tigergirlz
New member
Not sure the refs know either. Thought Ennis had a case blowing up at the refs over the inconsistency last night.
_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
What is the length of time s player can be held in a tackle?
- Thread starter tigergirlz
- Start date
I think it changes tackle to tackle.
Like you only get penalised if you're holding the player down and it's visually noticeable.
I think 5 seconds is fair but I'm no BenjiMagic96
Like you only get penalised if you're holding the player down and it's visually noticeable.
I think 5 seconds is fair but I'm no BenjiMagic96
happy_tiger
Well-known member
Yeah depends on what the tackle is deemed as well
Whether it is a dominant tackle or a surrender
One on one leg tackles are the big issue Someone pulls off a classical tackle and then doesn't have the right or chance to even get to marker let alone retreat the 10 metres
Whether it is a dominant tackle or a surrender
One on one leg tackles are the big issue Someone pulls off a classical tackle and then doesn't have the right or chance to even get to marker let alone retreat the 10 metres
Some players seem to be able to lie in a tackle for ages and no whistle is blown. Others seem to be up quite quickly, yet somehow they still get pinged. Like in many other aspects of the rules there is no consistency from the refs during a match.
I remember this being a real bug-bear to me during the 2010 semi between the Dragons and WT. Saints players were continually holding our guys down in the tackle for longer than they should've and getting away with it, while our players were penalised every time for being just a nanosecond too slow getting up. I guess it all depends on who can provide the biggest pay cheque on the day!
I remember this being a real bug-bear to me during the 2010 semi between the Dragons and WT. Saints players were continually holding our guys down in the tackle for longer than they should've and getting away with it, while our players were penalised every time for being just a nanosecond too slow getting up. I guess it all depends on who can provide the biggest pay cheque on the day!
tig_prmz
Well-known member
yeh i remember the saints game… a LOT of decision went against us iirc. we didnt seem to get any 50-50 even 30-70 decisions for us.
ref consistency is bad, and what's worse is they are hiding behind the "we are humans, we make mistakes" bs which should not apply to situations like these
ref consistency is bad, and what's worse is they are hiding behind the "we are humans, we make mistakes" bs which should not apply to situations like these
Demonborger
New member
Refs are cheating.
They need to completely rework the ruck rules to become neutral and remove any personal bias a ref has from the equation. It's plain to anyone that 90% of the time the ref goes on his own personal biases against a player or team when deciding how long is long enough.
As it stands refs are cheating, and sooner or later there is a good chance the cheating is influenced by more than a personal bias but rather by financial incentive (for the ref, or even by the league itself). Football and betting are multi billion dollar industries.
If it was up to me i'd move towards using a timed count (perhaps only variation is give a 1 n 1 an extra 2 seconds to get set), and change the penalty to awarding the team another tackle (no more tackle count restart and kick for touch). Maybe also incorporate a rule where if the team crosses halfway in a set they get 2 more tackles and do something about tries from kicks and no conversion allowed from them - all would need to be tested of course to see how it all works in practice.
There is also too much emphasis on both wrestling, size and strength in rugby league and it is making the game boring. The physical bar is raised to a level where the exciting creative players are no longer able to reach leaving us with automatons and teams failing to score each half (42% of halves of football have seen at least one team failing to score).
\
\
The NRL needs to set up a rules development unit that gets the coaches and other knowledgeable people together to look at proposals. And also a testing team made up of recently retired players/squad players/reserve graders that trials proposals in the off season.
They need to completely rework the ruck rules to become neutral and remove any personal bias a ref has from the equation. It's plain to anyone that 90% of the time the ref goes on his own personal biases against a player or team when deciding how long is long enough.
As it stands refs are cheating, and sooner or later there is a good chance the cheating is influenced by more than a personal bias but rather by financial incentive (for the ref, or even by the league itself). Football and betting are multi billion dollar industries.
If it was up to me i'd move towards using a timed count (perhaps only variation is give a 1 n 1 an extra 2 seconds to get set), and change the penalty to awarding the team another tackle (no more tackle count restart and kick for touch). Maybe also incorporate a rule where if the team crosses halfway in a set they get 2 more tackles and do something about tries from kicks and no conversion allowed from them - all would need to be tested of course to see how it all works in practice.
There is also too much emphasis on both wrestling, size and strength in rugby league and it is making the game boring. The physical bar is raised to a level where the exciting creative players are no longer able to reach leaving us with automatons and teams failing to score each half (42% of halves of football have seen at least one team failing to score).
\
\
The NRL needs to set up a rules development unit that gets the coaches and other knowledgeable people together to look at proposals. And also a testing team made up of recently retired players/squad players/reserve graders that trials proposals in the off season.
Unfortunately it remains an extremely grey area, there's no definition or consistency with this ruling.
Basically as soon as the ref calls move, surrender or hold but the player makes no visible effort in letting up then it's deemed a penalty. Lazy tackles and lying all over the players is unnecessary, there are discreet tactics in slowing down the play and IMO the laziness these days is getting out of hand.
As well as that, the poor reffing is also getting out of hand. They need a completely new system and training to recruit refs.
Basically as soon as the ref calls move, surrender or hold but the player makes no visible effort in letting up then it's deemed a penalty. Lazy tackles and lying all over the players is unnecessary, there are discreet tactics in slowing down the play and IMO the laziness these days is getting out of hand.
As well as that, the poor reffing is also getting out of hand. They need a completely new system and training to recruit refs.
GoldXR50Leroy
New member
I think the refs need to slow the game down a little, I can't work out what half the penalties are for these days and they do seem to be very inconsistent with the time allowed in the play the ball.
S
system
Guest
I said it in another thread earlier in the week but if the officials decide you are a big and powerful side you will be given more leeway. It is why we get screwed over year after year
Demonborger
New member
I think the preference for bit and powerful is why the game is/will be under threat as a spectacle. It becomes the criteria for recruitment, to be big and powerful, and skill and football intelligence is an afterthought.
Game will end up been full of Brisbanes, no halves, no consistent creativity, just lots of big, strong and fast guys chasing after bombs. Yippee!
Game will end up been full of Brisbanes, no halves, no consistent creativity, just lots of big, strong and fast guys chasing after bombs. Yippee!
