Playing the man, not the ball

[penultima_thule]

In the thread Australian NRL star to try his hand at NFL]

Ravenman make the point …

My very rough understanding of rugby is that the defense wouldn’t be allowed to flatten the two non-ball carrying players, nor would the non-ball carrying players be allowed to knock defenders on their asses.

The point is valid, which got me thinking.

In none of the contact sports played in Australia anything but incidental contact between defenders & attackers not permitted e.g. rugby league, Aussie rules, soccer, netball, field hockey etc. You could add in hurling and gaelic football as well, The nearest to an exception being rugby union and whilst what goes on in rucks & mauls is a dark mystery what constitutes legal play is all about who is in possession of the ball and where it is.

Out of this ethos comes the phrase “playing the man, not the ball”, also used in business and political circles to describe usually underhand and unethical activity where the target is less on the prize and more on the collateral.

This is in contrast to many North American sports NFL, CFL, NHL and to a lesser extent lacrosse where “off the ball” contact is broadly legitimate.

Could anybody enlighten me as to where this distinction originates?

[Telemark]

@penultima_thule

This is in contrast to many North American sports NFL, CFL, NHL and to a lesser extent lacrosse where “off the ball” contact is broadly legitimate.

While there is plenty of contact away from the puck in Hockey (which is played all over northern Europe as well as North America) you can’t really check a player without the puck. What you can do is fight for position, but that’s quite distinct from a check. It’s not like football where blocking players not in possession of the ball is part of the game. But note that even in football there are limits to what you can do when a player doesn’t have the ball. In general, you can’t tackle them unless they have the ball.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@penultima_thule

In the thread Australian NRL star to try his hand at NFL]The nearest to an exception being rugby union and whilst what goes on in rucks & mauls is a dark mystery what constitutes legal play is all about who is in possession of the ball and where it is.

I’d suggest it isn’t an exception. The rucks and mauls aren’t “man-to-man” interactions, they are rather more a fluid set-piece and the ball has to be there for them to be legitimate.

Blocking, tackling and holding without the ball will get you a penalty in pretty much every circumstance.