I am consistently baffled by the modern game and one feature that pervades every match played.
Somewhere along the line, defenders got something in their head. They were probably encouraged and instructed to do it by their coaches.
In time they mastered it and have used it impressively over the last thirty odd years. It’s not a complex thing, just a simple tactic which has clear and negative ramifications on the entertainment value of the game.
Its implementation led to scrappy rucks, fifty-fifty decisions around ball control and also played a role in the development of the most modern blight on the game: the wrestle.
Attacking teams were forced to counter and the footless play the ball became the norm, as players attempted to increase the speed of the ruck to combat the one simple defensive technique that was the kernel of much of the nonsense we see today.
What was the idea they stumbled upon? Put simply, defenders became convinced that as a consequence of making a tackle, they were given some sort of divine right to be the marker in the subsequent play-the-ball.
You might stop and reflect on that for a second. It is the source of the inane and finicky disaster, that we now call the ruck contest.
Growing up, I have vivid memories of defenders making tackles around the legs. Whether it was a classic Steve Mortimer covering effort or the great Steve Rogers mowing down an opposition centre, players often lived by the ‘can’t run without legs’ mantra.
Obviously the game has changed a great deal and wrapping up the ball is a key component in blunting attacking waves, however, it was what the players did after they made the low defensive play, that is more significant to this discussion.
Once the tackle was completed, they leapt to their feet and sprinted back to their position in the defensive line, as one or two other players stepped up to take the marker position.
(Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)
This was reinforced by the referees at different times throughout NSWRL and NRL history, as they shouted ‘roll away’ upon the completion of the tackle.
It meant ‘get off’, it was also a signal for the defender to ensure they weren’t in the ruck area causing a distraction to the dummy-half.
Of course, this is always an issue in our game today and a few crafty rakes have perfected the art of planting their feet firmly and feigning contact with defenders in the ruck area with intentionally misdirected passes. But I digress.
As the coaches analysed tape through the eighties and nineties, they realised the obvious. That being, if the tacklers were able to stay in the ruck area and take the marker positions, it provided the opportunity for the remainder of the defensive line to maintain a set and structured formation.
The pesky problem was, the defenders needed to get to marker, essentially ignoring any appeal to roll away. Always reluctant to ignore the instructions of referees, the players consulted their coaches, fitness trainers and shrewd ex-forwards and decided to approach things a little differently.
Rather than disobeying the man or woman with the whistle, a new method of tackling was introduced. The low scything tackle became rare and front on hit-and-stick defence was popularised.
The entire benefit of this method is to ensure that the tackler never loses control of the ruck and, in turn, rises to their feet, quite often in perfect position to become the marker.
However, there was another little hitch to the sneaky plan, that being, with multiple tacklers involved in a ruck, it wasn’t possible for two players to be in the correct spot and in the box seat to assume the marker position.
No problem, easily fixed. Gradually, over time, the coaches and defenders infiltrated the minds of the officials and the rules committee and added another aspect to the technique.
As defenders started returning to their feet, it became obvious to them that it was easier to do so via a ‘boost’ from the ball carrier.
Thus the, two hands in the back, slow push to elevate themselves become in vogue, as the ball carrier remained firmly entrenched in the soil beneath.
The brilliance of this technique then allows the tackler to ‘turtle’ and squirm their way around to the correct position, stand fully erect and ready to chase from marker.
Not rocket science, yet genius in itself.
The perceived right of a tackler to automatically become the marker should have been spotted and stamped out, potentially it isn’t too late to reverse the trend. However, penalties for incorrect markers are as rare as a Wayne Bennett smile right now.
Reason being, markers are generally in the correct front position, if anything, they are too far from the play-the-ball’ often sitting back half way between the ruck and the defensive line. That is another issue altogether. Being square is one thing, being front and square is another.
Rather than redress this blight on the game, the interpretation of officials has added further layers to the issue of the tacklers expectation to automatically become the marker. Now, as the ‘turtle’ technique begins, further complexity is added.
Firstly, the Jujitsu stylings of NRL teams encourages all defenders to ensure that any limb available to them must be used as annoyingly as possible, as they manoeuvre themselves to the marker position.
Whether it be a hand wrapped around the ball or an arm wedged in an awkward spot, heck, sometimes even a foot can be strategically used to create a comical, ‘look sir, I’m trying to get away from the tackle, but I can’t.’
Joshua Jackson (AAP Image/Daniel Munoz)
To top off the faisco that is the modern play the ball, when the defender has achieved their goal and arrives in their final destination, it is important that they stand just that little bit too close to the man attempting to play ball.
Just enough to ensure a stray knee or foot is there in case the attacker dare attempt to play the ball without adequate care.
The chain of events that occurs when players deem themselves ordained to take the marker position, merely because they are in the ruck area, has been the fundamental source of so much frustration and anger from a fan perspective and seen the entire dumb-show become more and more problematic.
While it continues to go unpunished, the absurd speed of the current play the ball will continue, as players roll the ball back, briskly towards the dummy half. As will milking penalties in the ruck area and the constant emphasis on the grapple, which, despite full disclosure, seems permitted to continue.
Much of this could be mended. Sure, it would take some strong action and a paradigm shift in thinking from the officials.
However, a wise man once said something about life not being as complicated as people make it out to be.
Could it perhaps be as simple as remembering two simple words? Roll away.
Dr Yes
Guest
Doubt it's just a matter of calling 'held'. Too many big bodies wrapped every which way over the attacker beforehand. It's never going to instantly clear with a simple call. Thing is, we're not even talking dominant tackles when the wrestle happens. Defenders deliberately hold the man up but still allow some movement, so they can go through the full three-step-waltz routine, engaging other defenders from head to toe, and delaying that very call of 'held'. Hasn't been solved in over a decade because the rules are genuinely not up to it. If you analysed each step of the wrestle, they don't actually infringe - just milk every opportunity this side of infringement. By the time 'held' is called, there could be another 10 seconds worth of 'legitimately' unscrambling the the many twisted and locked limbs, hands and feet. Defensive line well-and-truly set. And even a penalty often advantages the defence. What's the solution? Restrict the number of tacklers? Call held on initial contact? Both would be a step towards 'touch'. Or head in the current direction - allow super-fast play-the-ball with leniency on infringements?
TigerMike
Guest
Off side Ten metres Sin bin Professional foul
Mushi
Guest
Yep Chris Anderson tried it at the Roosters... Didn't see out the year
Yoda
Guest
Didn't think rucks in league existed,thought it was er play the balls doh
Griffo
Guest
Isn't also about both teams having equal numbers in the ruck. The attacking team has the guy playing the ball and the dummy half, the defensive team has 2 markers. The rest of the field is then 11 on 11
John Erichsen
Roar Guru
We now have two refs on the field and yet the ruck area remains a terrible blight on the game. Some old-fashioned common sense would do a lot of good. The wrestles after "held" calls are an absolute joke. The attacking player moving off the mark also needs addressing, as does them moving forward to take the marker out of play. Any contact between marker and tackled player after the "held" call is a penalty. A week or two of enforcing this area of the game would see coaches swiftly altering their coaching plans.
Peeko
Guest
Great to see an article with some analysis and insight into the game Some great comments too More please
Not so super
Guest
That is correct
Ziusudra
Guest
Interesting article. I think we all see the problem, but solutions often present unintended and undesirable consequences. For what it's worth, I would like to see a trial rule change of "only 2 defenders permitted in a tackle at any time" Currently, there are usually 3. 2 up high to tie up the ball and wrestle and a 3rd down low to halt forward momentum and bring the carrier to ground. With 2, you have to go 1 high 1 low so less opportunity to wrestle post tackle. So, with a sensible application of the "held call" you could also do away with the contentious and hard to ref "strip" rule. Make it the carriers responsibility to hold onto the ball knowing that, at worst, he must repel 2 tacklers attempting to wrest the ball away for only a short time. Also, might encourage teams to use the full width more. Currently a winger HAS to step in and take the tackle anywhere in the tramlines. Otherwise he risks being gang-tacked, held off the ground and forced out for a turnover. May make defending the line against big forwards very tough, though. Worth a go?
The Barry
Roar Guru
Non stop dummy half running...wasn't there an experiment a few years ago with one marker and it was a disaster?
Rellum
Roar Guru
Don't forget that also added unlimited interchange in 97 for super league as well. It was a double whammy. I don't think we have gotten over that rushed unlimited interchange decision even now.
matth
Guest
Beware of unintended consequences. Take the 1997 superleague season as a prime example. The instruction was to speed up the game to make it 'super'. So the refs were ruthless in calling held and penalising players for not getting off quickly enough. So what happened? Players sprinted at the 10m line, hit the deck on hands and knees as soon as they were touched and then the dummy halves took off for a 10 metre sprint against a backpedalling defence. Rinse and repeat. At most they went one off the ruck to a sprinting forward. The Broncos put together a monster pack to exploit the rule (which was combined with unlimited interchange), and predictable points flowed.
Rellum
Roar Guru
I think they do need to do something about the initial contact technique now as it results in a lot of grabbing up high with momentum. That means the head and upper body of the defender are at the same level or higher of the ball runner. The result of that is a good chance of head contact in the tackle.I don't know how to fix it yet, other than lower the contact point and I am not sure that would work.
Rellum
Roar Guru
You don't have to have any markers if you don't want too. It is up to the defensive team if they want, one, two or no markers.
Rellum
Roar Guru
I personally think we need to have the refs called held and any post held efforts by defenders perceived by the refs result in a penalty. Any extra pushing, hands on the ball after held, all that stuff. They can also keep the surrender call if they think an attacker as dived to get a fast play the ball so the defenders know they can slow the paly the ball down then. The game was much faster in the 90's because the play the balls were faster. Super league tried to make them even faster and that is when we got the silly touch football style. There is a balance there and it will be a yearly effort to combat coaches in their efforts to stretch the rules.
Nat
Roar Guru
That may have been an aside MrTrickyM back in the day but the 2nd marker has a defensive roll. The 1st marker is to chase the next ball runner and the 2nd watches the hooker in case of a scoot. Watch the first marker raise his arm indicating the way he going to go while the 2nd stays in position until the ball is clear of the ruck.
Womblat
Guest
I don't think you can just "get rid" of them, given the vast majority of tackles involve two or more tacklers. They would need to go somewhere. For most, that would be back onside. Or hide behind the ruck. Either way, they are out of the next play and that penalises the defensive side, who, for every play in the game, are down to 12 or 11 against 13. And they didn't do anything wrong to deserve that. Other flow ons from this idea... . I see it getting exploited by clever dummy halves milking penalties when all they are doing is trying to get back onside. Alsdo, dummy half running would take over the sport. It would be ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck, kick. That's Union with a twist of lime. The wingers would catch a cold and get lonely. It's a version of rolling mauls. A slant on your idea... make the player who played the ball stay out of the next play too, including going into dummy half. That at least evens it up a bit.
Nat
Roar Guru
It's a no win situation for the defending team. A legs tackle is still greeted with a "roll away" demand and in the majority of cases the tackler is caught behind the ruck. No longer can a defender lift and drop a bloke on his back because it is an auto penalty. I think 'the wrestle' is a buzz word given by the media for a ball and all tackle. They limit the chances of an offload and create those extra seconds for a set defensive line. Although now we see 10 "hand on the ball" penalties each game and attackers know they have a 50/50 chance of a penalty if they simply let go. Legs tackles and fast rucks were fine in unlimited interchange but now they have 10. This rugby league, not touch footy. We keep changing the rules for faster play and penalise those for controlling the ruck. The players are bigger, faster, stronger and smarter but they are not machines. Defence wins games otheriwise we would be watching NYC-esk 52 - 38 scorelines each week.
MrTickyM
Roar Rookie
Why don't we do away with 2 markers and just have one. I'm too young to remember the days of contested rucks, but aren't the markers simply a hangover from those days where the second marker was essentially a "reserve" dummy half in case the first marker won the contest? Getting rid of the second marker would either open up the space behind the ruck or cause defensive lines to compress and leave more space out wide.
Dogs Of War
Roar Guru
And that it in a nutshell. Guys like me who have stopped watching as much league as I used to because of the structure, really just need the refs to start penalising and binning players who give away penalties to slow down the play. Coaches would respond to that, and then we would get a good balance between attack and defense.