Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lowdesert

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

Recommended Posts

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/

Edited by Lowdesert
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


Newham Dockers - Champions 2013. Rugby League For East London. 100% Cockney Rugby League!

Twitter: @NewhamDockersRL - Get following!

www.newhamdockers.co.uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one item I am not really in favour of ...

"Under the changes full-time referees will also be used as tough judges to increase the experience in touchline officiating.  "The decision shouldn’t been seen as taking one referee out it should be that we are using three full time experienced referees controlling the game which will ensure greater surveillance of the ruck and the wrestle,"

Many people might think the two can easily interact but the duties of a touch-judge are totally different to that of a referee and they are taking away two officials who do that job every week and replacing them with comparitively inexperienced ones. It will not "increase the experience in touchline officiating", it will decrease it Just because they are "experienced referees" does not make them experienced touch-judgesThey are only doing this to save expense by using those who are already full-time officials and so they don't have to pay those who aren't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

This is one item I am not really in favour of ...

"Under the changes full-time referees will also be used as tough judges to increase the experience in touchline officiating.  "The decision shouldn’t been seen as taking one referee out it should be that we are using three full time experienced referees controlling the game which will ensure greater surveillance of the ruck and the wrestle,"

Many people might think the two can easily interact but the duties of a touch-judge are totally different to that of a referee and they are taking away two officials who do that job every week and replacing them with comparitively inexperienced ones. It will not "increase the experience in touchline officiating", it will decrease it Just because they are "experienced referees" does not make them experienced touch-judgesThey are only doing this to save expense by using those who are already full-time officials and so they don't have to pay those who aren't.

Most will have been TJs.  They already have experience of that.  The same in the UK.

Officials are wired up to communicate so I very much doubt that will be an issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Most will have been TJs.  They already have experience of that.  The same in the UK.

Officials are wired up to communicate so I very much doubt that will be an issue.

Yes, they will "have" been ... but if not having done it for a while then why not use those who currently do it every week ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

Yes, they will "have" been ... but if not having done it for a while then why not use those who currently do it every week ?

TJs have less authority now anyway.  

I think it states in the media statement that it will give more ‘surveillance’ using referees so that, imo, is a vote of no confidence to TJs - unless they are re-training them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


Old Faithful we never lose at Wembley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Edited by DavidM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 


Hull FC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lowdesert said:

TJs have less authority now anyway.  

I think it states in the media statement that it will give more ‘surveillance’ using referees so that, imo, is a vote of no confidence to TJs - unless they are re-training them. 

And just who is that staement from ?  Those apppointing them are hardly to say it is wrong to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Harry Stottle
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume that if a defending team infringes on the first tackle that the attacking team will then get 11 from that moment and that the new 6 won't start from then (ie: to make just a set of 7) ? If the latter then teams might be willing to infringe on the first tackle knowing they are only risking one extra tackle.

However, if the extra 6 are added onto an original completed set, then if a defending team infringe yet again on tackle 5, do they get a set of 6 for the first offence and then have another set of 6 added on for the second ?  The referee would need to carry an abacus to keep count !

Edited by RL does what Sky says
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 


Hull FC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

Suppose the attacking team are one point behind with not much time left ?  They might prefer to have a chance of two points rather than another six tackles and then still not score.

 

47 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

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.

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 


Hull FC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...