I do agree that any "interpretation should at least nod some acknowledgment to the rule book, even if it then ignores it, and in most of these "interpretations" it does. But not the PTB, because the rule demands that the ball be
"placed" * on the ground;
then
played back with the foot.

If you want to eliminate cheating then simply enforce this exceedingly simple and exceedingly easy to understand rule. It would be the easiest rule in the book, probably. The whole crowd can easily see whether a player places the ball on the ground after regaining his feet. It isn't something debatable.

Then, you can apply your "did he make a genuine effort" to play the ball with his foot, as much as you like. I won't care, because if the ball is correctly placed on the ground, as the rule demands, then the un-co-ordinated player who cannot manage to play it back with the foot gives his team a DISADVANTAGE. He wafts, misses, ball doesn't move: this means it takes EXTRA time for the dummy half to pick it up as they must reach forward for it. So the team gains no advantage.

The reason the "interpretation" is unfair is because ROLLING the ball to the dummy half - a 100% illegal action - as a means of being able to bypass the delay of playing it backwards with the foot, gives the team the advantage of speed and it is both illegal, and a considerable advantage.

So I don't care if you keep the "genuine effort" interpretation. That ain't the problem.

* =#4000BFThe rule actually states the player must "place or drop" the ball to the ground. I assume no referee knows this, as whenever a tackled player drops the ball as he tries to do a PTB, it is always given as a knock-on, but under the rules it is perfectly legal.

I always wondered when "dropping" the ball at the PTB was suddenly ruled as a knock on. I've only seen black and white footage of that!

I agree that if refs enforces the playing of the ball with the foot and no more rolling it'd be easy to see. However it would advantage the defending team. There needs to be a wholesale clean up of the PTB and I think that 2 refs is the only way to do it now that clubs are so well versed in the dark arts of dominating at the ruck. I think refs need to clamp down on the cynical stuff used by defensive teams like:

- Not rolling away fully so the person playing the ball doesn't have clear space and the dummy half can't get into a good position. They're usually just slightly in the way and not too obvious as to attract a penalty but it happens often enough to be clearly a coached technique.
- Staying prone on top of a tackled player looking at the referee for a cue before making any movement.

Same applies to attackers "milking" a penalty by locking in tacklers arms and stuff like that.

Don't mind them rolling it, but if they do, then playing with the foot should in that case be compulsory. I think a proper and legal PTB can be done perfectly fast enough to be fair to both sides.


Agree. All examples though of how nowadays whatever the rule is, coaches and players will find ways to play right up to the boundaries of the rule, to try to gain an advantage. That's what also leads some to have an impression of inconsistency. For example, a player delays the tackle by the manner and speed of getting off. There will come a particular millisecond when the ref has had enough and blows for a pen.

The next set, an opposition player does just the same, but manages to break contact just as that millisecond was about to lead to a pen.

For all intents and purposes, the incidents were identical, yet one is a pen, and one isn't. To a fan of the team being penalised, it looks unfair. Add to the mix that a ref does not time any tackle, in milliseconds or at all; and will vary his informal timing depending on the circumstances even within one match, and you can see it becomes impossible to achieve consistency. Put another way, you can't say that any fan griping at such an individual call doesn't have a case.

Of course, in all tackles are different, and in some, it's possible to get up and off extremely quickly, where in others, the number and angles and tangling up of defenders may genuinely result in a lengthy PTB. So imposing an arbitrary accurate time limit doesn't work.

But if you ignore the time taken, and instead look at the actions of the player subjectively - i.e. however long it took, did he just complete his tackle, and then get off, or has he delayed it, when he could have avoided delaying it?

That would be the ideal rule. Maybe it is the rule, who knows. But that would mean some tackles would be penalised after a very short dleay, and others would have a very long delay, yet not be penalised at all. Which is I think probably where we are today, so maybe the refs are told currently to judge the tackle on its merits, not on the clock. As I say, who knows? They never tell us.

I have to say, this idea of rules being changed on the field but not in the rule book is nothing new. For ooooh, I'll bet for 20 years after the lawmakers decided to allow throwing the ball into the second row, the laws of the game said that, "the ball must be thrown down the centre of the tunnel"...and yes, I have noticed they now throw it to the loose forward..

Year after year they, yes it's always [ithey[/i, come up with, so called new 'interpretations', which are really changes in the laws of the game. A move from, "the ball must be placed or dropped", to "dropping the ball is a knock on", is not a change in 'interpretation', it is a change in the laws of the game and surely anyone who can read can see that.

Well you could always award a bonus point for winning a scrum against the head!

While we are dissecting rules (always a fine pastime) what about this scenario:

Team A kicks off with 30 seconds left on the clock, and a point behind. All team B needs to do is to play those 30 seconds out.

Player B gathers the ball under the posts, meanders forward and falls at the feet of the tacklers, and is as a result tackled with no impact to speak of. The tacklers release him. He does his best WWE "dazed" impersonation, scratches his arrse, and then slowly gains his feet, as if under a 200 kilo pack. He then stands bemused, while he tries to remember what to do, before eventually playing the ball in a manner reminiscent of a nonagenarian with arthritis.

Everybody in the ground is 100% in the abslute knowledge that he is very deliberately and with no subtlety wasting time.

This we see very regularly. Indeed, in any similarly close game this is what you will see. It is our equivalent of soccer players taking the ball into the far corner.

But the rule states:


Note "may" be penalised. But "shall" be penalised.

Now, I entirely understand WHy Player B is doing this, but because it is very specifically against a clear rule, it has to be penalised. And yet never in my life have I seen such a penalty awarded. Has anyone else? It would be great if they suddenly decided to enforce that rule. Jamie Peacock beware!

Nope I haven't FA.

Nor do I think we ever will.

And, much as I'm sure we're as guilty as any other team, neither does it make it right.

And, (he said in the hope of giving birth to another legendary thread) this is of course exactly the offence Mr. Joynt should have been penalised for, not the fabled but mythical voluntary tackle.

So he's now reffed us in 10 games this year. Today he showed all his regular traits, well documented in this thread. As usual some of his decisions were completely baffling-- not only to me and the fans around me but also to the players of both sides.
A new one for me was when he waved his arm in the air seeming to signal another set of 6 and promptly raised that same arm on the very next play signalling last tackle.
He wasn't the reason we lost but he may represent a reason why people turn away from the game.

I'm not 100% certain, but I think on that occasion he had stopped play VERY briefly and was waving time on. Might be getting confused with a different point in the match though.

That said, two other strange decisions (both of which benefited us) was that bit of play where we had knocked on, Widnes lumped it down field thinking it was a free play, we collected it behind goal and played on when he should have taken it back for a Widnes scrum. Also when Widnes were nearly in for a try with about 15 mins in, but Luke Gale tackled the Widnes man without the ball - should have been a sinbin all day long as Widnes would have been in.

Hicks did ok, he wasn't conspicuous and let the game flow. What I noticed was that as the game wore on and the crowd saw we were struggling and clueless, that was when they started blaming the ref for everything, but it wasn't him. Had a good view of the second incident, Gale had to assume the player would catch the ball, so had to make contact, he did then continue it when maybe he knew the ball was loose, but it wasn't that clear cut a pen to me. Agree the 'play on' looked wrong, unless he saw something I didn't.