What about the Play the Ball Infringement?

[Frank_Grimes]

What has happened to this supposed crackdown from referees on players not using their feet to roll the ball? Teams across the league were hammered in round 1 and 2 for these infractions and yet here we are at round 5 and they are going largely unchecked. I saw one penalty awarded in the Eels/Panthers game early in the first half, but have witnessed no others. I counted at least five blatant infractions in the Titans/Broncos match and one was even shown on slow motion replay as it led to a try.

Has anyone else noticed this?

 

[cronker]

Certainly have noticed that. I have no issue with the crackdown on the play the ball infringements, but I do have an issue with umpiring consistancy, of which there is very little this season.

 

[The Preacher]

I saw Matt Geyer get penalised for feining to play the ball, trying to get the Dragons caught for off side. One of the few decisions the flip got right.

 

[Jono078]

I was most pissed about..

Newton played the ball perfectly against the storm and fell over after that and got penalised.

Now apparently that is in the 'Key Indicators', youre not allowed to fall over after playing the ball.

I saw it atleast 3 times this weekend!

Nathan Cayless - 6th minute
Paul Aiton - 79th minute

And someone else, yet no penalty! I was furious when I saw Cayless fall over and get nothing.

Because I beleive it was after that Newton penalty that's when the Storm wrapped the match up against us.

 

[willvillain]

Watmough got pinged in the Manly game for not using his foot I believe.

It's strange. It seems like the Ref wants to get a penalty in early to remind the players that it is important/is actually a rule etc, and chooses the team which starts stronger or something.

Honestly, if every play the ball infringement was called (as in, every time a player played the ball without using his foot) then there would hardly be a team in the comp that would finish a set of six.

 

[Bigfella]

Even in the games when itw as pinged it was being missed a dozen other times.

And what about last week's rule of the week - forward passes. Everything got pinged, but in the Tigers Sharks yesterday about 100 were let go?

 

[yosh64]

I hate the penalty. Really i dont see a need for the foot to touch the ball, just as long as its rolled under the foot. Might be a little bit quicker in playing the ball but not by much so what affect does it have on the game. Remove the rule, results in no penalties for it, results in less penalties in the match, which creates a free flowing game, much more exciting.

So unless there is a good reason for the need to touch the ball as your rolling it under your feet, get rid of the rule, its pointless.

 

[Frank_Grimes]

I have no problem with the rule. I do have a problem with the decision to start cracking down on the rule in the first few rounds and then forget about it. Some teams were penalised very heavily for this infraction in the first 2 rounds and it may have swayed the outcome of some matches. Yet here in round 5 it goes largely un-noticed and penalties that would have been awarded in the first round go astray.

 

[Tom Shines]

I hate the penalty. Really i dont see a need for the foot to touch the ball, just as long as its rolled under the foot. Might be a little bit quicker in playing the ball but not by much so what affect does it have on the game. Remove the rule, results in no penalties for it, results in less penalties in the match, which creates a free flowing game, much more exciting.

So unless there is a good reason for the need to touch the ball as your rolling it under your feet, get rid of the rule, its pointless.

There is a point — to slow the PTB down. Could you imagine the farce it would be if you could just roll the ball back, Oztag style?

The rule should be that the ball must be placed on the ground and a genuine attempt made to roll the ball back with the foot. If he misses by a few centimetres then fair enough. But if does a Petero stepover, then penalty.

 

[The Engineers Room]

I hate the penalty. Really i dont see a need for the foot to touch the ball, just as long as its rolled under the foot. Might be a little bit quicker in playing the ball but not by much so what affect does it have on the game. Remove the rule, results in no penalties for it, results in less penalties in the match, which creates a free flowing game, much more exciting.

So unless there is a good reason for the need to touch the ball as your rolling it under your feet, get rid of the rule, its pointless.

There is a little thing called tradition. This rule must stay and must be enforced. The issue is that if you don't play it with the foot why should the player get to his feet, just throw it between the legs while getting up.

The other point about the penalties is right. Some referrees have it in their minds that penalties early on will prevent high penalty counts because the players know you are serious.

 

[kia ora storm]

I like the rule...it stops lazy forwards getting a roll on and makes them apply trhe basics of the game...

 

[RL1908]

The lack of application of the playing laws in the play-the-ball is symptomatic of a wider problem - primarily that referees (presumably under instruction or expectation) are reluctant to repeatedly give penalties. Yet, we all know that as a direct consequence of this players push the laws/referee to the limit, knowing that they are more than likely going to get away with breaking the laws and getting an advantage.

The play-the-ball will go the way of the scrum (i.e. a joke) if a stand is not taken to ensure the foot is used. Not using the foot gives the attack an advantage - possibly enough to catch a marker "not square" or defenders not back 10m.

There has been too much imbalance - referees rarely penalise the attacking team for breaches at the play-the-ball.

What is worse is the referee allowing the tackled player to walk forward off the mark, forcing the markers to not be in position. The referee will call out "he shortened it" (i.e. the 10m), but still penalise the marker who (as a result) couldn't quite get into position in time if he tackles the dummy-half.

I agree though - consistency is still the biggest problem.

 

[Iafeta]

It is a terrible inconsistency having these 'bliztes', either they are rules, or they aren't. Shane Tronc and Mathew Scott combined would have correctly played the ball 4 times on the weekend. Tronc barely tries. He just rolls it between his legs. He's been doing it at least since he came into first grade. There's nothing more frustrating than to see the opposition get on a roll on with the assistance of no effort in the play of the ball, and seeing them get away with it. Another they don't watch is facing sideways, Faumuina was posing for a photo for the crowd in the Eastern Stand once when he played the play on the weekend. Or, a player walks off the mark, dummy half takes a run and gets a penalty for the markers being offside - the penalty should go against the attacking side.

 

[God-King Dean]

Could you imagine the farce it would be if you could just roll the ball back, Oztag style?

You have to play the ball with your foot in OzTag ;-)

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

he means touch?

 

[yosh64]

There is a little thing called tradition. This rule must stay and must be enforced. The issue is that if you don't play it with the foot why should the player get to his feet, just throw it between the legs while getting up.

Fair enough about tradition. Mind you i thought that the rule would be ok if it was 'player must be standing and must step over the ball while rolling it to dummyhalf'. Didnt really see that as making it too quick in playing the ball. I agree with everyone on refs not being consistent through each round though.

Also the game of rugby league wouldnt be around today if people held on to tradition. We evolved from union and it was only with the decisions to change the rules on tackling, number of players and removing lineouts, etc that made the game more exciting and popular than union. Just something to remember.

 

[Twizzle]

its no different to any other rule

they'll blitz it when they feel like it and then the players will get a way with it again, so when they next blitz it everyone says "where the consistency ?" and they'll be correct

we have inconsistency in many areas this year, much like the third umpire ruling on put downs, but this is no different to any other year

I just think the standard of umpiring is poor atm

 

[RL1908]

As yosh64 quite rightly points out, RL has always been prepared to continually evolve/change its laws to improve the game. Unless you have a simple sport, such as cricket or baseball, you must continously look at the rules and refine them.

Unfortunately, at the same time, many RL fans and administrators are averse to change. So getting the balance right is difficult.

The current laws of RL (and RU) are still built upon the first documented laws of 1850s Rugby School & the RFU in 1871. In the ensuing time, they have been amended into the form we use today. Unfortunately, the original laws were written for gentlemen & schoolboys who would play with honour (as cricket supposedly still is) - meaning the laws didn't need to address "grey areas" - there were no "grey areas" as players would not cheat or look to get the better of the rules/referee etc.

The words "accidental" and "deliberate" have clear meanings when a sport is played by gentlemen footballers who openly admit their actions, but today no professional footballer would ever admit anything that would cost their team the ball or a penalty.

Now that we truly have professional footballers/coaches/clubs and success/failure can decide the viability of their employment/finances, everyone is pushing the rules and the referees to get an edge.

The biggest problem is that penalties are now worth so much i.e. a 40m kick plus 6 more tackles, that everyone is pushing to get one against their opponent - they should be playing football, not trying to earn penalties.

The quickness/slowness of the play-the-ball has become the winning/losing of the game, when all it is meant to be is a means to restart the game - now it is the game.

It seems to me that - as soccer and American football did decades ago - the time has come for RL to completely re-write the rule book and get rid of all the "grey areas" once and for all.

 

[The Engineers Room]

I don't want to see a roll ball. The playing back with the foot is important. It does take some skill to do it quickly and slows the play the ball down. And if they ever decide to allow striking for the ball and tapping it forward back in like they should then it is needed.