaneink]

Have you ever watched union? Most of the penalties (hands in, leaving feet, in from the side, etc) are at the ruck because it's such a mess that few can manage or even understand.

However, that would be nothing like what Mr Ugly is referring to.
Didnt see 70s or 80s footy I gather?

 

[griff]

As for when they got rid of the rule, here is a part of an e-mail I received earlier this year from the NRL when I sent them one asking about just this:

The rule was introduced for the start of the 1997 season (ARL)
“There is to be no striking in the play the ball and the ball must be played backwards”.

I'm pretty sure the advice you got from the NRL is wrong.

It was a Super League rule change in 1997, and the ARL had the old rule still in place during that season. With the advent of the NRL in 1998, they opted for the Super League rule. It caused some problems for some ARL-aligned clubs early in 1998, if I recall.

 

[RL1908]

I'm pretty sure the advice you got from the NRL is wrong.

It was a Super League rule change in 1997, and the ARL had the old rule still in place during that season. With the advent of the NRL in 1998, they opted for the Super League rule. It caused some problems for some ARL-aligned clubs early in 1998, if I recall.

I'm not sure that it was one of the SL devised rules. The ARL introduced a host of changes in 1997 - according to Middo's yearbook there were 8 rule changes adopted by the ARL on March 3 1997 - what the changes were aren't listed though. I'll see if I can pin it down.

 

[RL1908]

This page (link below) accords with my recollection of the 1997 changes - it also includes 8 changes to the ARL rules, which suggests (per the post above) that it is an accurate summary - I'll check my own files to confirm it, but it looks as if both the ARL and SL adopted the same rule in 1997 ie. the ball must always be played backwards.
http://us.geocities.com/darrylbradford/h_rules1997.htm

 

[Parra]

Since they got rid of this rule, I have always wanted to see it brought back.
I was watching an old game (black and white recording) a while ago. It could have been a test match, but I think it was a Grand Final. Anyway, at just about every play-the-ball, the marker would kick at the ball (usually striking it). Admittedly, that would get monotonous very quickly, but I'm still a fan of the marker raking it back.

But usually the marker would fail, and the attacking team would get 6 again.

George Piggins was a demon at raking the ball back from marker.

 

[griff]

This page (link below) accords with my recollection of the 1997 changes - it also includes 8 changes to the ARL rules, which suggests (per the post above) that it is an accurate summary - I'll check my own files to confirm it, but it looks as if both the ARL and SL adopted the same rule in 1997 ie. the ball must always be played backwards.
http://us.geocities.com/darrylbradford/h_rules1997.htm

I stand corrected.

When they brought it in, it seemed to be a good rule, but this rule is pretty much the worst rule that has recently been introduced in terms of its unintended consequences.

What it has done is mean that players don't take as much care in playing the ball, and just do it as quickly as possible. Far from cleaning up the play the ball, it has made it messier as players make mistakes by trying to do it too quick. Also, the speeding up of the play the ball introduced by this rule has led directly to the wrestle and the grapple.

 

[RL1908]

But usually the marker would fail, and the attacking team would get 6 again.

George Piggins was a demon at raking the ball back from marker.

I think Nuke was referring to the mid/late 1960s, where it was unlimited tackle, and then the four-tackle rule - in that period the markers weren't always trying to to rake the ball backwards - they were doing the opposite - trying to kick it forwards!

Many markers were deliberately kicking the ball forwards as soon as the man playing-the-ball put it on the ground.

The markers weren't (directly) trying to gain possession - they were just indiscriminantly kicking the ball out of ruck, and hoping it would cause a knock-on or some other mayhem that would give them an opportunity to gain the ball, or to simply gain field position.

Once the game went to 6 tackles, it became obvious that this tactic was more often than not likely to lead to a re-start of the tackle count, it was driven out of the game by coaches.

 

[RL1908]

I stand corrected.

When they brought it in, it seemed to be a good rule, but this rule is pretty much the worst rule that has recently been introduced in terms of its unintended consequences.

What it has done is mean that players don't take as much care in playing the ball, and just do it as quickly as possible. Far from cleaning up the play the ball, it has made it messier as players make mistakes by trying to do it too quick. Also, the speeding up of the play the ball introduced by this rule has led directly to the wrestle and the grapple.

Agree - all it has done has replaced one form of contest (over the ball via raking/striking) with another (over the man via wrestling/grappling). I tend to think the latter form of contest is far messier and dangerous.

Having said that though, there is no easy answer - the conundrum of how to safely/quickly/fairly re-start play once a man is caught with the ball has been vexing all the rugby-based codes (including Aust rules and American football) for their entire existences.

 

[krudmonk]

However, that would be nothing like what Mr Ugly is referring to.
Didnt see 70s or 80s footy I gather?

No, I was born in the '80s.

 

[The Engineers Room]

They took it out because the markers used to push against the player playing the ball and it all got very messy. We should be trying to limit play the ball penalties.