Rugby league craves – but has never known nor will ever know – absolute consistency. The game involves human beings and not four-legged robots that can open doors.
And each weekend, human beings – referees, coaches, players, pundits, the whole roiling mad mess of us – make mistakes.
Referees can adjudicate similar incidents in different ways. And that’s individuals. The game is refereed by dozens of different people, on-field and off, who’ll see the same incident in different ways.
Ultimately, in the old frothy heat of money-ball battle, referees make 50-50 calls, pick a side, and do their best.
And rugby league has been okay with that.
Until now, and this funny play-the-ball-with-the-feet thing that the NRL’s rules dudes have decided should be a thing.
And it is. And it’s consistently applied – except when it isn’t.
And rugby league hates that. Hates, hates, hates it. Because rugby league hates the grey. Hates ambiguous, messy. Things should be black and white. There can be no grey. The hell with grey! Right or wrong. Goodies, baddies.
Admirable, perhaps. But in the game’s efforts to combat the messy, grey and ambiguous, rugby league has, to an extent, taken out the spontaneous, unscripted man-action that comes from competition for the ball in the grey areas.
No longer can the oval-shaped Steeden bounce about in the random fashion that would so excite old mate the late great Darrell Eastlake – ho ho! Ho!
Today the ball hits the deck and that’s it, done and done. It’s a knock-on. Touch footy rules, okay?
It is not okay. The knock-back is a rule. For a dropped ball to be called knock-on it must be propelled towards the opponent’s try-line. That is the rule. I have written this 839 times. I have given up.
No I haven’t! The knock-back is a thing! It’s in the rules! Poor knock-back. Please, ghost of Greg Hartley, get in these people’s ears.
Last night Aaron Woods was upright in the tackle and trying to offload as defenders looked to wrap him up. The ball bobbled about and Woods was adjudged to have knocked-on, which you could perhaps make a case for… except that Woods was facing his own try-line.
Repeat: He was facing his own try-line.
Top of that, the ball didn’t hit the ground.
Riddle me that, ref-heads.
(Photo by Brendon Thorne/Getty Images)
Scrums? Don’t start me. Or do and see what happens.
Yes, I know, scrums are dead as fried chicken. Too messy. And you could make a case that they were. They were once a bad dog’s breakfast.
But rather than tighten them up and police them under the, you know, rules, rugby league took the soft option and brushed them. Killed them. Killed scrums, killed one of the last – if not the last – method the defending side had for getting the ball back outside of waiting for the other mob to give it to them.
Killed ’em. Scrums today are a joke, a dud bit of détente in an otherwise fierce 80 minutes.
Brush ’em. Or make them scrums. The game should hold no truck with their ritualised softness.
And the play-the-ball thing?
Look, I dunno.
In the fifth minute of last night’s fixture Woods was 100 per cent correctly pinged for incorrect play-the-ball, the rule that’s eliminated “tunnel ball”, or at least tried to, and slowed down play-the-ball just a tad.
It still happens, of course. The Roosters had a set in the 2second minute, four of the five attackers didn’t touch the ball. Looked enough like they did. And that was enough.
But of all the things to tinker with in the off-season, surely play-the-ball was one for the pedants (of which I ironically admit to being given this thing about scrums and the knock-back being a thing, and so on).
Now! One supposes the NRL’s rules officials – never afraid to tinker with the game-play in the off-season lest it appear that coaches and players get ahead of the very game, somehow, and turn it into something that’s not rugby league – knew what they were doing when they clamped down on the play-the-ball.
And perhaps the NRL can point to the rule doing something good for the game, and I’d like to hear what it is.
Yet, for mine, it does rather beg the question: why? Why should the attacker have to play the ball with his foot?
Yes, I know it’s in the rules. But why is it in the rules? For what philosophical reason is that that the attacker must play the ball with his feet? Was tunnel ball so bad?
Is it a nod to the “ruck” that this particular piece of game-play once was?
League has long loosened any pretention to contest at the play-the-ball. There was a time the marker could strike at the ball and hook it back. There were hookers made an art form of it. Ray Price used to strike out with his great big high-ankled steel-capped Adidas boots with the six-inch studs, and take out the footy or a shin bone, or both, and charge off after it, the great mad bearded bastard.
But Price’s action could be messy, ambiguous. So rugby league brushed it. And the attacker could play the ball with impunity.
But he still has to use his feet. And there’s no sort of… reason for it.
Is there?
There is a slow down the play-the-ball reason. You can cop that, one supposes.
But in philosophical terms, if you like, why does the attacker have to use his boot?
Any sort of league reason for that?
Bueller? Anyone?
Michael Clare
Guest
An interesting article ... some thought-provoking points raised. The trouble with rugby league has always been that referees have so much power to influence a result compared with sports such as tennis or golf etc. Isn't it obvious that that the only way to limit a referee's influence is for them to blow less penalties not more. This season has demonstrated the simple fact that a referee could blow a penalty almost every time a player is tackled. I mean ... how long is a piece of string? Compare this season of boring matches to the recent World Cup where penalties were relatively rare. The new microscopic knock-on rule (as I've nicknamed it) is a new interpretation that excitement out of the game. I suggest that if the ball doesn't fall to the ground ... it's play on. How exciting would that be? I'm rapidly growing bored with this so-called modern game. Human element lacking.
Gags
Guest
All this discussion is about minor issues and misses the real issue of why RL today is a very poor reflection of that played in the 80s and 90s; the wrestle and grapple. The game is slower now due to how long it takes from time of tackle to time of play the ball. Once the ref calls held he should count to 5 out loud. Once he gets to 5 if the ball holder cannot play the ball because of defenders still holding on or laying on top of him, ref blows a penalty. Same for every tackle all game. The pocket ref could even time it with a stop watch. In time this will lead to less tacklers in one tackle, leading to more opportunity for offloads, leading to more ad lib, exciting football. Would clean up and speed up the ruck also.
Bugo
Guest
Hello Matt. Why must it be played with the foot? I can't answer with any certainty as i'm no rules master. However, it is called football and rules are the ball must be played with the foot. I remember teammates being pinned in the 90's for the "quick tap". A penalty is awarded with a choice of kick for touch or a place kick. The place kick can be a shot at goal or tapped forward with the foot, picked up and play on. I am all for a quick tap and continue but the ball should be placed on the ground and tapped, not raising the foot to meet the ball in hand on the run. Again, am all for a fast game but the defence deserves that extra 1/2 second to get ready. Pedantic, i know. But dems da rules
Magic Lyrebird
Guest
I thought the first half was lousy - too many arbitrary penalties (e.g. the Woods play the ball referred to in the article) made it stop start, frustrating, no flow. But in the second half, either the players all improved or the ref just decided to put his whistle away, and the game became compelling. As a Dogs fan I stood there, in the middle of washing up, suds on my arms, and couldn't tear myself away. Fatigue started to have an impact and there were half-gaps everywhere. The score was so tight than one play could have sent the game to golden point. I know the Dogs didn't show much in attack, but they kept trying and again and again it was only magnificent Roosters defence that kept them out. Not much fodder for the highlights reel, but a fantastic game of trench warfare footy!
Brian
Guest
I think that internationally it's a "rubbish game", in that it's held in such low regard compared to rugby union and then a raft of other sports like soccer athletics swimming.... just about anything with any sort of profile. The national comps are great though, NRL English league etc.
Footy Fan
Guest
"They happen every week" I've watched most games this year and can't recall a single case.
Kurt S
Roar Pro
The scrum still offer the winner of the play an attacking option Jeffery. For that reason alone they should stay in. They look messy from time to time and it would be good to see the half position the ball at least somewhere in the middle of the tunnel instead of in front of the second row. That might offer more incentive to have the opposition make a push to win the ball a little more often.
Ozinsa
Guest
Why is that? Why don’t teams practice sophisticated moves off scrums when there are less defenders immediately before them? Real question. I assume there’s a logic to it
Bill Humphries
Roar Rookie
Last nights game was an advert for the AFL
Tubster
Guest
Las
Ben Houston
Guest
Greenberg said of cleaning up the ruck area in pre-season: "There will be a much greater focus on the play the ball and a genuine attempt to play the ball, there's little things and big things and little things like the play the ball are big things to fans. The feedback last year when I was doing fan forums around the country was not to do with finances, but to do with the play the ball, referees and judiciary." So this directive is coming from the fans...pigs arse!! This is refs wanting more control at the ruck and getting the 10 metre! The litmus test : would a ref ping someone for incorrectly playing the ball in front of the posts with a minute to go to decide a GF? If the answer is no, then why are they letting it decide outcomes in any game...at anytime? Also if they're going to be strict at the play the ball then what about holding on the mark too? most players steal 5 metres on the reg, never seen a penalty! Scrums are brilliant in a good game of Union with two quality packs. They decide the ascendancy. The pack that comes out on top usual has the upper hand in the game. You don't get a better contest. A real game of chess. League scrums have long been an utter disgrace. Ban them from using them I say.
Long Black
Roar Rookie
I think teams should get bonus points for scoring off a set play from a scrum. Or get the option to kick from in front.
Footy Fan
Guest
Yeah, still possible to knock-on if you’re facing your own goal line - if you propel it forward into opponent or to the ground, but not if you regather first. Think the suggestion was Woods regathered.
Quite Lucrative
Guest
I don't have to name you any instances. They happen every week. Maybe you should watch a game or two before commenting. "ball through the hands to the winger" What century are you living in? Who says that puritan style is the best? The game has evolved, we used to try to do that when I was in the under 8's. Your idealistic yearnings for perfect competitive scrums and the ball through the hands out to the winger and then what? He scoots up the sideline and scores every time? I think they played that style in the late 1800's.
Jeffrey Dun
Roar Rookie
Good point Matt. To counter this they could significantly reduce the number of interchanges to introduce fatigue into the game.
Remo Shankar
Roar Pro
"Last night Aaron Woods was upright in the tackle and trying to offload as defenders looked to wrap him up. The ball bobbled about and Woods was adjudged to have knocked-on, which you could perhaps make a case for… except that Woods was facing his own try-line." I'm no expert here, but I thought that it's still possible to knock-on if you're facing your own goal line - if the ball is propelled towards your opposition's goal line, even if you're facing your own goal line, I believe this would be legitimately ruled as a knock-on.
Jeffrey Dun
Roar Rookie
"I think the point is that if it is not a contest why have them?" The justification for the scrum is that it gets 12 players out of the attacking / defensive line. Once upon a time the two back lines faced off against each other one-on-one and would often put on some sharp attacking plays. That doesn't happen so much these days, but the justification still exists - it cuts down the number of players that can be involved in the next play.
farqueue
Guest
While we are at rules that piss us off. I hate how a player making a good legs tackle has to be release within a second but a torso tackle can hold on for 5 seconds. Why...why...why.
Lovey
Guest
But if there was less stoppages the forwards wouldn’t have a rest, which overall would open the game up.
Sam
Guest
Rugby League is supposed to be a game of attrition. Too much time wasted with shots/conversions at goal,line drop-outs etc is making modern RL the opposite of what it should be. Today’s players are not getting tired at the back end of halves due to this,and this takes away the ability of the 5/8 and half back to exploit tired forwards in these periods