It's nothing to do with the quantity of points scored in a game. Just because a game is made more free-flowing doesn't mean there are going to be loads of points scored. All it means is that the players won't be spending 2 minutes a tackle rolling around on the floor, with the defenders slowly getting up one at a time. I think he probably wasn't happy during 2008 and 2009, but whilst the club had the same coach, he couldn't come out to the press and say that he doesn't like his coach's brand of rugby.

This shouldn't be seen as a dig at Wigan either. What Wigan achieved last season was impressive. How Wigan achieved it was clever. Other clubs not understanding how they achieved it allowed them to win the league.

However, just as some of the cases in the MP's expenses scandal, just because something isn't wrong, doesn't make it acceptable.

At what point does the value of winning overtake the value of enjoying watching a quality game?

This is the point where somebody refers back to the first half at the KC a few years ago where neither Leeds nor Hull FC put a point on the board but there was some terrific rugby played at a good pace and well officiated.

It was introduced in the NRL 1st grade level in 2009. Two years on has it been adopted anywhere outside the NRL?



The phrase 'a waste of money' also comes to mind.



We've been trying to copy the Australians for at least thirty years, what has that achieved so far?

We've imported the NRL problems though.

Nobody can tell me that the play the ball over in Oz isn't now cleaner and faster than ours under two referees. It reached a stage a few seasons back where the PTB was farcical, in a Wigan pile-on-peel-off kind of way. It annoyed the fans over there and they did something about it; we should too.

That's not to say there isn't scope for clever defence and getting the tackled player onto his back etc etc, but the several second delay after a ref has called held whilst players deliberately let go one by one is just plain daft in my opinion.

Also interesting that Wigan fans often profess that this slowness is preferable to the "talentless scooting", but they ran from dummy half more than any other top6 team in 2010 .

The slowest play the balls (probably by far) last season was in a game featuring Melbourne Storm.

Call held if upright sooner, drop the call of move on the ground (which only invites players to lay on until they hear it) and if the player's push their luck, then penalise. (All this after giving clear instructions prior to the season starting at the culmination of the joint meetings proposed earlier.) You don't need two referees to do that, just one good one. The players and the coaches will soon get the message.

I agree the NRL PTB appears cleaner and is more correct (I've only noted Darius Boyd as a serial offender in the (less skillful and should be illegal, IMO) roll back/step over pretend PTB method) but where can I find the comparison stats as to whether it is any quicker overall? ie. number of PTB's completed in eighty minutes.

My source at Red Hall leads me to believe that the RFL have looked at the PTB in depth over the off-season and are set to introduce a new way of controlling the tackle.

It involves rewarding ball-carriers for 'winning' the collision by instructing tacklers to move immediately. This is a separate call from the dominant and surrender calls already in use and the RFL have been visiting all professional clubs to explain how the changes will work in practice. Whilst this won't necessarily stop the tactics of some of clubs, including ours, of wrestling opponents, it will speed the game up considerably.

I expect to see a LOT of penalties for lying on and interference in the first few weeks of SL, as teams get to grips with this new interpretation.

I think that sounds a reasonable way of going about it.

I think it is one of the biggest challenges in the game to clear up the ruck whilst not removing the contest but that seems a fairly straightforward, fairly easy to understand system

one of the hardest things i find when watching the game with potential new fans is explaining the ruck, because a lot of the time it is a lottery where penalties are given for some, but not for others with no discernible difference between them.

I think calling a 'winner' of each tackle would see us have a much clearer ptb, understand the referees judgement better, and clean up the game somewhat in this area. I have to say i would be very much in favour of that interpretation.

www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 71,00.html Good stuff! Simmons is talking out of his backside. Take Leeds' 2004 and 2005 seasons, we played some bliss rugby league with fast play the balls, and it was far from up the middle rugby. Even if Saints do play up the middle it will still be entertaining. Defence will be pulled into the middle and like Saints won't then be temped to go out wide (AKA Bulls under Noble,) , it would be dumb not to, that will be entertaining.

www.skysports.com/story/0,19528, ... 71,00.html Good stuff! Simmons is talking out of his backside. Take Leeds' 2004 and 2005 seasons, we played some bliss rugby league with fast play the balls, and it was far from up the middle rugby. Even if Saints do play up the middle it will still be entertaining. Defence will be pulled into the middle and like Saints won't then be temped to go out wide (AKA Bulls under Noble,) , it would be dumb not to, that will be entertaining.

Correct and an interesting, pertinent point.

Just to ask a little question, people are saying that it is difficult for one referee to watch the PTB area and keep an eye on the defensive line, could this not be a job of the touch judges? can they not be trusted?

The fact that they're limited to standing on the touchline means they're too far away and often have an obstructed view. Let one on the field of play....and there's your second ref.

I think you've just hit the nail on the head. If the touch judge has an opstructed view of the defensive line at the PTB, they're offside!

Touch judge's officiating offside makes sense to me. Leaves the ref to watch the PTB.

Is it correct though?

Just because the Australians do it first does not mean we are just copying. Perhaps it is the right thing to do and we should have done it ourselves first.

Look at RU copying League on lots of things these last few years, have those choices been wrong?

Who's offside? The player getting back into position who isn't interfering with play? The player in the middle of the field, 30 metres from the touchjudge? Let them onto the field, and they'll see a lot better.

With the communication systems between referee and touch judge they have in place, the TJs are effectively policing offside anyway- listen closely to the ref's microphone on televised games and you'll hear them telling players that the TJ keeps picking them out for offside so to make more of an effort getting back.

Personally I'm in favour of only having one person making decisions out on the field however. Getting more people involved in the decision making process can add to inconsistency and confusion rather than provide clarity - see the final play of the playoff game away to Wigan last season as a perfect example of TJ, referee and video ref working in anything but perfect harmony.

I agree with Gotcha and Richie. This is worrying.