Ex-Swarcliffe Rhino wrote:If I were a coach - I'd be requesting a sit down and / or a session with the refs to make crystal clear what the interpretations are going to be.
Rest assured the Wellenses and the Watsons of this world will do exactly that. Having done so they'll then figure out how they can best exploit that interpretation to slow their opponents and we're all back at ground zero
"Look, I'd never use injuries as an excuse..." Daryl Powell
Seth wrote:The 6 again rule change is pretty clear and a much needed change. The others will be a vanity project for refs, prepare for it to be scrappy in a different way for a good while til leniency ensues.
Completely agree Seth…..the 6 again rule change has long been overdue….the others will no doubt be clamped down on for the first few rounds and when fans and SKY pundits get fed up with the amount of penalties and stoppages, it will revert to normal.
Even if the other rules don’t get Policed consistently all season, the new 6 again rule is great news. Most teams (but especially Saints) are going to need to rethink their defensive tactics now they cannot simply give away ‘tactical ‘ 6 agains when having the opposition trapped deep in their own half
Joined: Aug 15 2006 Posts: 9208 Location: NOT in "Crying Corner" on the SWMC Coach
Well, the 6 again loophole was cynically exploited for nearly 2 years yet it wasn't even looked at until now, glad that ones been sorted as it wa a complete joke. I don't like the smell of any decision that relies on "interpretation" as its just another stick to beat Refs with and will inevitably lead to - x ref is bent / against us etc.
BELIEVE. BELIEF. BEYOND.
IT AIN'T WHERE YOUR FROM, ITS WHERE YOUR AT.
SWMC Coach's very own timekeeping aficionado & expert stair inspector.
Ex-Swarcliffe Rhino wrote:Well, the 6 again loophole was cynically exploited for nearly 2 years yet it wasn't even looked at until now, glad that ones been sorted as it wa a complete joke. I don't like the smell of any decision that relies on "interpretation" as its just another stick to beat Refs with and will inevitably lead to - x ref is bent / against us etc.
Agree. As has been said, why not say the player must ptb correctly, rather than just make a genuine attempt. The former removes any ambiguity or subjectivity. To paraphrase Yoda, there is no "try". There is only "do" or "do not".
rugbyleague88 wrote:Why cannot it simply be that the player must play the ball correctly rather than they must make a genuine attempt?
What is a genuine attempt? Why not make it crystal clear and just state the play the ball must be undertaken correctly.
Jesus Christ, how do rugby players manage to put their feet into shoes on a morning if they can’t stand on something the size of a rugby ball. The RFL are treating everybody like idiots with this “genuine” attempt to play the ball. Like you say, put your foot on the ball and roll it backwards, if not it’s a penalty.
"Leeds is the greatest club in Rugby League" Alex Murphy 2011
According to the linked article in the op, the defensive line can only move up once the ball player has touched the ball with his heel. Yet there is no requirement to touch the ball with the foot..
"Look, I'd never use injuries as an excuse..." Daryl Powell
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
