: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:36 pm  

Darthchris wrote:

ref never pings the opposition down here for not getting up. would be nice if it was evened up a bit.

that's the problem with refs...they just don't care who wins!

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:42 pm  

Yes he's right, he had to go and face voldermort for the good of the magical and muggle communities.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:18 pm  

Forever FC wrote:

This is true.
I suppose as long as the RFL have not communicated it with any clubs then at least there is a balance there that doesn't give clubs the advantage. Now its a case of will the interpretion stays that way or not as we see these things seem to change weekly

RFL referees department had a meeting with clubs two weeks ago

[Bullseye]

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:00 pm  

eddiewaringsflatcap wrote:

As a Saints fan I disagree with Potter to an extent.

Yes we suffer when teams try to slow us down, and it does not benefit our flamboyant style of play.

And yet, given the expansive rugby Saints play this has always been a tactic many teams try, not a particularly new phenomenon. For example Huddersfield deliberately tried to 'nobble' Alex Murphy and Tom Van Vollenhoven back in the 60's. A quality team has to adapt.

But there is a bigger issue at stake, and that is the quick PTB reducing skill in general.

It has been a common feature of super league to see a little winger scurry into a tackle, and be half way to already playing the ball before he is tackled - i.e he 'surrenders' himself to earn a qucik PTB.

It is cheap and absolutely horrible for the purist to watch. It is followed by the hooker scooting for an easy gain and this has been a centre piece of not only the majority of SL teams tactics, but the British team itself.

It is no cooincidence we have suffered an alarming decline in the standard of our halfbacks (which neatly coincides with the rise of so called star hookers).

The SL has sacrificed skill and vision in place of brute force and a quick scamper. It is so boring to watch.

It has led to the rise of one dimensional players such as Mickey Higham, who we conveniently ignore cannot pass a rugby ball at the expense of the old Andy Greg's who could break a defence down with subtle touches.

The 'case for the defence' long needed to be restated. For too long good, physical defence has been countered by the bizzare need to 'roll away' or 'MOVVVVE!'

I actually would not have been surprised if we had brought in a rule that forced defenders to help the ball player to his feet at one point.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

With a slower ptb players might have to develop some skills rather than simply run at a defence that isn't set.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:12 pm  

eddiewaringsflatcap wrote:

As a Saints fan I disagree with Potter to an extent.

Yes we suffer when teams try to slow us down, and it does not benefit our flamboyant style of play.

And yet, given the expansive rugby Saints play this has always been a tactic many teams try, not a particularly new phenomenon. For example Huddersfield deliberately tried to 'nobble' Alex Murphy and Tom Van Vollenhoven back in the 60's. A quality team has to adapt.

But there is a bigger issue at stake, and that is the quick PTB reducing skill in general.

It has been a common feature of super league to see a little winger scurry into a tackle, and be half way to already playing the ball before he is tackled - i.e he 'surrenders' himself to earn a qucik PTB.

It is cheap and absolutely horrible for the purist to watch. It is followed by the hooker scooting for an easy gain and this has been a centre piece of not only the majority of SL teams tactics, but the British team itself.

It is no cooincidence we have suffered an alarming decline in the standard of our halfbacks (which neatly coincides with the rise of so called star hookers).

The SL has sacrificed skill and vision in place of brute force and a quick scamper. It is so boring to watch.

It has led to the rise of one dimensional players such as Mickey Higham, who we conveniently ignore cannot pass a rugby ball at the expense of the old Andy Greg's who could break a defence down with subtle touches.

The 'case for the defence' long needed to be restated. For too long good, physical defence has been countered by the bizzare need to 'roll away' or 'MOVVVVE!'

I actually would not have been surprised if we had brought in a rule that forced defenders to help the ball player to his feet at one point.

Completely agree with that.

I can't think of too many off the cuff, flair players that GB actually has. British players need to improve their core skills more to compete with the Aussies and Kiwis.

But in Potter's defence, if the RFL haven't communicated with the clubs he has a right to be aggrieved. At the end of the day, a pre-season is there for a reason and the rules need be clear so the clubs can prepare how the side will play for the year.

: Thu Mar 12, 2009 11:00 pm  

i find a slow play of the ball boring to watch, it annoyed me in the World cup and world club challenge and its annoying seeing it happen in the super league

the better teams are getting penalised by this, it allows poorer teams to hold them down and set their defence meaning that breaks are not rewarded as much as they used to be
further the better teams are used to getting up quicker so have less time to set their defence than a poorer team
I think leeds had on average a much slower ply the ball than warrington on sunday

it brings teams closer but only by dragging teams down to a lower level

: Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:29 am  

hopie4ever wrote:

i find a slow play of the ball boring to watch, it annoyed me in the World cup and world club challenge and its annoying seeing it happen in the super league

the better teams are getting penalised by this, it allows poorer teams to hold them down and set their defence meaning that breaks are not rewarded as much as they used to be
further the better teams are used to getting up quicker so have less time to set their defence than a poorer team
I think leeds had on average a much slower ply the ball than warrington on sunday

it brings teams closer but only by dragging teams down to a lower level

I disagree. I've seen some good rugby this year. The stuff Cas are playing is lovely to watch. I want to see a more three-dimensional game with forwards, three-quarters and half-backs having different roles. The game had become too much about dummy-half runs, and Saints were probably the most adept at it, which is why we did so well. It was getting quite noticeable to me that when a team managed to get up fast and stop Saints' dummy-half scampers, then we were struggling to find an alternative. It didn't happen often, but Leeds got pretty good at it.

There will still be a place for a good dummy-half run from a wily hooker, but it'll take it's place as one of the facets of the game, not the dominant feature.

Potter needs to put his soapbox away and coach the lads in how to break down a set defence with good ball play and angled running.

: Fri Mar 13, 2009 12:42 am  

hopie4ever wrote:

i find a slow play of the ball boring to watch, it annoyed me in the World cup and world club challenge and its annoying seeing it happen in the super league

the better teams are getting penalised by this, it allows poorer teams to hold them down and set their defence meaning that breaks are not rewarded as much as they used to be
further the better teams are used to getting up quicker so have less time to set their defence than a poorer team
I think leeds had on average a much slower ply the ball than warrington on sunday

it brings teams closer but only by dragging teams down to a lower level

Dragging down = emphasis on dummy-half scoots and quick play-the-balls? I'd rather see an intense defensive game, that is decided by a piece of skill, rather than who can run the fastest whislt picking the ball up.

As eddie put down so perfectly, the focal point of teams is the hooker, not the halves.

That to me, is a sorry state of affairs.

: Fri Mar 13, 2009 2:42 am  

the idea is too move away from the ruck

: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:48 am  

hopie4ever wrote:

the better teams are getting penalised by this, it allows poorer teams to hold them down and set their defence meaning that breaks are not rewarded as much as they used to be

further the better teams are used to getting up quicker so have less time to set their defence than a poorer team

The two points you make;

All sides will have to develop the skills of beating a man and not just benefit from running at a defence that is not set. Logic says that the better sides will adapt quicker then the weaker teams so no advantage is lost.

Also, if you think the top teams got up and away from the tackle quicker then the weaker sides then you are very much mistaken. Often the higher quality sides are able to lay on for a little while longer without the worry of being penalised where as the weaker sides had very little time to clear the ruck before the ref blew his whistle. Nothing suggested about favouring or anything, it’s just the way of things in sport.