Can you be a bit more specific.

The ultra-quick PTB is one of the factors that's been cited as contributing to the decline in the quality of half back play, where scoots from acting halfback can be used to make easy yards. When England play under the NRL-style rules which allowed longer holding of the tackled player, they looked clueless in attack.

TBH this is one of those strange issues where the quality of the game is lower with a quick PTB but the entertainment factor is higher in average games. I'd seriously question whether that is true at the best games though.

Look the Poms get beaten again and again.....and then they look at the NRL and say "Hey, they hold down in tackles. If we hold down in tackles then we'll be as good as them".

They miss the point completely of course.

Remember all the other changes they couldn't work out?



I remember when the NRL was working under unlimited interchange and the Poms were still on a limited interchange. The idea was that the Australian players were not going to be anywhere near as fit.

Of course the Aussie players were on a completely different fitness level to England and as usual England got thrashed.

It was really simplistic thinking because Poms just don't understand the game any more.


Look at the 2000 World Cup. The RFL comes out with a soccer ball because they think it will cut down Australia's handling skills. Australia and New Zealand, on behalf of every other team, managed to get the ball shaped to at least look like an oval, but it was still ridiculously round.

And did it stop Australia or New Zealand...no.


Its stupid simplistic views of the game that just has England chasing its own tail.


The best part of it all?

In 2009 the RFL decided it will allow players in Super League to lie on the tackled player so they can catch up to Australia and New Zealand.

In 2009 the NRL adds a second referee to speed up the process of the tackle, clear the ruck quicker and have a faster play the ball.

here is a thought why don't the just become one organisation and change all the rules at the same time

Because it would be an NRL take over of SL, and quite frankly the NRL has better things to do than run SL.


Besides, you can change the rules all you like, at the end of the days the poor understanding of the game over in England would still mean you'd be decades behind the NRL anyway.


Look over at New Zealand, with the Warriors. The people that advise the Warriors still don't get it. They still don't have a good understanding on the game, and they play in the NRL!

The WC was won by players that played in Australia, were coached in Australia, many grew up here, some were even born here...and it was coached by an Australian in Wayne Bennett (Sorry Stephen but its true!).

At the end of the day....Australian won.

I do think that it is daft that there's 1 set of rules/interpretations in super league, 1 for the NRL and a different one for internationals. Surely it would make sense for the governing bodies to come together and hammer out a set of global rules & interpretations that actually work.

Although we all know it'll never happen as the RFL couldn't organise a booze up in a brewery.

Is that ideal though?

I mean we have one set of intentional rules, and that's fine.

And the difference between those rules and the ones the NRL or SL use is tiny.


The fact is, the NRL is a bit like formula one. They have a set of rules, but because its a competition where limits are pushed and tactics are made, every so often the rules need to be re-adjusted to keep the game from being manipulated too much by coaches or the advance of player size, skills or athleticism.

SL just gets cause between the two and as Ive said, chasing its own tail.

sounds like SL is going down the path the nrl went down years ago with slowing down the PTB via wrestling.

2 refs this year has cleaned up all the wrestling and the quality of the game has improved out of sight.

now its the teams that play the best football that win not the best wrestlers and hence why teams like cronulla and storm have struggled this year

slowing down the PTB has been a very important part of Aussie RL for ages and clearly an area English RL hasnt focused on properly

getting 3 men into the tackle is crucial for a slow PTB

This is just a saints fan moaning because they have based there game around quick play the balls. Its good that in SL it is changing from this, it was getting ridiculous a few years back where the tacklers barely had any time to get off the tackled player. It's getting better in SL IMO and after a few years when the players get used to it the skill of half backs and hookers should increase not decrease, relying on quick scoots from dummy half decreases the need for skillfull halfbacks IMO.

The reason the NRL seems to have speeded up is because it has been cleaned up not speeded up, and this is because of the two referees, which should be brought in to SL if we can find enough quality referees.

The play of the balls this season is ridulously slow. Yes it should take skill to get round defences but shoudnt the defenders be skillful enough to stop players after a quick play of the ball.

Yes you should give enough time to get up but watching Warrington this year every tackle they are trying to turn the player on their back. aAso a lot of players are having enough time to turn around to make sure their players are set before getting up. Where is the skill in that!

We had this discussion at work and a few people ( supporting different teams) thought this year was more like Union than ever. I pay my money to see skillful play not 3/4 players lying on the floor for 30 seconds each tackle.

Im sorry I would rather watch open flowing rubgy for my £20 a week rather than slow play of the balls.

This has been a irritation for me all season. Not least because our (Quins) players are jumping off so quickly at the mo in fear of being penalised. Our recent defeat against Huddersfield really brought this home. Not arguing about the result or anything but the difference between the duration the tackled player was held (or turned on his back) was quite staggering.

What made it particularly annoying is that, while we could do little else right in attack that day, we won the vast amount of collisions - even against the size of some of the blokes Hudds have. And likewise in defence won most collisions there. In Aus they seem to have the dominant tackle thing sorted but here there seems no clear pattern. Surely if we win the collsion with ball in hand the opposition should be jumping off us straight away, and if we win the collision without the ball that is a dominant tackle and we should be allowed greater time to release the player.

Not in the mind of Mr Halibut it seems. Perhaps it will get 'cracked down' on for next season but this season it's a real inconsistency in our game.

fast PTBs are why English RL will never catch up to australia. legally slowing down the PTB is a very important part of the game.

if you think its all about fast PTB then you are missing half the action

I'd question the entertainment factor of watching defenders standing with their hands on their heads watching the opposition run past them or being penalised for being offside.

Wholehartedly agree.

Absolute rubbish fella, have a look at the only time we troubled the aussies last time we played them, we should play to the strengths of the players avadible to us at any one time.