Player Diving On The Ball

[Davet]

Mich

Yup - fly hacking a loose ball can lead to difficulties... to put it mildly.

IF you can kick it into touch then you have a space to reorganise.

But, if you are the last defender with opposition players bearing down on you then dropping on the ball is only a short respite - if you have supporters arriving that may be good enough. But if you drop on the ball and they stay on their feet they can simply take the ball off you.

If you drop on it and they drop on you then YOU get the PK.

You pays your money and you takes your choice... as they say.

Your conundrum is the price your team pay for letting matters get to that stage - and you have no easy options... ain't that part of the fun!?

 

[Mich the Blind Side]

Your conundrum is the price your team pay for letting matters get to that stage - and you have no easy options... ain't that part of the fun!?

spellcheck; centres that haven't washed the brylcreem off their hands!

 

[Davet]

Confession time

I am an ex winger.

In my view the role of a centre was to prevent the ball getting out as far as his winger.

They are all greedy incompetents who cost their team points...

 

[OB..]

Going off your feet used to be a very disadvantagous thing to do. If you were off your feet anywhere near the ball you used to pay the price in skin ripped off you by the boots of opposition and allies alike. The modern prohibition against rucking is probably the major cause of bodies on the ground around the ball in today's game.

I don't know of any factual evidence either way on this, but I do know that players used to be proud of the marks on their backs because it showed they were "doing their job properly".

Rough or foul play has been illegal since 1888, and trampling on a player was specifically made illegal in 1979. That led to arguments that "it wasn't trampling because his foot was moving backwards, so it was rucking." It could still be illegal if assessed as dangerous play, and I suggest that ripping skin off would qualify as such.

 

[Rit Hinners]

Skin-ripping was an exaggeration.

I'm not as sure as you are about players being "proud" of cleat marks but they were definitly considered as a normal, expected occourance.

It would be quite an ordinary occourance if a player on the ground was "stepped on" by every opposition player that drove over them at a ruck and not unusual if some of their own team stepped on them also.

For three to five players, bound tightly together, to effectively drive away the opposition a degree of non-chalance about stepping on players on the ground is required as, in that situation, you cannot pick and choose where you place your feet.

The recent (last decade or so) attitude towards stepping on players is, I consider, one of the reasons that we nolonger see a definitive RUCK in today's game.

 

[OB..]

For three to five players, bound tightly together, to effectively drive away the opposition a degree of non-chalance about stepping on players on the ground is required as, in that situation, you cannot pick and choose where you place your feet.

The recent (last decade or so) attitude towards stepping on players is, I consider, one of the reasons that we nolonger see a definitive RUCK in today's game.

I suspect you are remembering the early days when NZ demonstrated that sort of technique. Once other teams had worked out how to oppose it, it was rarely effective. You do sometimes see effective rucking of that sort with a few players, and even counter-rucking, but I don't think we can turn back the clock. Allowing feet on players would simply generate injuries, which is why it got banned.