Throughout the season, it has struck me how many rules are assumed a part of rugby league despite not being found anywhere in the rule book. And, conversely, how many rules are in the rule book but not enforced.
Just from the grand final alone, we saw two Bunker calls that could be argued on the grounds of what everyone knows you can’t do compared to what the rule book actually says.
You can’t run behind a lead runner, yet the rule book says a defender must be impeded. You can’t use your foot to dislodge the ball, yet the rule book makes no mention of this.
There was a controversial decision to award a try to Brian To’o despite Isaah Yeo running behind a lead runner. Now, despite no Storm players being obstructed or even attempting to make a tackle, commentators and fans complained you can’t run behind a lead runner and gain an advantage – and rightly so.
We have been told this all year with every decision up to this point being interpreted that way. Yet on the biggest stage, the common interpretation was thrown out in favour of the rule book interpretation that says if no defender is impeded, then play on.
Now I can see the merits in the rule the way it is written but in the interest of simplicity, which should then lead to consistency, let’s rewrite the rule to the common understanding. This should eliminate the shock of a technically correct ruling replacing the assumed interpretation.
Brian To’o celebrates with his Penrith teammates. (Photo by Jason McCawley/Getty Images)
A penalty try to Justin Olam was awarded despite Olam losing possession when Tyrone May deliberately contacted the ball with his foot in a desperate bid to stop the try being scored. That’s against the rules said the online ‘experts’ and, more importantly, the video ref.
However, there is no rule stating that a defender may not deliberately use his feet to hold up an opponent. I personally saw nothing wrong with the play, not just because there is no rule against it but also no reason why there should be. It certainly couldn’t be catergorised as dangerous like the foot-first slide attempted in the past.
However, if we are going to enforce a rule, then let’s put that rule into the book.
They’re the obvious (non)rules from the grand final. But what are some others?
How about when is a tackle completed?
We all know about when the ball-carrying arm touches the ground and they have been consistent on that all season. And we know momentum can carry a player over the tryline to score.
How about when driving a player backwards or out? The accepted interpretation is so long as the defence does not lift the attacking player off the ground and momentum doesn’t stop and the ball-carrying arm remains off the ground, defenders are permitted to continue their drive.
However, the rulebook says nothing of being allowed to drive endlessly in defence if momentum isn’t stopped. According to the rules, there are two different ways this tackle could be completed.
The first, according to section 11, 2 (b), is that a tackle is completed once forward progress is stopped and a player cannot part with the ball. However, Section 11, Notes, 2 (a), speaks of defenders’ push, pull or carrying opponents and the player in possession losing ground. This section says that ‘held’ should be called immediately once another attacking player lends weight to a tackle to avoid the loss of ground. It makes no mention of how effectively that player lends weight.
So, in the tackle Canberra made on Dale Finucane as the example, Storm players attempted to come to his aid and lend weight from the ten-metre mark, yet the push from the Raiders was too strong and these players found themselves barrelled out of the way as Finucane was continued to be pushed back.
An immediate call of held once a Melbourne player lends weight would suggest the tackle should have been complete at the ten metres. However, this made great entertainment, and the accepted rule is about attacking players’ momentum.
So, let’s rewrite the rule book to reflect the accepted rule. “Defenders may continue to push or pull the player in possession provided the tackle momentum is continued and the tackle hasn’t otherwise been completed by the ball carrying arm contacting the ground.”
How about some common not enforced rules? My pet hate is the voluntary tackle.
Time and again we see players diving to the ground as they return kicks out of their in-goal or near the sideline. Similarly, when players drop on a loose ball near their in-goal or a sideline they make no attempt to regain their feet. This voluntary tackle means they cannot be driven in-goal or out by tacklers. It is against the rules but never penalised.
If we have a rule, especially one that is so clear and free of interpretation, why isn’t it being enforced? If we’re not going to enforce it, just remove it. Leaving it there effectively allows referees to openly pick and choose which rules they want to enforce and which they do not, creating a precedent for criticism.
There is a whole list of rules surrounding the play the ball that aren’t enforced.
We all know about using your foot, not just stepping over the ball. This became so bad that the NRL had to change the legal interpretation to attempt to use the foot, rather than must use the foot. Yet every set we see plays where there is not even an attempt. While I would like to see this enforced, we all remember the penalty-athon that resulted last time and we know the NRL won’t stand for that again.
Another rule ignored at the end of every game is ‘speed essential’, where “any player who intentionally delays the bringing of the ball into play shall be penalised”.
I would love to see this enforced when players are attempting to run out the clock at the end of close games. Alas, it never is.
So what do you think? Is it time the rule book is updated? Are there any other generally accepted (non)rules that are only found in the rule book and not enforced on the field?
Heyou
Roar Rookie
Apologies for my late comments. I am catching up with my ROAR reading. A most interesting and timely article. Note to the rule book writers: Please update the rule book and please do it soon. My main concern is the inconsistency in policing the rules and applying penalties. Simplification is needed. The rule is the rule. Change it if necessary. We have more new rules to add and quite complicated they are too. There is way too much scope for differences in interpretation and the feasibility of one, or even two referees being able to apply said rules consistently and fairly, with a high percent of accuracy, is compromised by the complications of said new rules. I’m speaking of the ruck infringement tackle restarts in particular. I’m coming to terms with this rule and the change in the speed of play from the ruck and it’s run-on effect in general play. It does make for a spectacular spectacle from a spectator’s point of view. That is until it is the spectator’s team that is being penalised for ruck infringements - one after another, while their opposition is seen to infringe in the ruck but the referee does not call for a tackle restart? What is to be done in this case? Nothing, because the game continues on at break-neck speed and the infringements go unnoticed. We have seen teams and players finding ways to dominate in the ruck in various sly and sneaky ways so that the defenders are seen to be infringing. Smart? Yes for sure - ways must be found to capitalise because the penalty creates such an advantage for the team on the attack. If you can get away with it then why the hell not? It has been rare indeed for a side in attack mode ‘milking’ a ruck infringement, to be penalised. Perhaps all teams need to find ways to ‘milk‘ the ruck penalty. It is the way this game of ours goes. Create a new rule and teams will find ways to utilise it to their advantage in attack and defence modes. It’s all too complicated and annoying for this spectator. Perhaps I will enjoy the new rules more when my lot have a better grasp of the situation and are playing in the top 8. I dare say my opinion would be of a more positive nature should that actually happen :laughing: I live in faith and hope.
In brief
Guest
I would be one of those individuals which may be why I stopped following the game - I can’t stand all the watered down rules
In brief
Guest
You could add the quick tap - the ball has to have separation from the hand and the knock on - the ball must be propelled forward
Rugbyrah
Roar Rookie
High tackles are illegal in rugby league play. As per International Rugby League (IRL) laws, a player is guilty of misconduct if they, "when effecting or attempting to effect a tackle makes contact with the head or neck of an opponent intentionally, recklessly or carelessly." This rule is only enforced if the tackled player lies on the ground whether actually injured or not, and continues to lay on the ground waiting for a big screen review. Then it is mostly likely penalized. The grand final had so many head high tackles, players should have been sent off! It is dangerous and against the rules. Forward pass: The direction of a pass is relative to the player making it and not to the actual path relative to the ground. A player running towards his opponents’ goal line may throw the ball towards a colleague who is behind him but because of the thrower’s own momentum the ball travels forward relative to the ground. This is not a forward pass as the thrower has not passed the ball forward in relation to himself. This is particularly noticeable when a running player makes a high, lobbed pass. Rugby league does not follow this rule. It follows touch football rules, where if the ball travels backwards it is considered drop ball or in NRL forward pass, even if the ball is going backwards.
The Barry
Roar Guru
PS - agree about the problematic wording
The Barry
Roar Guru
“Disadvantage the defensive line” is the key phrase in the rule and exactly what the bunker ref said in explaining his decision Joey’s perfectly entitled to disagree with that interpretation - it’s his job. I disagree myself. But just repeatedly saying “he doesn’t know the rules” demonstrably shows that Johns doesn’t
Wal
Guest
Pg 19 NRL Rules and Interpretations 2 . Ball Carriers must not run behind an active ‘Block’ or ‘Flat’ runner[s] and disadvantage the defensive line 3 . It will be deemed obstruction if the attacking players who run a ‘Sweep’^ line clearly receive the ball on the inside of the ‘Block’ or ‘Flat’ runner[s] That is what it says cut and paste. If you read as is, you can easily pick apart the inconsistency in wording between the two rules
The Barry
Roar Guru
It’s been an interesting discussion. I spent a bit of time going through the rules when you asked the question in one of the post game articles...
Greg
Roar Pro
Wasn't so much intentionally doubling down as much as I didn't really like my first article as soon as I hit submit and decided to rewrite to make this one. Didn't think roar would put up both. I used to really enjoy triple m's coverage when Bill Harrigan was part of the commentary team pulling up other commentators on what the actual wording of rules are and how they're instructed to interpret them.
Tony
Roar Guru
So can they march forward the whole 10 metres?
Goady
Roar Rookie
Flogging and Dead horse come to mind here mate.
souvalis
Roar Rookie
Mansour is the clumsiest player in the club, no, the entire NRL. He tries to play the ball correctly it’s 50/50 he loses it. Pretty sure his coaches tell him to just roll it back to save everybody the anguish..even then he’ll put it down on someone’s foot.
Nat
Roar Rookie
It was slim pickings for a long while but you did have big Artie Captian the '75 Premiers. Boustead and Jonny Lang were in the '80 GF decider. I'm sure we got 100 things in common John. We're both on a footy site discussing the game. You'd have an case that you're more of a Brisbanite than I am. I'm a Nth Qlder, I only really started taking notice of the S/Shield with Border and Rackerman winning their first Shield. Reds - nah and Roar and Firebirds didn't exist. I was backing the Broncos before NQ came into the comp. True story, I got approached about a job in Brisbane, half way through the chat they mentioned they had Box at Suncorp (which means any event at Suncorp not just Broncos). Of course you do a bit of $ negotiation but I was always coming down when I heard that.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Yep...to be honest I mostly agree with Joey, but hammering the ref that he doesn’t know the rules is pretty ordinary form
Nat
Roar Rookie
I went back and viewed again before posting. Jons and Gould started belating as soon as it happened. While I agree it was a penalty, Johns' explaination on the night was "you can't run behind your own player... against the fabric of the game", no disection of the play at all. Agree or not with the video ref at least he explained why he ruled that way.
soapit
Roar Guru
i dont have a huge opinion on it and i agree theyve been consistent but there are quite a lot that obviously go back if they looked carefully
Monorchid
Roar Rookie
TB, thanks very much for these two URLs. I'll be keeping them. Between the two of them, I now know why the game time is stopped when one side, usually the losing one, rushes to form a scrum in the hope that it can cause a miracle to occur in the precious moments saved. While these poor sods stay bound, the other side seems to have extraordinary trouble locating where the half formed scrum is positioned, and they finally arrive refreshed. This rule, at least in my mind, provides a moment of theatre that no other law or interpretation provides. Greg, thanks for an interesting article.
Big Daddy
Guest
One of the problems is they cherry pick the rules. In the Olam case they were probably correct because it was a trying scoring situation. But if you look at the play the ball and marker situation nearly every one is illegal and no penalties are given as it slows the game down. They've opted to go the six again route and the NRL won't admit it but that's the way they want it. Less penalties makes referee's less vulnerable to criticism and according to them will speed the game up.
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
I agree with the interpretation. It's bloody hard to tell most times if it went back or forward. Even on replay a lot are line ball. If Its not obviously back it's a knock on has been the way forever and it's the right way to do it. The onus on the player to hold the freaking ball as it should be. I watch matches from the 70s where the Refs were still trying to ' get it right '. The number of knock ones let go was appalling. It's one thing we have right.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I don’t think it’s arrogant When the ref in the bunker made his decision he described the rule he was basing it on pretty much word for word as it’s written By saying “they don’t know the rules” at least twice Johns clearly showed he doesn’t. He might be all over the interpretation or the way things have always been but he doesn’t know what’s written in the rule book