The Roar
The Roar

Spencer Kassimir

Roar Pro

Joined November 2016

15.3k

Views

14

Published

164

Comments

@BallsOutPhD - host of @LeadFromTheSide (formerly @ChatandBusiness) podcast (where we chat with c-suite executives, athletes, and industry leaders about the sports business). Chief Representative Australasia at Sportsbeams (lighting the Super Bowl and Philadelphia Eagles etc), sports consultant, PhD researcher, and writer. https://open.spotify.com/show/4PFq9pOifldbEJaRnKbR9V https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/lead-from-the-side/id1697789587 Tread lightly but dive in head first.

Published

Comments

Thank you. I still should have proofread better!

Moving the goalposts: Should the Rugby codes look to the USA for a new type of upright?

Simply said, I would say, but for the word rugby, they are different sports that stem from pre-split rugby. Nobody needs to join or go away. The same applies to Aussie Rules, Gaelic and even the localized games.

Arguably, RL is more authentic since it employs a play-the-ball, which had an iteration in pre-split rugby until 1878. It being reintroduced in 1906 is essentially going back to the roots of the game.

Moving the goalposts: Should the Rugby codes look to the USA for a new type of upright?

Based on the above line of logic, the hell with all of the elite English public (private) school games of the 1800s as they aren’t “real” football. I’d say bring back mob football but that’s too recent as well. Back to Harpastum because Calcio Storico Fiorentino is clearly too modern.

Moving the goalposts: Should the Rugby codes look to the USA for a new type of upright?

To paraphrase Bill Fallowfield, this is the nature of football codes; rules need to be adjusted to ensure the game is played in a way we all enjoy because coaches and players are not dumb and they will adapt and turn it into something based on possession/attrition, which will inevitably boring to most.

Moving the goalposts: Should the Rugby codes look to the USA for a new type of upright?

Yes!!! This is the ground I was talking about above but could not remember the name. I believe they were free actually so they took them.

Was it really 4m back from the goal line? I would have though it would have been just a bit recessed so the crossbar would have been above the goal line.

Moving the goalposts: Should the Rugby codes look to the USA for a new type of upright?

There is a Guru pattern happening and this website is a great find.

NFL/college (5.64m) is the widest of league (5.5m) and union (5.6m).

I do believe the CFL has a lot of merit but the old “broken H” of yesteryear would be helpful as well.

Moving the goalposts: Should the Rugby codes look to the USA for a new type of upright?

There was once a ground in Sydney that used the gooseneck. I’m blanking on the name at the moment.

Moving the goalposts: Should the Rugby codes look to the USA for a new type of upright?

Thanks Ben. My aim (had to hold back from writing goal) was to examine the adaptation of goalposts in the games that stemmed from rugby. Whatever happens, it should be informed by what has and why things have happened along the way.

Moving the goalposts: Should the Rugby codes look to the USA for a new type of upright?

That’s called water polo.

Moving the goalposts: Should the Rugby codes look to the USA for a new type of upright?

Thanks Nat!
😂
Am I seeing a Rookie to Guru pattern beginning here?

Moving the goalposts: Should the Rugby codes look to the USA for a new type of upright?

Good think you were able to edit after posting.

“Bless your heart, as already mentioned:
“…that is correct regarding the rule change. I originally wrote the first draft of this article during lockdown and forgot to change “is” to “was” before submitting.”

Hope you were able to confirm the rest of the dates and events.”

Moving the goalposts: Should the Rugby codes look to the USA for a new type of upright?

Bless your heart, as already mentioned:
“…that is correct regarding the rule change. I originally wrote the first draft of this article during lockdown and forgot to change “is” to “was” before submitting.”

Hope you were able to confirm the rest of the dates and events.

Moving the goalposts: Should the Rugby codes look to the USA for a new type of upright?

This is holds some water today but was not so until the reduction of the drop-goal from two to only one point. The need for a great drop-goal kicker reduced subsequently.

Moving the goalposts: Should the Rugby codes look to the USA for a new type of upright?

Yes Munro, that is the original game but we’re not in the 1800s anymore. Though it was largely hagiography, Walter Camp’s biography that was written just after his death aptly points out that the game of football (gridiron) would be entirely unrecognizable from today’s (1926’s) perspective in the years since Camp himself played. There has been much more time between then and now.

I highly recommend nearly any book by Tony Collins for a great history of the game or his podcast Rugby Reloaded for a historical and evolutionary understanding of football codes.

Moving the goalposts: Should the Rugby codes look to the USA for a new type of upright?

Hi DJ, good catch as that is correct regarding the rule change. I originally wrote the first draft of this article during lockdown and forgot to change “is” to “was” before submitting.

Moving the goalposts: Should the Rugby codes look to the USA for a new type of upright?

The changing of points is very consistent with other football codes but each has its own subtleties that dictate the breakdown of values. Lest we forget how originally, a try only awarded you an attempt to score a goal and, even when a try was given a point value, it was less than a goal. This isn’t just in RL but American gridiron, Canadian gridiron, and RU etc.

NRL refs are trading trust for correct calls

Well, there’s a reason you’re a Roar Guru and that knowledge is probably part of the reason you’d not have perceived someone’s calls being overturned that way.

More importantly, enjoy Origin!

NRL refs are trading trust for correct calls

Interesting comments Tiger. 1. First name basis is viewed as a way of de-escalating confrontational situations. It may be right or wrong depending on culture and context.

2. I can’t comment on all refs but a standard training taught has one setting the line at 10m and moving up with the line on ‘go.’

Re six again, as a viewer, I’d like to be able to see the reason the call was made beyond the arm wave for ‘six again’ but these guys are moving so quickly and I do appreciate the need to balance focus on getting the call right with communicating the information properly (hence the article).

Re penalty inside 20m, I think that would be interesting to hear from players and coaches about. Momentum for six again and a chance at a 4+2 try inside of 20 is extremely valuable and arguably more so than a 2pt penalty goal.. I think they’ll leave it as is for that reason alone but only the coaches and players would have the real insight.

NRL refs are trading trust for correct calls

Yes, they are fully qualified but if the logic in language is to allow for their calls to be overturned, it makes them look unqualified to viewers.

If you want all of the power to go to the on field referee, the go with the rugby union model where the bunker only serves the purpose of providing the best camera angles for the on-field referee to review for all to see.

NRL refs are trading trust for correct calls

I would agree Tim, that the four tackle rule was not brought in to stop the Saints.
Secretary Bill Fallowfield of the RFL looked to the American gridiron as a way to stop what was known as the “creeping barrage,” which is essentially the same as the infinite number of potential phases in today’s rugby union.
From my research, I believe there is good cause to understand four tackles as being a close approximation or miscalculation since it only provides three play the balls (and not four like American gridiron). It is interesting to note that American football did have three downs until a fourth down was brought in in 1912. Three down football is still the standard for Canada’s CFL. In a similar instance, based on my research, it is also reasonable to believe that the origin of three downs may have been based on a similar miscalculation when looking to baseball’s three strikes. It is possible but there is always the chance we are missing something through time and culture since punting for territory before the final down was more commonplace in those days and this would mean that it was not a miscalculation in origin but rather the game changed around the rules (as usually happens in football codes). History is a funny thing since we can’t ever truly put ourselves in the world view of those we are trying to understand.
http://www.tombrock.com.au/scholars/2017-18-spencer-kassimir

NRL refs are trading trust for correct calls

Fair shake, though that wasn’t the focus of the article. I’d caution thought that this perspective puts an over emphasis on the value of kicking for goal. Teams tend to prefer to maintain moment and a greater opportunity at 4+2.

Likewise, talking about the 1966 introduction of the four-tackle rule is a bit out of context when considering but not limited to the nature of a contested scrum and a short 5-yard retreat/ruck rule which had increased from 3-yards in the previous year.

No, we can kick a field goal or a punt on any down in all of the outdoor gridiron codes whether NFL, NCAA, High School, CFL etc. The only reason I wrote outdoor was an * to arena games that don’t allow punting at all.

NRL refs are trading trust for correct calls

Thank you Spruce Goose.
I grew up in the US having watched rugby league, rugby union, Aussie rules, and even Gaelic football since first coming across them on late-night cable television as a young teenager (will refrain from saying how long ago that was).
Long before coming to Aus, I also played union at uni but have also since done quite a bit of work and formal research into rugby league. As you know RL opportunities are extremely slim in the US (and just became slimmer in North America with SL deciding not to allow Toronto back).
I highly recommend Tony Collins’ podcast (Rugby Reloaded ep. 53 if not mistaken) where, in one show, he listed all of the things RU has borrowed/learned from/stolen (matter of interpretation) from RL for perspective. (Self-plug: I talk RL in North America in episode 27 and return in episode 60 to discuss the NSWRL/AFL attempted merger of 1914 and 1933.)
http://www.soundcloud.com/user-523674328
.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/rugby-reloaded/id1358627156
.
The short of it is, yes, the RU review model you describe below is an effective model but whether or not RL will ever take it for cultural reasons is another story.
PS I do post my work and research for those that are interested on Twitter and Instagram @BallsOutPhd

NRL refs are trading trust for correct calls

Yes, giving on-field referees the ability to watch the film while directing the bunker what to play would be a strong option as it provides the decision making to stay with the referee while allowing the audience to simultaneously view the footage. This is essentially what rugby union does.

Regarding interpretations, these do and will always exist in every sport. The different between a strip in a multiple-tackler ruck vs lost ball at times will come down to perception since one can never truly know another’s intent.

NRL refs are trading trust for correct calls

Hi Nat,

Absolutely wrote this from a neutral point of view though, to be fair, it’s not without years of research. (Do check out http://www.tombrock.com.au/ if you’re interested in “deep track” research into rugby league).

I think the challenge system in open play is quite good but where it is scoring play, think the referee should just make the call or should be reworded when speaking toward the bunker to provide confidence in competency whilst making the correct call.

Spruce Moose (below) gives a great example of rugby union’s model, which, as mentioned, is a fantastic way to put full control in the on-field referee and limiting the role of the bunker to simply zooming in and providing the tools for the aforementioned referee to make the final decision.

Regarding stats, https://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/ has everything you could imagine.

NRL refs are trading trust for correct calls

Hey Tim, good talking about this a bit last night on Twitter and, though the ops manual says this, the result would have been more in alignment with what most would agree should have happened, Canberra’s ball.

However, because the laws of Mutual Infringement are based around an archaic concept where field position is prioritized over ball possession (still in Rugby Union but long dead in Rugby League), the situation was exacerbated. The referee’s job is to enforce the laws of the game and the ops manual exists well outside of this scope where it is not and should not be their responsibility.

@BallsOutPhD

The NRL knew the risks for years about on-field trainers and did nothing

close