Double Movement

[john1420]

Hi all,

I'd like to hear your opinions on something.

I've been following league for 20 years and one rule that I can't understand the logic of, is the double movement.

The object of the sport is to get the ball over the line (obviously with downward pressure) so what is so bad about a double movement?

Too often I see the video ref trying to judge whether or not there has been a double movement or not, and this just opens up the possibility of a bad decision or inconsistent interpretations.

If a player can reach out and place the ball over the line, why should he not be rewarded?

Perhaps there is something in the history of the game that I don't know about that makes the double movement rule make sense?

 

[Nashy]

Because if the player stops moving, he is deemed to be held. If he then continues forward with the ball, it's a penalty.

 

[john1420]

Because if the player stops moving, he is deemed to be held. If he then continues forward with the ball, it's a penalty.

Sure, I get that if he is held and he crawls forward or in some way moves his torso - but simply to stretch out with your arm?

It seems a little odd to me but as nobody ever seems to complain about it I've been assuming I'm the only one :)

 

[Porthoz]

The double movement is about completion of a tackle more than anything else.
A player is considered tackled as soon as the ball of the forearm carrying the ball touches the ground while an opposition player is in contact to said player.
That said, it shouldn't be a penalty to the other team imo, and they should use the same judgement as they do now for a held call: simply make the player play the ball where he was tackled.

 

[john1420]

Here here John!!!!!!!

Worst rule in the game. Well, it's a decent rule IF it's ruled on correctly but 90% of the time it's not.

See, if a player is "held" then promotes his TORSO in order to get over the line then yes, I can undersand the rule. But if he is simply just extending his arm then I still don't understand why that shouldn't ever be a fair try.

IMO scrap the double movement rule. If you can get there, it's a try. End of story.

I'm not alone :)

 

[Big Pete]

I agree with what. What advantage is the player getting by extending his arm? Absolutely none. Just rule no try and play the ball (or hand it to opposition depending on the tackle count).

Well if he's successful he earns his side a try...which is the aim of the game.

Quite an advantage.

 

[Big Pete]

No I read it all, I just found the no-advantage comment silly.

You can't really compare the held call to double movements. When referees call held, it's their own interpretation of when a tackle has stopped there's nothing about it in black or white. On the other hand, when a player commits a double movement it's a clear violation of the rules as the tackle rule only has one universal interpretation.

Attacking teams already have enough of an advantage, giving them more incentive to take each way bets with double movements would only result in more incorrect decisions being made.

 

[Browny]

Can someone tell me why we stop play when there are 2 balls on the field? It's surely not that confusing is it?

 

[Porthoz]

No I read it all, I just found the no-advantage comment silly.

You can't really compare the held call to double movements. When referees call held, it's their own interpretation of when a tackle has stopped there's nothing about it in black or white. On the other hand, when a player commits a double movement it's a clear violation of the rules as the tackle rule only has one universal interpretation.

Attacking teams already have enough of an advantage, giving them more incentive to take each way bets with double movements would only result in more incorrect decisions being made.

That's a fair enough view point, and I do agree it would make for more attempts at trying to get a cheating try. But is it really any different from players trying to influence the refs into believing they scored a try, when they clearly didn't? Because I don't see those attempts being punished with a penalty...

 

[Big Pete]

Different circumstances.

Generally players are penalised or lose possession when a no try results. The only time that doesn't occur is if the opposition infringed first or the player was held up over the line. Now I don't think I need to go over why being held up over the line shouldn't be penalised, because you can imagine how much that would change the game in of itself.

You've got to remember the new interpretation of passing when the ref. calls held is only when it's simultaneous. If the referee screams held held held and the player still plays on and scores it's going to be a penalty.

I think it comes down to whether a penalty is too harsh. Personally I think penalties have too big an influence on the game and would like to see incidents such as double movements result in automatic turn overs.

 

[Big Pete]

They get the advantage of taking an unfair each way bet.

They lose nothing for breaking the rules.

And like I said, playing on despite a tackle being completed is still a penalty. Against either the attacking or defensive side too.

 

[Big Pete]

Yes they do.

The only time the referees call it back is when it's deemed simultaneous.

Yes there is an advantage because there is nothing stopping them from taking an extra dig and testing their luck against a referee. No doubt in the world if this rule was introduced it would result in more wrong decisions and wouldn't deter sides from doing it at all.

 

[Ari Gold]

What is the actual law of a double movement? I always thought it just meant that if a player was touching you and your elbow hit the ground you couldn't make a deliberate action to plant the ball down, but I've seen guys do that this year and have it be awarded a try. Is there some sort of stipulation that says if the player tackling you continues to have a hold of you and your elbow hits the ground you can still extend your elbow if other parts of your body are still moving?

 

[Big Pete]

Any specific examples Ari?

Basically a double movement is when a tackle is deemed completed yet the man carrying the ball promotes it forward.

To complete a tackle the defenders must ensure their opposites arm carrying the ball is pinned down.

 

[Ari Gold]

Any specific examples Ari?

Mitch Rein's try against the Tigers. A tiger grabs him from behind and has a hand on him the whole way. Mitch Rein's left elbow (left arm carrying the ball) hits the ground and then bounces up and lands on the Tigers player. Rein then makes a deliberate movement of his left arm to plant the ball. His elbow definitely hit the ground and the Tiger had a hand on him the whole way, so I'm not sure why he was allowed to make the second effort. Maybe because it bounced up and landed on the Tiger? There might be something that allows for it but I don't know what it is.

 

[Browny]

I thought momentum had to stop and the second effort was cause for the penalty

 

[Big Pete]

Then why add more?

Why shouldn't a team get penalised for breaking the rules?

It's like, yeah, you clearly broke the rules but here's the ball back.

 

[Coxy]

Way I see it, if you think it's a penalty to put your arm out to score a try, it should be a penalty for trying to promote the ball OUT of the in goal if you're caught in there.

Tough to just take the rule away though. Because everywhere else in the field of play you see players crawl, lurch, walk off the mark. If they can do that and put the ball down and score a try that's ****.

IMO, should get tougher on walking off the mark in general play. I HATE it when players get up and lurch forward 2 or 3 steps.