What Union could learn from League..

[Jaguares]

but a lot of the law changes seem to stem from people trying to make the sport more appealing to the masses.

That would be one of the reasons why the union is more popular than the league, perhaps...

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

But they do have a way of defending against it; they have to be aware of the tactic, and be prepared to put one or two extra players back to defend against it, which will make their front line defences one or two players short, which in turn, might encourage the attacking team to run the ball at the slightly weakened defensive line.

I'm in full favour of this being implemented as law for the reasons stated. Less front line defenders frees up space for attackers. Positive kicking is also rewarded.

I disagree with this proposal:
► Offside lines 5m back from the ruck (and maul)

If we talk about the law of unintended consuquences, this would lead to more bish bash rugby, more pick-and-go and less passing. The attacking team essentially has an extra 5m to bulldoze forward at little risk. Perhaps a "halo rule" is enforcable to counteract this because the proposal has merit. A "halo rule" keeps the offside line where it is once defenders are within 5 yards either side of the ruck/maul. Further out, the offside line is 5 yards back. While it would be hard to enforce (unless we looked at two on field refs a la rugby league), it would ensure there's more space out wide to beat a blitz defence.

 

[wigan_rlfc]

That would be one of the reasons why the union is more popular than the league, perhaps...

I think that it has more to do with the way Union has been spread globally by various bodies while League tended to stay in its 'heartlands'. There was also active surpression of Rugby League in some areas where it looked like it was to threaten Unions dominance.

 

[Chikwa]

I think that it has more to do with the way Union has been spread globally by various bodies while League tended to stay in its 'heartlands'. There was also active surpression of Rugby League in some areas where it looked like it was to threaten Unions dominance.

Very interesting and educational comments! In the Uk Public schools were not exposed to league.That was certainly the case in my day.League was seen as the sport for the "working class hard man"Interestingly my brother attended rugby school which is where the sport reputedly began.I like the analogy of chess and draughts and that is how we (being the public school boys made a comparison between the two)Its good that some of the contributories to this thread have actually played both codes and can offer useful insights to the rules. How did league become so popular in Australia ? It has made no impact whatsoever in South Africa.

 

[McTallshort]

One of the major things is that refs in union are given far less scope to judge whether a tackle (or any other action) is dangerous.
The laws they are given mean that a lot of binary decisions are made - often meaning that people are penalised for things that clearly are not all that dangerous.

I know I see a lot of tackles punished that I would personally not complain about had they happened to me.

Essentially I feel league embraces the fact that it's a contact sport more than some sections of union do.

This

Some of the tackles in union that are judged to be dangerous are a joke. You see the same tackle in league and its righty applauded. Agree regards the refs too, the game is the centre of attention not the offical, its something league does better than any sport

 

[Sam Owen]

One of the major things is that refs in union are given far less scope to judge whether a tackle (or any other action) is dangerous.
The laws they are given mean that a lot of binary decisions are made - often meaning that people are penalised for things that clearly are not all that dangerous.

I know I see a lot of tackles punished that I would personally not complain about had they happened to me.

Essentially I feel league embraces the fact that it's a contact sport more than some sections of union do.

This

Some of the tackles in union that are judged to be dangerous are a joke. You see the same tackle in league and its righty applauded. Agree regards the refs too, the game is the centre of attention not the offical, its something league does better than any sport

I agree whole heartedly. I understand player safety but neither game aint tiddlywinks. Its full contact!

I mean look at the guys in the 70s, 80s and 90s, back then a lot of these tackles wouldve been a spectacle in BOTH Union and League. Of course not the head highs that just ended up in fighting, Im talking about the ones that look dangerous/ouch. Even some spear tackles wernt pulled up, not that I condone that, Im just pointing out yesteryears brutal hardmen. These days if it looks ouch the ref just blows it up. If the head rocks with no arms even touching the head its either "high, no arms" or "dangerous tackle" with no explanation??..

Like I said before, absolutely no illegal tackles I totally get that and Im all for it but they shouldnt takeaway the only real spectacle when you're on defence which is a good solid hit. Hell if they're gonna run at you hard its only right that you tackle them hard, so the next time he runs at you he'll have his hands on the handbreaks before he runs at you, you take away, turning his 100% into a 90 something.

Look at Grid Irons biggest hits, its celebrated from the audience and high fived or chest bumped from team mates. Im not saying refs pull it up all the time but every now and then a perfectly good textbook effort gets penalised because of how horrific it looks. Dont takeaway the wow on defence, both codes.

 

[smartcooky]

This

Some of the tackles in union that are judged to be dangerous are a joke. You see the same tackle in league and its righty applauded. Agree regards the refs too, the game is the centre of attention not the offical, its something league does better than any sport

Could you specify which types of tackles, penalised in RU and not in RL that are "a joke"?

Looking at the two set of Laws, they pretty much coincide on everyting as regards dangerous tackles...

High (above the line of the shoulders)
Late
Early
Without the ball
leading with forearm/point of shoulder/closed fist

Until recently, you might say shouilder charge is a difference, but even that has been outlawed from RL now.

 

[SelimNiai]

I think its the ones where a player lets lifted, driven back and lands square on his back. Now thats deemed "dangerous" but in League (and up until a few years ago in Union) thats considered a goot tackle. Heck, even if its pinged now I still call is a good tackle.

 

[smartcooky]

I think its the ones where a player lets lifted, driven back and lands square on his back. Now thats deemed "dangerous" but in League (and up until a few years ago in Union) thats considered a goot tackle. Heck, even if its pinged now I still call is a good tackle.

Well that is a dump tackle, and is not a PK in RU, although some referees do (incorrectly IMO) penalise this.

If there is a lift and twist component, then it should be pinged.

 

[SelimNiai]

Well that is a dump tackle, and is not a PK in RU, although some referees do (incorrectly IMO) penalise this.

If there is a lift and twist component, then it should be pinged.

Thats sort of the point, in this rigorous pursuit of safety something that isnt really that dangerous is being lumped in with the dangerous tackles that can cause injuries. In League the refs do have a clearer view of whats dangerous and illegal and whats not.

 

[tenpm]

The impression I got from Smartcooky's explanation (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that he believes there is nothing wrong with union's laws on dangerous tackles, but the referees sometimes misinterpret them and penalise legal tackles. If this was the case, then neither changing the law nor giving the referee a greater control over their judgement will solve any problems - the latter may worsen them, in fact. A possible solution would be clear instructions to referees on what is and isn't an acceptable tackle.