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

[Lowdesert]

Isn’t the rule to try and keep the ball in play?  If it is, what we’ve seen is testament to that.

If the ball is kicked out of play, we lose time with the ball being in play.  I think that’s straightforward.  

Every Coach in the NRL will be trying to find an edge to get around this rule, which they are entitled to.  I’m looking forward to the next round.  We’ve seen some decent games.

[Rupert Prince]

3 hours ago, DoubleD said:

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

Ha...ha...  good fun.

Do I really want to see a 2 foreign clubs on a laptops?  I might... But why should I?

I don't want to pay money to watch ManU v Liverpool.

Only last week half a dozen commentators proclaimed George Williams ("G") as a world beater, after 40 mins.  I think he is a very good player...  I'm a fan ... but his game has not suddenly improved.  But they like to big up themselves and their game, I'd say its not that premium.   

I'll be pleased to pay to see my own club and highlights on BBC.

[unapologetic pedant]

6 hours 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.

Quicker rucks and a more open game are not necessarily the same thing. More ball movement requires a degree of shape that`s harder to organize when PTBs are too quick. I maintain that currently teams are a bit risk-averse, especially from distance, but have never advocated rule changes, rather changes in attitude, and am also conscious that these things swing back and forth. If NRL teams do open up more in the coming weeks it will be as much a change of fashion prompted by the rule change rather than the change itself.

There was a lot of hot-potato stuff at times in the noughties where, particularly on warmer days, later in the game it was more surprising if a team failed to score on a possession, rather like basketball. Something similar happened in the period following the introduction of the 10m offside rule. The 1996 Challenge Cup final which finished 40-32 was, for me, not very satisfying. The media though told us it was a classic, just as they tell us that low-scoring games are dour.

As an obsessive who closely watches every single tackle and ruck, I have always preferred tighter, strategic games, but am conscious of being in a minority. It`s a dilemma. If RL delivered for me but became less popular, it would hardly be cause for celebration.

[Marauder]

6 hours ago, barnyia said:

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. 

Our refs are scared to stamp their own personality on a game now, their left and right of arch are set in stone by the referee's controller.

[Dunbar]

18 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Quicker rucks and a more open game are not necessarily the same thing. More ball movement requires a degree of shape that`s harder to organize when PTBs are too quick. I maintain that currently teams are a bit risk-averse, especially from distance, but have never advocated rule changes, rather changes in attitude, and am also conscious that these things swing back and forth. If NRL teams do open up more in the coming weeks it will be as much a change of fashion prompted by the rule change rather than the change itself.

There was a lot of hot-potato stuff at times in the noughties where, particularly on warmer days, later in the game it was more surprising if a team failed to score on a possession, rather like basketball. Something similar happened in the period following the introduction of the 10m offside rule. The 1996 Challenge Cup final which finished 40-32 was, for me, not very satisfying. The media though told us it was a classic, just as they tell us that low-scoring games are dour.

As an obsessive who closely watches every single tackle and ruck, I have always preferred tighter, strategic games, but am conscious of being in a minority. It`s a dilemma. If RL delivered for me but became less popular, it would hardly be cause for celebration.

I'm with you. While I appreciate all the skill and athleticism that Rugby League players possess, it is the gladiatorial element of the sport that first attracted me (as a fan and player) and still appeals to me the most. 

I love a tight, hard fought forward battle where a team earns the chance to throw the ball around and score some tries.

[unapologetic pedant]

8 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I'm with you. While I appreciate all the skill and athleticism that Rugby League players possess, it is the gladiatorial element of the sport that first attracted me (as a fan and player) and still appeals to me the most. 

I love a tight, hard fought forward battle where a team earns the chance to throw the ball around and score some tries.

On a positive note, notwithstanding our justifiable gripes about technical matters like the PTB, which with a will could easily be rectified, RL has overall retained its essence. There remains a major problem though with perception, even down under. I saw a post on an Australian forum expressing joy at the TV ratings for the Broncos-Eels game "despite it being a blowout". That game was 14-6 up to the 62nd minute and precisely the type of battle you describe. Emphatically not a blowout.

If we compare with cricket`s descent into artificiality, (20-over slogfests, boundary ropes brought in so that mis-hits go for six, deliveries that graze leg stump signalled wide), RL has resisted the pressure to dumb down much better.

[Marauder]

On 03/06/2020 at 18:44, Dunbar said:

I'm with you. While I appreciate all the skill and athleticism that Rugby League players possess, it is the gladiatorial element of the sport that first attracted me (as a fan and player) and still appeals to me the most. 

I love a tight, hard fought forward battle where a team earns the chance to throw the ball around and score some tries.

Yep!!! it was the biff that attracted me as well, I dare say that when BARLA started to boom it was the lads out of the local tap rooms that formed most of the new clubs for the very same reason, our crowds would be four deep right around the ground when we played on a Sunday morning for the first hour, then the blokes would slip off to the the local pubs and clubs for the 12 noon opening,  if the game was a bit tasty most would stop until the final whistle.

[unapologetic pedant]

10 hours ago, Marauder said:

Yep!!! it was the biff that attracted me as well, I dare say that when BARLA started to boom it was the lads out of the local tap rooms that formed most of the new clubs for the very same reason, our crowds would be four deep right around the ground when we played on a Sunday morning for the first hour, then the blokes would slip off to the the local pubs and clubs for the 12 noon opening,  if the game was a bit tasty most would stop until the final whistle.

Do you enjoy being biffed? Some who like to watch biff don`t. After the French revolution some of the women used to watch the guillotine whilst doing their knitting.

[Marauder]

4 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Do you enjoy being biffed? Some who like to watch biff don`t. After the French revolution some of the women used to watch the guillotine whilst doing their knitting.

Retired at 44 so what do you think ?

I would have said I was more of the guy who played hard and fair and could take the biff all day long and was patience enough to bide my time and at 6` 4 & 17 stone was more than capable of delivering justice.

[Dunbar]

One of the concerns I have heard is that the set restarts will lead to blow out scores and so I have had a look at the set restarts awarded and if set restarts significantly effect the outcome of games.  To date, the average per game is 3.3 set restarts per team

We have had 19 games so far in the NRL since the new law was introduced. 

• In 7 of those 19 games, the team awarded the most set restarts won the game
• In 7 of those 19 games, the team awarded the most set restarts lost the game
• In 5 games, either the set restarts were even or the match was drawn
   
• The game with the most disparity on set restarts was the Panthers vs. Warriors in Round 4 (6 to 2 in favour of the Warriors) and yet the Panthers won the game 26-0.
   
• The game with the highest winning margin was the Roosters Broncos (59-0) and in that game the set restarts were 4-1 in favour of the winning team.

I would say that so far any worries about the set restarts massively blowing out the scores to the team receiving them is not being borne out.

[unapologetic pedant]

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

One of the concerns I have heard is that the set restarts will lead to blow out scores and so I have had a look at the set restarts awarded and if set restarts significantly effect the outcome of games.  To date, the average per game is 3.3 set restarts per team

We have had 19 games so far in the NRL since the new law was introduced. 

• In 7 of those 19 games, the team awarded the most set restarts won the game
• In 7 of those 19 games, the team awarded the most set restarts lost the game
• In 5 games, either the set restarts were even or the match was drawn
   
• The game with the most disparity on set restarts was the Panthers vs. Warriors in Round 4 (6 to 2 in favour of the Warriors) and yet the Panthers won the game 26-0.
   
• The game with the highest winning margin was the Roosters Broncos (59-0) and in that game the set restarts were 4-1 in favour of the winning team.

I would say that so far any worries about the set restarts massively blowing out the scores to the team receiving them is not being borne out.

It was a convenient caution against jumping to conclusions that the biggest blowout so far, Broncos 0 Roosters 59, was only a point more than the 58-0 flogging the same club copped under the old rules against Parra in last year`s finals.

What leads to blowouts with six-again will probably be the same as without six-again. Namely, team ahead on the scoreboard play with confidence, trust themselves and each other, take risks which come off, score more points. Team behind on the scoreboard play with diffidence, don`t trust themselves or each other, timing and angles are not quite right, risks lead to errors, more possession and field-position for opposition, score blows out.

And it`s part of the fascination of RL that the same two teams could play again the following week with a completely different type of game.

[Man of Kent]

Wait till Batley play Leeds under six again...

[del capo]

Seems to me that on a kick chase lying on at the first tackle gives a definite advantage to the attacking side as they won't be hawked back 40 metres with a good clearance penalty when their defence line is not set.. Probably in the average coaches manual already.

 Maybe on first/ second tackle the restart should be 20 metres up the park ?

[unapologetic pedant]

On 12/06/2020 at 18:27, Man of Kent said:

Wait till Batley play Leeds under six again...

Why Batley? Where is the hard evidence yet that in the event of a mismatch, six-again will widen the margin of victory?

BTW, I`m not keen on the rule and wouldn`t have introduced it.

[EastLondonMike]

I read yesterday the NRL are also set to discuss further rule changes for next year.  One being the scoring team restarting the game with a kick-off. Something the SL trialled some years back, and dismissed after a few seasons. Which would provide an interesting conundrum should the NRL adopt it. 

The atitude towards tinkering of rules by individual competitions really needs to be reigned in.

[Man of Kent]

6 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Why Batley? Where is the hard evidence yet that in the event of a mismatch, six-again will widen the margin of victory?

BTW, I`m not keen on the rule and wouldn`t have introduced it.

Many of the rules introduced in rugby league in recent times (a) make it better to watch but (b) make it harder to play in terms of physical effort required.

Common sense should tell you six-again is more likely to widen mismatches than otherwise because of increased ball in play time. In the Cup especially. 

There’s probably a point here about a trend towards elitism in professional RL and whether a Cup is still relevant in today’s world but I can’t be arsed.

 

[Nearenough]

Based on no research whatsoever just my impression from what ive seen in last few weeks, is that 6again calls have been most common on 1st/2nd tackles in attacking teams half, teams clearly willing to risk slowing the game down while the penalty for so doin is relatively mild under the new rules

[Dunbar]

26 minutes ago, Nearenough said:

Based on no research whatsoever just my impression from what ive seen in last few weeks, is that 6again calls have been most common on 1st/2nd tackles in attacking teams half, teams clearly willing to risk slowing the game down while the penalty for so doin is relatively mild under the new rules

There is definitely something in that as players and coaches may prefer to sacrifice an extra tackle or two for a set defensive line.

I also think that there is something in the ref's interpretation as well. I have seen plenty of examples of holding down on tackle 4 and 5 that I thought the ref would have called six again on if it was tackle 1 or 2 but let go.  I wonder if the ref's are aware (maybe subconsciously) that a 6 again call late in the count has a bigger impact.

[unapologetic pedant]

On 14/06/2020 at 09:12, Man of Kent said:

Many of the rules introduced in rugby league in recent times (a) make it better to watch but (b) make it harder to play in terms of physical effort required.

Common sense should tell you six-again is more likely to widen mismatches than otherwise because of increased ball in play time. In the Cup especially. 

There’s probably a point here about a trend towards elitism in professional RL and whether a Cup is still relevant in today’s world but I can’t be arsed.

 

If an inferior team effectively used some of the negative tactics on tackles 1 or 2 mentioned in this thread, it could result in a no higher margin of victory despite the extra few minutes ball-in-play time.

Probably the most beneficial aspect of the creation of SL was the move away from our traditional, and ludicrous, focus on knockout competitions.

[Clogiron]

Having watched all the games shown with the 'six again'  rule it seems coaches are prepared to give away a reset on the first two tackles to slow the attack down, only in effect conceding one extra tackle so why not give a eight tackle restart on the first two tackles if a offence occurs. Would that be too difficult for the Referee's to cope with?

[unapologetic pedant]

On 14/06/2020 at 10:18, Dunbar said:

There is definitely something in that as players and coaches may prefer to sacrifice an extra tackle or two for a set defensive line.

I also think that there is something in the ref's interpretation as well. I have seen plenty of examples of holding down on tackle 4 and 5 that I thought the ref would have called six again on if it was tackle 1 or 2 but let go.  I wonder if the ref's are aware (maybe subconsciously) that a 6 again call late in the count has a bigger impact.

 

Refs were previously aware that a penalty on tackle 5 was more significant than a penalty on tackle 1. Ball-carriers likewise in relation to milking a penalty. Defenders have always pushed their luck earlier in the tackle count. And expletives are more likely if your team is penalised on tackle 5. None of this has anything to do with six-again. Someone would have to be old enough to remember unlimited tackles, or under the influence of RU, not to be acutely conscious of the tackle count.

 

[DavidM]

31 minutes ago, Clogiron said:

Having watched all the games shown with the 'six again'  rule it seems coaches are prepared to give away a reset on the first two tackles to slow the attack down, only in effect conceding one extra tackle so why not give a eight tackle restart on the first two tackles if a offence occurs. Would that be too difficult for the Referee's to cope with?

Indeed . Coaches and players will work every rule change and interpretation ! If there’s a penalty you can gain 30 or 40 metres of ground from a kick ... but as you say they don’t mind giving away an extra tackle or two way away from your own end. I’m not sure what you do about that. I do think though that in the attacking 20 you should have the option of kicking at goal . Some teams will just back their defence 

[del capo]

6 hours ago, DavidM said:

Indeed . Coaches and players will work every rule change and interpretation ! If there’s a penalty you can gain 30 or 40 metres of ground from a kick ... but as you say they don’t mind giving away an extra tackle or two way away from your own end. I’m not sure what you do about that. I do think though that in the attacking 20 you should have the option of kicking at goal . Some teams will just back their defence 

Which  is why I have previously suggested  that if the holding down takes place in the first two tackles it should involve a march up the field by 20 meters  to restart or even a penalty kick alternative. The coaching tactics are becoming increasingly obvious with every NRL match on Sky.....

[Liverpool Rover]

7 hours ago, DavidM said:

Indeed . Coaches and players will work every rule change and interpretation ! If there’s a penalty you can gain 30 or 40 metres of ground from a kick ... but as you say they don’t mind giving away an extra tackle or two way away from your own end. I’m not sure what you do about that. I do think though that in the attacking 20 you should have the option of kicking at goal . Some teams will just back their defence 

During one of the games I watched at the weekend the commentator said that it was noticeable that defences were content to give up a restart when in the other teams half. The rule was brought in with the best of intentions to speed up the flow of the game but I wouldn’t be unhappy to see it go.

[Dunbar]

I have watched enough games of Rugby League from the NRL and Super League over the last few years that never seemed to get started due to penalty after penalty being awarded to let slide a team trying to figure out how to best play under the new laws.

Be careful what we wish for... is it 30 penalties a game again?