Tonight's international might as well have been played without a referee.
Tim Sheens says it will ruin the tournament if it continues.
Stephen Kearney says it was painful.
Even the bald incomprehensible one and the wigged know-nowt agree.

Phil Clarke rubs his hand with glee and says it might give us a chance to win....
...I knew he couldn't get through a whole game without reference to Wigan

The refereeing of the ruck was terrible. Moving off the mark and holding down in the tackle until the defence was moving forward offside ruined the game.

The Ozzies made only a few mistakes while NZ made too many being the difference between two physical teams with little creative rugby on show.

Australia were just as guilty at slowing the okay the ball down as the Kiwis, all teams try to do it.
One of the reasons the Aussies and Kiwis produce better halfbacks than we do is that their game is not dominated by the one dimensional dummy half scoots that Stevo loves. They also have hookers who can pass a ball and kick effectively from dummy half. Cameron Smith was m.o.m. by a mile last night for the way he controlled that game.

I see where you're coming from but reckon you're mistaking cause for effect. The reason our game is scoot-dominated is because our half backs are less able at orchestrating other types of play.

He was certainly MoM for the amount of coverage he got on tv due to the length of time he was holding down &/or messing around at the ptb.



My MoM was Thurston for the exquisite timing of his passes that led to most of the Aussie tries.

Agree OF Thurston was quality and with any decent Ref Smith would off been penalised at least twice every set.
I do find it amusing that the Aussie coach (Sheens) moans about the slow ptb when his team were by far the worst offenders yet his club team play a far more attractive style of RL.

The reason Super League is scoot-scoot dominated is because the interpretation of the rules is such that defenders must release and retreat 10 metres immediately after a tackle has been executed in order to manufacture a quick PTB, thus gifting any attacking side with 10 metres of territory on a plate. A consequence of easy metres gained from scoots in orchestrated wide open space is that we don't need to produce half backs with a great deal of skill, craft or guile to open up any defences because they rarely need to.

Bentham let things go at the play the ball that he would have been penalised in super league. Both teams were holding down and messing about at the play the ball and it happened again tonight. Marking square? That seems to have been forgotten about. It seems that the instruction to the refs is let play flow regardless no wonder the players and fans get frustrated.

How one sport can have two different sets of rules is beyond comprehension but RL manage it.

Can't argue with any of that Keith, and i can see the value in gaining cheap yards from dummy half.

Although i would love to see the stats and see if this theory actually proves your point, and that the best "Scoot dominated" sides have actually won the majority of silverware and on a regular basis over the SL era too

TVOC will no doubt have the facts

I can agree with Keith up to a point (that SL is more dependent on quick ptbs and hence more scoots), but if there was a guaranteed 10 yards per scoot to any attacking side then every set of six would make 50 yards before the kick. This simply doesn't happen. Yardage can be effectively curtailed by good defensive line speed.

I'd also like to see the stats for number of scoots as a percentage of total plays.

I actually enjoy scoots (without which we wouldn't see such wonderful tries as Ryan Hall's in the GF) but I wouldn't describe them as the all-defining dominant tactic of Superleague.

Cannot disagree with this post.

Rarely need to? 50% of teams lose very weekend because they are unable to create sufficient opportunities to outscore the opposition. I'd say there was every need to. Instead, I'd argue that we have too few players who are able to, even if we had coaches prepared to encourage them. But, assuming you're right, tell me which English half backs would have been elevated to world standard had our game been reffed to australian standards the last 10 years.

Big change in the England - Wales match when it was back to the quick PTB. No consistency at all and we could easily get a split tournament depending upon who referees. I assume Bentham reffed like that because he was following instructions!

Listening to the voices in his head, more like.

Speed up the ptb and change the rules, bring the defence back 5m instead of 10m. Every one's a winner we get the quick game but at the same time we have to be more creative, would also create less injuries in the collision.

I'm with you on the rule change but I think more injuries in the collision might result, as tacklers would have less time to line up the ball carrier in the way they can at present.

They'll be lined up alright but at a slower speed

Generally the speed of the play the ball depends on how good the defence is. If defenders dominate the collision the referee will normally shout dominant and allow them extra time at the play the ball. If the attacker hits the ground fast before another defender can tackle them round the body they have earnt the right for a quick play the ball and the ref will ref accordingly. If the defender doesn't release the legs, or another flops on the proone body on the floor, they get penalised.

In this position the markers aren't set and a scoot is normally the most damaging form of attack to the defence. Why should the ref reward poor defence and penalise good carries, just to try and pander to some crackpot theory that the game needs to be slower and halfbacks should have to sh*t miracles in 2 metres of space surrounded by defenders?

Problems arise from a lack of consistency. One week a ref will have it perfect. Reffing to reward good defence and good carries. Another week they'll penalise someone for farting at the play the ball. The next week defenders will be able to make a cup of tea and not be penalised.

It's a generally accepted theory among many that we haven't produced a halfback of real quality since the likes of gregory and edwards were knocking around, before the super league era.

I'd suggest this is more to do with a focus on power, fitness, size and strength, with the onset of super league era and professionalism, while a downgraded focus on guile, reading of the game and smarts.......than any theories about the speed of the play the ball.

It's worth a try.....but the underlying problem will be (as always) the inconsistency of the officials and their interpretations of the rules on any given day.

Does SL have enough quality creative halfbacks to make this a success ?

Like it or not the game has to attract punters as a spectacle. Scoots from dummy half from a quick PTB create the spectacle that the alternative dependence on quality half backs might not.

Going back to 5m would be a major step back for the game. I'm not sure that's a serious suggestion?

Try and imagine a game of 5m with todays fitness and professionalism. Think of the line speeds. Teams would make ground up the field so painfully slowly. Even with 10m some teams are restricted to just 25-30 metres in a set when theres good defence and line speed, so imagine the same with 5 metres?

It would be awful to watch. There would hardly be any passing, because the defence would be on the players so fast.

Do we have enough quality HB's? We have 'capable' HB's but rule changes will mean coaching changes, maybe the rules as they are, are the reason we don't appear to have the quality of the past? The game discreetly move on season by season and coaches look for the best ways to exploit the rules as they are and when there is a rule change, they again look for the best way to play them. Moving the line back 5 instead of 10 just means everyone's plan A is thrown in the bin and they have to draw up a new one

Regards injuries and lining people up
Check the video site
[iBen Westwood Big Hit Vs Hull KR[/i

Although he'd still hit Lovegrove, he wouldn't have the full speed and weight behind him that he does hit him with, and Rhys wouldn't be walking like he'd just rolled out of a club at 3am.

Spot on!