Part of the reason the defenders do that is that a held call is usually followed by a quick play the ball that often catches the markers not square. I think if we applied the held call in a similar manner to the surrender or dominant call and delay the play the ball, then we'd get fewer incidents like those and also fewer attempts at a 3rd man diving at the legs of a player already held upright by 2 other defenders.

or maybe use the held call sooner? so give more of an advantage to the ball carrier rather than the defenders?
i know ref's use the dominant/surrender call etc but if the defenders don't bring the attacker to the ground within a certain time, then the ref can call held as soon as he deems the ball carrier has done enough to warrant playing the ball stood up.

it's a mess at the moment, 2 men go high, to stop the initial momentum and to wrap the ball up, then usually a 3rd comes in to take his legs from underneath him, they then all pile on top of him and try to turn him on his back and away from his own posts, the referee has sometimes already called held by this point but then chooses not to penalise certain teams for it but are quick to penalise others for it.

back in the day, the first tackle was usually around the waist/hip with another trying to "wrap man and ball up".
for me, as soon as the ball carrier is stopped then the tackle should be called, if it means 30 penalties a game until it gets cleaned up then fine, just clean it up!

But with that approach you also lose some opportunity for offloads. Plus the problem is with defenders wanting to take an attacker to the ground whilst he's got defenders holding his upper body, he's often not entirely still, he's often moving in one direction or another. If we move the held call much earlier we deny the opportunity for attackers to move forward or offload and for defenders to legitimately push the attacker backward.

But if we allow the defence more time (only equivalent to what a surrender call would give the defence) then there's no incentive for them to put another defender in to the tackle to take the attacker down. That defender can be getting back onside instead.

if the ball carrier is "wrapped up" and not making any forward ground then the held call should be then, not 5 seconds later enabling the defenders to take him to ground.

I have no problem with held being called quickly as long as the ruck is well policed, if the attacker is allowed to play the ball quick then they should play it to the rules " rise to your feet place the ball on the ground & play it with the foot, also don't allow them to move forward of the mark to play it" at the moment it is all one sided the attacker is allowed to do as they wish. There is so little contest for the ball now & the way the game is reffed is driving me away from from a game I have loved for over 50 years. To predictable to one dimensional & spontanious plays driven out of the game.

This thread shows the fan problem, everyone is banging on about what's wrong and how it should be reffed - but your opinions as to WHY it's wrong are very different. If you can't all agree with each other on how it should be done then clearly no ref can please all of you!

The refs do seem to have been told to speed up the PTB this year, this has led to a lot of early penalties while the players get the message, but as to the specifics,
a) you're dealing with fractions of a second, there IS no "magic moment" where a ref has to call held, it is all a matter of interpretation.
b) I disagree that "held" should be called quicker as many teams have become very good at offloading in the tackle, quite a few players manage to turn and pass significantly after their main forward momentum has been halted, and I don't want that eliminating from the game. And, by definition, if the player is able to pass, then he is not "held", is he?

The worst thing about the PTB to me is the fact that the refs have clearly been told to ignore the laws of the game on how to PTB. In many games you can go a whole half seemingly without a single player actually playing the ball with the foot, and this is giving the attacking team a huge unfair advantage. EVERY time a player rolls the ball back to the acting half-back it is a clear penalty, it HAS to be "placed" (or "dropped", but that's another story). The ball is almost never "placed", because then this causes the delay while your foot gets to the stationary ball and propels it backwards. it is almost always illegally rolled.

Either sort this out, or change the rule to permit it.

The vast majority of what's wrong with the game is the policing of the PTB both from attack and defence. defenders encroaching the '10m' before the ball has even hit the ground, defenders not getting off the tackled player when held called, defenders messing about, nudging/arm in etc etc, add to that not even square half the time.
Attackers moving off the mark (some by 3-4 metres!), saw a defender penalised for standing his ground as the attacker walked forward into him which is crazy!
Attackers not playing the ball when it's taking the mick is frustrating but given the advantages for the defender at the PTB due to the way the officials apply the laws you can let the vast majority go IMHO

Wow, Hull screwed by VR there

Total joke decision, should be 12-0 then its straight 6-6 from a bent decision

Complete joke . Should have gone 2 try's up but games all square . These decisions can change the game and tbh it wasn't even a debatable decision

Thought it was correct call myself. Hull player originally contesting kick then wraps his arms around player and tackles him in air. It was harsh but right call for me. If they had slowed that try against my team I would be fuming.

Great performance from Silverwood this half. 100% improvement on last week. Play the ball a bit slow but only penalties have been justified. Gareth Ellis just proving my point there.

he's lost the ball before contact - like you say if its against your team you would be livid

its hard to know what to say if your Radford at HT, his team haven't done too much wrong and should be ahead really.

I'd agree with that. What's laughable is last year in a similar situation with Hardaker, except Hardaker didn't try and place hands on the opposition guy and only went for the ball, Stuart Cummings said it was a clear foul, tonight he said it was fine.