6 again rule and 1 ref a big hit for the NRL

[Rupert Prince]

48 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

No, I don't think there is a way to access them legally in the UK without paying for them.

My two methods are....

Sky Sports as they are showing them all at the moment.

You also have WatchNRL where you can see every game of every round even if Sky drop their number of games.

Ill think about it on NOWTV.

But in fact even as we speak I've not clicked on anything to see last week's results.  Exept that Canberra won

[unapologetic pedant]

15 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I will say again (and I apologise for sounding like a broken record) this will only work over here if the player in possession is also punished for an incorrect play the ball. Otherwise the defending team will be penalised more than ever and the play the ball will get worse and worse as an attacker looks for the advantage of a fast (messy) play the ball knowing they will get 6 again with any interference judged.

The NRL started this with a much cleaner ruck than us and a properly enforced play the ball which is why it has worked so well over there.

If the NRL stick permanently to one ref, this will dispel any prospect of the RFL moving to two. So the RFL`s phoney alibi for their failure to ensure correct PTBs will remain. A few years back the Aussie PTB was degenerating (one of the most famous sets of six in history in the 2015 grand final begins with a Kyle Feldt shocker), but they didn`t let the rot set in. If one ref and six again give the impression that the tackled player can do no wrong, their PTB standards might start to fall again.

I was accused on another thread of having a bee in my bonnet about correct PTBs and you feel the need to apologise for defending standards. This illustrates the problem our refs have and why earlier this year they made only a token effort to enforce the rules. The players know that refs will be accused of having a bee in their bonnet if they persist in enforcing the rules, and the refs know they can`t depend on the RFL or the media or the fans to back them up.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, unapologetic pedant said:

If the NRL stick permanently to one ref, this will dispel any prospect of the RFL moving to two. So the RFL`s phony alibi for their failure to ensure correct PTBs will remain. A few years back the Aussie PTB was degenerating (one of the most famous sets of six in history in the 2015 grand final begins with a Kyle Feldt shocker), but they didn`t let the rot set in. If one ref and six again give the impression that the tackled player can do no wrong, their PTB standards might start to fall again.

I was accused on another thread of having a bee in my bonnet about correct PTBs and you feel the need to apologise for defending standards. This illustrates the problem our refs have and why earlier this year they made only a token effort to enforce the rules. The players know that refs will be accused of having a bee in their bonnet if they persist in enforcing the rules, and the refs know they can`t depend on the RFL or the media or the fans to back them up.

I completely agree with you. And I would certainly not want to see the Australian play the ball deteriorate again. I saw a few play the balls that would have been pulled up with the two refs. I hope the ref's clamp down on any poor attempts as there has to be the balance in discipline for both the tackler and the player in possession at the ruck.

[dkw]

2 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

Someone mentions fatigue.  Fatigue comes into the game and hence replacements because of the 10 metre (11 yard) rule.  The game is too fast as it is, the easy yardage after 6 tackles is more boring. Castleford will be making their pitch even shorter than it already is...

It seems at the ruck is now effectively to be aboshed?    Not to mention prop forwards. We are still left with the arbitary hairsbreath decision by the referee and the opportunity of a defender to milk a penalty.  You can get a fast game with tick and pass. Whats the obsession with speed?  I can see how why other clubs are interested in Bateman.

Colour me unconvinced as it stands.

Until you've seen it in action how is it you can make a decision? Pretty much everything you said is wrong so far, rucks are not aboshed (I presume you meant abolished?) Props were still a major part of the games though in a different way to the last decade, much more like the ball playing props of old. Defenders arent trying to milk penalties, do you mean attackers? And its not about speed, its about the game flowing better, something pretty much everyone I know has complained about with our current game, its a mess at the play the balls which leads to a very stop start game. 

 

[dkw]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I will say again (and I apologise for sounding like a broken record) this will only work over here if the player in possession is also punished for an incorrect play the ball. Otherwise the defending team will be penalised more than ever and the play the ball will get worse and worse as an attacker looks for the advantage of a fast (messy) play the ball knowing they will get 6 again with any interference judged.

The NRL started this with a much cleaner ruck than us and a properly enforced play the ball which is why it has worked so well over there.

Its been something thats really bugged me for a while, attacking players moving of the mark, moving into defenders who are trying to clear the tackle, rushing play the balls to try and catch a defender in the tackle to milk a penalty etc. It seemed to be policed a bit better this season before it ended so hopefully this continues, I think its as much to blame for the mess at the play the ball as the defenders wrestling in the tackle.

[Dunbar]

13 minutes ago, dkw said:

Its been something thats really bugged me for a while, attacking players moving of the mark, moving into defenders who are trying to clear the tackle, rushing play the balls to try and catch a defender in the tackle to milk a penalty etc. It seemed to be policed a bit better this season before it ended so hopefully this continues, I think its as much to blame for the mess at the play the ball as the defenders wrestling in the tackle.

Completely.  In order for this to work the tackled player has to be penalised for moving off the mark or a poorly executed play the ball.  The tacklers can be penalised for slowing the ruck down or interference with a six again ruling.

If the game gets this right it will be massively improved but it is not just down to the ref's - it is also on the coaches and players to cut out the ######, stop cheating and play the game properly. 

[dkw]

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Completely.  In order for this to work the tackled player has to be penalised for moving off the mark or a poorly executed play the ball.  The tacklers can be penalised for slowing the ruck down or interference with a six again ruling.

If the game gets this right it will be massively improved but it is not just down to the ref's - it is also on the coaches and players to cut out the ######, stop cheating and play the game properly. 

Your last sentence is the most important, and probably the hardest to implement unfortunately. Its pretty obvious that its all coached in to the players to mess around in the tackle, its also stupidly hypocritical when the coaches moan about it as well. 

I mentioned earlier it seemed to me that the later games in the NRL had less infringements so I expect the coaches had changed the way they wanted the players to act in the tackle to accommodate the new rule, which means it worked as hoped for. No one wants to see teams getting 6 again over and over, thats not the ultimate point of this rule, its to stop the infringements happening. 

[DavidM]

28 minutes ago, dkw said:

Its been something thats really bugged me for a while, attacking players moving of the mark, moving into defenders who are trying to clear the tackle, rushing play the balls to try and catch a defender in the tackle to milk a penalty etc. It seemed to be policed a bit better this season before it ended so hopefully this continues, I think its as much to blame for the mess at the play the ball as the defenders wrestling in the tackle.

 

12 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Completely.  In order for this to work the tackled player has to be penalised for moving off the mark or a poorly executed play the ball.  The tacklers can be penalised for slowing the ruck down or interference with a six again ruling.

If the game gets this right it will be massively improved but it is not just down to the ref's - it is also on the coaches and players to cut out the ######, stop cheating and play the game properly. 

This reminds me again of , in my view , a mindset in referees that defending teams give away penalties . How often do you see a ball carrier or attacking team in general commit an offence but they get latitude ... go back and play the ball again, you’ve took the restart from the wrong place do it again , fling yourself down and negate an obstruction , play the ball properly next time , attackers obstructing or knocking into ruck defenders ( ignored ) etc . We see a few in the ruck but so much is let go .No one wants to see penalties but at least apply laws evenly 

[DavidM]

I missed out defenders can’t slow the ptb down at all but ball carriers waiting for a marker or running the clock down can 

[DeadShotKeen]

I was a huge critic of the change (particularly how it was handled) on these pages last week but having seen most of the games over the weekend I will happily admit I might have been wrong at least with regard to my concerns as to how it affects the action. From a pure excitement point of view and promotion of free-flowing "footy" it was undoubtedly a success.

If there is a problem with it just now it's that the commentators were generally very slow to spot the calls and in some cases didn't even make comment on them. The ruck is so quick in NRL that unless you spot the infringement yourself you're reliant on the commentary team so a few times I was scratching my head or making a best guess. Sometimes the main commentator was just indulging a long monologue so completely ignored the fact that a restart call had been made. That will certainly have confused the large numbers of viewers watching for the first time.

The commentators have to view these calls as key game-changing moments and make sure they always vocally announce them as such (eg with a burst of enthusiasm) otherwise there is a bit of a presentation problem. I think I'm right that there were on average only about 6 such calls in each game so that shouldn't be an issue for them. Hopefully we can chalk this down to a bit of initial unfamiliarity and they'll recognise this moving forward.

[Lowdesert]

16 minutes ago, DavidM said:

 

This reminds me again of , in my view , a mindset in referees that defending teams give away penalties . How often do you see a ball carrier or attacking team in general commit an offence but they get latitude ... go back and play the ball again, you’ve took the restart from the wrong place do it again , fling yourself down and negate an obstruction , play the ball properly next time , attackers obstructing or knocking into ruck defenders ( ignored ) etc . We see a few in the ruck but so much is let go .No one wants to see penalties but at least apply laws evenly 

These are the key issues the NRL face and are commented on in the media today.  

Here, we could more or less identify each teams key offenders for attempts to trap/ push into a defender etc etc etc to milk a penalty and then all the arms go up and the bleating begins.  The game should be and can be, better than that.

 I think this rule change could be a step change in the way the game is played.

[Lowdesert]

6 minutes ago, DeadShotKeen said:

I was a huge critic of the change (particularly how it was handled) on these pages last week but having seen most of the games over the weekend I will happily admit I might have been wrong at least with regard to my concerns as to how it affects the action. From a pure excitement point of view and promotion of free-flowing "footy" it was undoubtedly a success.

If there is a problem with it just now it's that the commentators were generally very slow to spot the calls and in some cases didn't even make comment on them. The ruck is so quick in NRL that unless you spot the infringement yourself you're reliant on the commentary team so a few times I was scratching my head or making a best guess. Sometimes the main commentator was just indulging a long monologue so completely ignored the fact that a restart call had been made. That will certainly have confused the large numbers of viewers watching for the first time.

The commentators have to view these calls as key game-changing moments and make sure they always vocally announce them as such (eg with a burst of enthusiasm) otherwise there is a bit of a presentation problem. I think I'm right that there were on average only about 6 such calls in each game so that shouldn't be an issue for them. Hopefully we can chalk this down to a bit of initial unfamiliarity and they'll recognise this moving forward.

I don’t know as I didn’t read what you wrote.

The NRL commentators are usually very good.  Far better than we have.  Ray Warren is an exceptional commentator.  Colour commentators like Sterling, Fittler, Johns etc etc only add to that.  If that’s the only gripe (which I haven’t read anywhere else) it was a waste of 200+ words.

 

[barnyia]

The coaches will be working very hard to find a way of getting around the rule, probably working on the  tackle technique of holding the player off the ground a lot longer before going to ground, easier said than done as  à quick play the ball often results in a leg tackle so letting the attacking team to get on a roll, but hopefully the refs won't give in as it was great to watch the games this weekend, I also hope it doesn't turn into u8s rugby with players just running endlessly from dummy half, 

Only time will tell, if the players and coaches buy into it, it will be great, 

 

[unapologetic pedant]

11 hours ago, barnyia said:

The coaches will be working very hard to find a way of getting around the rule, probably working on the  tackle technique of holding the player off the ground a lot longer before going to ground, easier said than done as  à quick play the ball often results in a leg tackle so letting the attacking team to get on a roll, but hopefully the refs won't give in as it was great to watch the games this weekend, I also hope it doesn't turn into u8s rugby with players just running endlessly from dummy half, 

Only time will tell, if the players and coaches buy into it, it will be great, 

 

What you describe as "a way around the rule" is simply defenders controlling the tackle. There is nothing dubious in defenders prolonging the tackle before it is complete. The ball-carrier tries to find the floor, tacklers try to delay him finding the floor. It`s a contest, an integral part of the game. If the ref deems the contest a stalemate, he calls "held". A distinction has to be made between this and interference that occurs after the tackle is complete, that is after the ball or the ball-carrying arm reach the floor.

[DeadShotKeen]

"Tacklers try to delay [the opponent] from finding the floor"

Hmm well that's a bit risky, isn't it? If you don't put the ball carrier to the ground quickly you can't guarantee they're not going to wriggle out of your grasp or overpower you with a leg drive (or even a late fend if they get their non-carrying arm free). It's a defender's instinct to want to make quick and decisive tackles.

I don't realistically see that as an obstacle. 

[Rupert Prince]

On 01/06/2020 at 12:29, dkw said:

Until you've seen it in action how is it you can make a decision? Pretty much everything you said is wrong so far, rucks are not aboshed (I presume you meant abolished?) Props were still a major part of the games though in a different way to the last decade, much more like the ball playing props of old. Defenders arent trying to milk penalties, do you mean attackers? And its not about speed, its about the game flowing better, something pretty much everyone I know has complained about with our current game, its a mess at the play the balls which leads to a very stop start game. 

My heart is broken that I've upset you over a typo on a small phone screen.

You really don't see defenders milking penalties?

The 11 yard rule makes a mockery of the real skill of real ball playing props.  What we have are big tall props who make quick yardage and are then allowed to stand up and play the ball.

All in the name of speed and yardage. A few years ago we used to watch a game called Rugby League in real stadiums.  Today it's there to be watched at home by people who know nothing, never heard even of Eddie Waring, and watch it on the sofa.

That's the way the game is going,  all for the great god of NRL that has to satisfy is TV advertisers.

[Dunbar]

What I find really strange about this discussion is that the people most upset with a new law designed to reduce the inference at the ruck and open the game up for free flowing rugby are the one's who are most upset about how the game has changed from the free flowing rugby of 80's and 90's.

I would have thought those most against the wrestling of the modern era would be delighted with this new law.

And mostly they are against the change without actually bothering to see how it effects the game anyway.

[M j M]

37 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

What I find really strange about this discussion is that the people most upset with a new law designed to reduce the inference at the ruck and open the game up for free flowing rugby are the one's who are most upset about how the game has changed from the free flowing rugby of 80's and 90's.

I would have thought those most against the wrestling of the modern era would be delighted with this new law.

And mostly they are against the change without actually bothering to see how it effects the game anyway.

I think we're talking about pretty much just one person here, who has barely watched any of the NRL to be in a position to comment. Flip them onto ignore and suddenly the world starts to make a lot more sense.

[barnyia]

The aussie refs do seem to shout out milking alot, so the players realize there's no need to play act as the réf knows what he's doing, 

UK refs are too happy to blow up for a quick rest and a slower easier game to réf, or to try to keep the score  tight or am I being a bit harsh? 

I know the keeping the game tight/interesting is something that goes on over here in France. 

[dkw]

1 hour ago, Rupert Prince said:

My heart is broken that I've upset you over a typo on a small phone screen.

You really don't see defenders milking penalties?

The 11 yard rule makes a mockery of the real skill of real ball playing props.  What we have are big tall props who make quick yardage and are then allowed to stand up and play the ball.

All in the name of speed and yardage. A few years ago we used to watch a game called Rugby League in real stadiums.  Today it's there to be watched at home by people who know nothing, never heard even of Eddie Waring, and watch it on the sofa.

That's the way the game is going,  all for the great god of NRL that has to satisfy is TV advertisers.

I wasnt pointing out a typo, I was just making sure I got your point right so was questioning it. Dont get so upset sweet heart.

I never once said I dont see defenders milking penalties, stop making things up.

Again, I have never mentioned the 10 yard thing, no idea why you even brought it up, other than your standard straw man rubbish.

I have no want to speed the game up, I just want it to flow better and have less referee/water boy intervention. If anything this should slow things down later in the halfs, especially with the forwards as we no longer have them able to do 15-20 minute spells on and off with loads of breaks due to stop starts.

 

[dkw]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

What I find really strange about this discussion is that the people most upset with a new law designed to reduce the inference at the ruck and open the game up for free flowing rugby are the one's who are most upset about how the game has changed from the free flowing rugby of 80's and 90's.

I would have thought those most against the wrestling of the modern era would be delighted with this new law.

And mostly they are against the change without actually bothering to see how it effects the game anyway.

Ive watched a load of older games lately and the game back then was much more free flowing, infringements saw much quicker restarts and far fewer drinks carriers/coaches on the pitch every stoppage. It was a lot quicker than we have now in the speed the game moved on, though obviously not the speed of the players.

[unapologetic pedant]

14 hours ago, DeadShotKeen said:

"Tacklers try to delay [the opponent] from finding the floor"

Hmm well that's a bit risky, isn't it? If you don't put the ball carrier to the ground quickly you can't guarantee they're not going to wriggle out of your grasp or overpower you with a leg drive (or even a late fend if they get their non-carrying arm free). It's a defender's instinct to want to make quick and decisive tackles.

I don't realistically see that as an obstacle. 

It can be risky, but it`s a defensive choice determined by how much control tacklers think they have. Defenders do not necessarily want to make "quick and decisive" tackles. The quicker the completion of the tackle the more quickly the ball can be played. A one-on-one textbook legs tackle usually brings the ball-carrying arm to ground and means an instant completion. No second defender can then legally make contact, so the tackled player can immediately raise the ball-carrying arm and his upper body, the tackler has to release, and the ball can therefore be played very quickly.

The best result for defenders is to both hold the ball-carrier up a few seconds, and then bring him to ground. The option you don`t mention for the ball-carrier is the offload. At the moment too many refs are prematurely calling "held", often the moment they see the ball-carrier going backwards. Since tacklers will still try to bring the ball-carrier to ground, the only effect of the call is to rule out an offload.

[Dunbar]

39 minutes ago, dkw said:

Ive watched a load of older games lately and the game back then was much more free flowing, infringements saw much quicker restarts and far fewer drinks carriers/coaches on the pitch every stoppage. It was a lot quicker than we have now in the speed the game moved on, though obviously not the speed of the players.

Yes, I agree. And the introduction of the shot clock for scrum and line dropouts was to improve this element. 

Now the six restart is try and reduce the stoppages for penalties yet still punish offending teams. All to try and facilitate a free flowing game.

My point was that the posters who want to see a return to more flowing skilful Rugby that this change is looking to encourage seem the most vehemently opposed to it.

[DoubleD]

On 01/06/2020 at 12:48, Dunbar said:

Completely.  In order for this to work the tackled player has to be penalised for moving off the mark or a poorly executed play the ball.  The tacklers can be penalised for slowing the ruck down or interference with a six again ruling.

If the game gets this right it will be massively improved but it is not just down to the ref's - it is also on the coaches and players to cut out the ######, stop cheating and play the game properly. 

Refs already do penalise moving off the mark over here now. I think the ruck is cleaner over here now than it was and don't think it was hugely different to the NRL, before this change. Some games worse than others. This rule change should help, and those that don't adapt will get pumped. But they'll soon learn

[DoubleD]

On 01/06/2020 at 10:15, Rupert Prince said:

Are they free?

Jeez, you know you’re on a Rugby League forum when this gets asked