NRL back to one Ref confirmed + rule changes (Merged Threads)

[Lowdesert]

Messing about at the ruck - 6 more tackles rather than a penalty.  

TJ replaced with Referees (I’m presuming existing TJs will now be doing Refs quals) which will improve identification of wrestling and slowing the ruck down.  

https://www.nrl.com/news/2020/05/13/commission-makes-call-one-ref-plan-finalised-for-2020/

[Southerner]

I like the idea of the six-again rule rather than stopping play for a penalty. It should improve game flow and discourage players to slow down play at the ruck.

One benefit of messing around at the ruck is so that the team can reset after a penalty is rewarded - this removes that benefit

[Sports Prophet]

Don’t like the six again rule. Makes players less accountable and promotes repeat infringements while defending without recourse to conceding a penalty and/or sin bin.

[EastLondonMike]

Not sure how i feel about the rule change. I guess on paper it's not that different really to giving away a penalty and having to face another subsequent set of 6 tackles. Apart from the 10-20 seconds of rest you get from waiting for the kick to touch etc.

Some teams probably wont see the ball for some time.

Will be interesting to see how it is in practise. Not 100% sure its going to have the desired effect of stopping teams slowing down the ruck, though with one ref maybe the ruck will automatically slow down a bit, due to the lack of a 2nd ref policing it.

[Lowdesert]

32 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

Don’t like the six again rule. Makes players less accountable and promotes repeat infringements while defending without recourse to conceding a penalty and/or sin bin.

Not sure but your comment, I think, could be along my thoughts.  

Say a team infringes and Ref calls 6 again.  What if a player then stands in the way, intentionally.  Does that then become a penalty?  We could then have persistent delays leading to team cautions.

 

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Sports Prophet said:

Don’t like the six again rule. Makes players less accountable and promotes repeat infringements while defending without recourse to conceding a penalty and/or sin bin.

While I think you are possibly right about the accountability, I disagree on the repeat infringements.

Teams were committing tactical penalties when defending their line... either to buy some time for a reset defence or to concede 2 points rather than 4/6. These penalties were committed as the defence was under massive pressure, this pressure would only increase if the attacking team had 12 or 18 attempts.

My feeling is this will reduce repeat infringements.

[Lowdesert]

7 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

While I think you are possibly right about the accountability, I disagree on the repeat infringements.

Teams were committing tactical penalties when defending their line... either to buy some time for a reset defence or to concede 2 points rather than 4/6. These penalties were committed as the defence was under massive pressure, this pressure would only increase if the attacking team had 12 or 18 attempts.

My feeling is this will reduce repeat infringements.

Indeed.  Teams were happy to concede penalties.

SL should recognise these issues also.

[Ullman]

21 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Indeed.  Teams were happy to concede penalties.

SL should recognise these issues also.

Looking forward to seeing how this change works in practice. One the face of it I like the idea.

[DavidM]

I’m not fussed by the changes , I’m not a devotee of two refs as the be all and end all anyway . It’s there fine it’s not there fine   . Sometimes one said one thing , one said something else . A big part of the pocket refs job seems to be to rush up to the ptb , point at it then run away . The footy’s coming back anyway and that’s all that matters 

[Welsh RL & RU watcher]

I like the six again, and giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side when the ball spills in the tackle area, the SL GF in 2017 would have been closer and a better spectacle then IMO. Leeds probably still would have won due to the Hardaker situation, but, you just never know. 

[BadlyOverdrawnBoy]

I think that there will be a lot of infringements on the first tackle. The decision may go in favour of the defence, and it is worth doing because if  it goes against you, the effective punishment is just one tackle.

[Sports Prophet]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

While I think you are possibly right about the accountability, I disagree on the repeat infringements.

Teams were committing tactical penalties when defending their line... either to buy some time for a reset defence or to concede 2 points rather than 4/6. These penalties were committed as the defence was under massive pressure, this pressure would only increase if the attacking team had 12 or 18 attempts.

My feeling is this will reduce repeat infringements.

So why would these infringements, deliberate as they are, suddenly disappear? It’s not like an attacking team will be getting a quick play the ball anyway, the ruck is being slowed down to benefit the defensive team. Six again or penalty, neither are stopping the benefit gained by slowing down that next play the ball.

The difference now is, how do you sin bin a player for repeated, non penalised, infringements?

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

So why would these infringements, deliberate as they are, suddenly disappear? It’s not like an attacking team will be getting a quick play the ball anyway, the ruck is being slowed down to benefit the defensive team. Six again or penalty, neither are stopping the benefit gained by slowing down that next play the ball.

The deliberate infringements are to buy time for a defence under pressure.  There is a big difference between an extra second or two from a slower play the ball and the 15 or 20 seconds it takes to blow a penalty and the game to restart.  The latter allows a defensive line under pressure to completely reset.

If players are committing infringements to relieve pressure then it is logical to assume that they will stop doing this if all they are actually doing is inviting more pressure.  I am sure that not all goal line infringements will stop but those that were conceded to buy the defence some time surely will.

4 minutes ago, Sports Prophet said:

The difference now is, how do you sin bin a player for repeated, non penalised, infringements?

Yes, this will have to be tackled.  I agreed with you when you said there may be an issue with player accountability.

[Harry Stottle]

We have always had 6 again for a penalty but that has been by choice, either take a quick tap or make ground by kicking into touch which is most definatley preferable if you are in your own half and especially moreso if it is favourably windy conditions, but if you were in your opponents 20meter area you would most likely elect for 6 again.

Are teams still going to have a choice to kick or do they have to take 6 again no matter what area of the field the opposition is penalised.

And as RL says above, what if two points by kicking a goal is preferable.

[Welsh RL & RU watcher]

Benefit of the doubt should majorly go with the attacking team IMO. There are plenty of defenders out there to stop teams getting to 50 points every match. There is too much advantage to teams who really concentrate on the ruck, hopefully this will be the start of higher scores in the NRL, Bellamy has said he detests 36-34 score lines, well i wouldn't mind a few more high scoring matches by both teams in the NRL. 

[Clogiron]

If the offence occurs within the 20 the attacking team should get 8 tackles.

[Welsh RL & RU watcher]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

 

I think this is a really valid concern with this new law.  There are indeed times when a team would 'take the two' when the defence infringes.  Are we going to be in a position where the referee has to decide if a penalty should be blown to provide the option of the two points based on the status of the game.

I think that is very dangerous territory and asking far too much of referees who are already burdened with too much subjective assessments in how they referee a game.

In the last 5 minutes I would then give the teams the choice of going for the posts, as I've said before IMO when the ball goes out of play or a try is awarded in the last 5 minuted the clock should stop, I detest teams scoring with a minute of play remaining and the kicker being able to run the click down by taking a minute to take the conversion. IMO ban the conversion and get rid of the scrum. 

[Wiltshire Warrior Dragon]

It's not often that I think rugby union has anything to teach league, at least in terms of on-the-field rules.  However, I think there are situations in which, in union, the non-offending captain is offered two options about how to restart the game by the referee.  Perhaps, this would be the solution in the league scenario being discussed here.

Also, I think sometimes refs in league are too slow indicating that a penalty has been awarded and can be taken.  By contrast, I think union refs sometimes allow the penalty receiving team to get on with it very quickly indeed.

It's a long time since I either watched or played union, so stand to be corrected on both these points!

[bobrock]

1 hour ago, Wiltshire Warrior Dragon said:

It's not often that I think rugby union has anything to teach league, at least in terms of on-the-field rules.  However, I think there are situations in which, in union, the non-offending captain is offered two options about how to restart the game by the referee.  Perhaps, this would be the solution in the league scenario being discussed here.

Also, I think sometimes refs in league are too slow indicating that a penalty has been awarded and can be taken.  By contrast, I think union refs sometimes allow the penalty receiving team to get on with it very quickly indeed.

It's a long time since I either watched or played union, so stand to be corrected on both these points!

The union ref doesn't actually allow to play the penalty quickly. He doesn't have to. If you want to play it immediately you just do it, if you want to kick at goal or in touch you just stop with ball in hand and take the time you need to do it. I guess it could be just the same in League. Once the penalty is awarded, if you want to kick it at goal or in touch you just stop and take your time. If you want another set you should just play the ball immediately. As far as I understand the game, It could work.

[unapologetic pedant]

Never sympathised with the hostility towards so-called wrestling. There is a legitimate contest over how quickly the ball can be played, involving technical play from ball-carrier and defenders, founded on principals establishing when the tackle is complete, how tacklers can be onside etc. We lose all that if we try to make every PTB the same, and see it as nothing more than a means of bringing the ball into play. The ball is in play throughout the tackle and ruck. We already see far more calls of "Held" than there used to be. If we lose all respect for the ruck contest, eventually we will have glorified Touch Football with initial heavy contact.

[cookey]

Something certainly has to bedone about illegally slowing the play the ball. It's killing the game for me.

Quite like the idea of an extra six,without allowing the defending team time to reset but for me I'd just get the offending players off the field in the first few minutes. Coaches will complain about playing with 10 men but simply stop slowing the game/flow. It never used to happen but now it seems all coaches want to kill the game.

[MattSantos]

How will the ref determine whether its six again in continued play or a penalty?

Why is there more subjectivity being introduced?

[Lowdesert]

9 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Never sympathised with the hostility towards so-called wrestling. There is a legitimate contest over how quickly the ball can be played, involving technical play from ball-carrier and defenders, founded on principals establishing when the tackle is complete, how tacklers can be onside etc. We lose all that if we try to make every PTB the same, and see it as nothing more than a means of bringing the ball into play. The ball is in play throughout the tackle and ruck. We already see far more calls of "Held" than there used to be. If we lose all respect for the ruck contest, eventually we will have glorified Touch Football with initial heavy contact.

Not sure were to start with this one mate, but I don’t think it’s hostility, more frustration.  Certainly, whoever are the best wrestlers will dominate providing there are enough of them and it’s a times and controlled takedown to the ground, followed by a timed release of each defender.  

The PTB should be the same, or close to the same and increase calls for ‘held’ (I don’t know the stats, just on your comment) will be more to do with Refs trying to speed the game up.

TBH it’s a dogs breakfast of a post.

 

[Lowdesert]

Now the Refs Union is taking action over the already agreed 4 year deal.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/sport/league/referees-union-threatens-action-against-nrl-over-one-referee-proposal

[Rupert Prince]

On 13/05/2020 at 11:49, Southerner said:

I like the idea of the six-again rule rather than stopping play for a penalty. It should improve game flow and discourage players to slow down play at the ruck.

One benefit of messing around at the ruck is so that the team can reset after a penalty is rewarded - this removes that benefit

No, I would just add and extra count to the tackle count... Or more precisely, don't count the infringement.

6 extra is still a big bonus and incentive for the attacker to fake it.