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

[Man of Kent]

Interesting notice from the NRL’s head of football Graham Annesley:

‘NOTICE TO ALL NRL CLUBS – ON-FIELD COMPLIANCE

Since our return to play in Round 3, it’s fair to say the new rules implemented have had a positive effect on the presentation of our game and how it has been publicly perceived. However, we need to ensure these benefits are not diminished over time by tactics intended to slow the game down or gain an unfair advantage.

As everyone becomes more comfortable with the new rules and their impact, it is clear we are starting to see some deterioration in discipline and technique as teams attempt to slow the ruck early in the tackle count, and by pushing the limits on what in some cases may be viewed as bordering on professional fouls at crucial times in the game. It has also been observed that the speed of game is leading some teams to push the referees tolerance of 10 metre compliance, particularly by jumping early or not making a genuine effort to retire 10 metres from the ruck.

There should be no misunderstanding that where referees form a view that teams are deliberately utilising such tactics, the referees have been provided with the power to protect the intent and integrity of the new rules by using the sin bin as a disincentive against non-compliance.

As we prepare for Round 6 and beyond, any Head Coach with doubt about what is required to ensure they retain their full complement of players on the field should contact General Manager of Officiating, Bernard Sutton, for a discussion to clarify what is, and what is not acceptable.

We would obviously much prefer self-regulation rather than having to resort to enforcement by match officials.

Kind regards,

Graham.’

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-premiership/nrl-news-2020-referees-boss-warning-cheating-clubs-new-rules-latest-fixtures-results/news-story/76a8a9187bc8f6cf9e774d3d0d85cb6f

Might be my imagination but I thought at the weekend that Melbourne were deliberately putting men behind the ruck and all sorts to slow the PTB.

Good to see the NRL has the courage of its convictions. Super League take note.

[DavidM]

26 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

Might be my imagination but I thought at the weekend that Melbourne were deliberately putting men behind the ruck and all sorts to slow the PTB.

It wasn’t your imagination 

[Dunbar]

I know I am naive for saying this but I will say it anyway.

I know that coaches are tasked with helping their teams to win games and often that means spoiling the oppositions ability to play but I do wish they took some responsibility for actually making the game entertaining and fair rather than constantly trying to find ways to bend the rules for advantage. 

[DavidM]

9 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I know I am naive for saying this but I was say it anyway.

I know that coaches are tasked with helping their teams to win games and often that means spoiling the oppositions ability to play but I do wish they took some responsibility for actually making the game entertaining and fair rather than constantly trying to find ways to bend the rules for advantage. 

Indeed so . And then they complain about aspects of how the game is and other teams tactics 

[foozler]

Surely it was pretty bleedin' obvious that 6 again in certain areas of the field actually seriously penalises the attacking side, and it doesn't require a rocket scientist on the defensive coaching staff to figure this out and game it. "Free" meters from a penalty kick and restarting 30 metres up field is arguably of more benefit to an attacking side than having six again to try and make those 30 metres.

There should be a choice for the attacking side, you can either have the 6 six again or you can have the kick to touch. And start again up the field.

[unapologetic pedant]

On 16/06/2020 at 20:33, foozler said:

Surely it was pretty bleedin' obvious that 6 again in certain areas of the field actually seriously penalises the attacking side, and it doesn't require a rocket scientist on the defensive coaching staff to figure this out and game it. "Free" meters from a penalty kick and restarting 30 metres up field is arguably of more benefit to an attacking side than having six again to try and make those 30 metres.

There should be a choice for the attacking side, you can either have the 6 six again or you can have the kick to touch. And start again up the field.

Under the old rule there were disparities in the degree of advantage from a penalty, determined by which area of the field it was awarded. A penalty in your own half gives extra possession augmented by the distance from a kick. One inside the opposition`s 10m line only brings the extra possession. It`s an example of an anomaly that we don`t object to because we`re used to it.

This is not a decisive argument for or against the new rule, but we should be aware that after well over a century of amendments, there is no perfect set of rules. 

[Lowdesert]

On 16/06/2020 at 21:32, Man of Kent said:

Interesting notice from the NRL’s head of football Graham Annesley:

‘NOTICE TO ALL NRL CLUBS – ON-FIELD COMPLIANCE

Since our return to play in Round 3, it’s fair to say the new rules implemented have had a positive effect on the presentation of our game and how it has been publicly perceived. However, we need to ensure these benefits are not diminished over time by tactics intended to slow the game down or gain an unfair advantage.

As everyone becomes more comfortable with the new rules and their impact, it is clear we are starting to see some deterioration in discipline and technique as teams attempt to slow the ruck early in the tackle count, and by pushing the limits on what in some cases may be viewed as bordering on professional fouls at crucial times in the game. It has also been observed that the speed of game is leading some teams to push the referees tolerance of 10 metre compliance, particularly by jumping early or not making a genuine effort to retire 10 metres from the ruck.

There should be no misunderstanding that where referees form a view that teams are deliberately utilising such tactics, the referees have been provided with the power to protect the intent and integrity of the new rules by using the sin bin as a disincentive against non-compliance.

As we prepare for Round 6 and beyond, any Head Coach with doubt about what is required to ensure they retain their full complement of players on the field should contact General Manager of Officiating, Bernard Sutton, for a discussion to clarify what is, and what is not acceptable.

We would obviously much prefer self-regulation rather than having to resort to enforcement by match officials.

Kind regards,

Graham.’

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-premiership/nrl-news-2020-referees-boss-warning-cheating-clubs-new-rules-latest-fixtures-results/news-story/76a8a9187bc8f6cf9e774d3d0d85cb6f

Might be my imagination but I thought at the weekend that Melbourne were deliberately putting men behind the ruck and all sorts to slow the PTB.

Good to see the NRL has the courage of its convictions. Super League take note.

I think this is an excellent approach.  Our game is usually referred to as having simple rules, not left to referees interpretation, and despite coaches being coaches, we need to keep it that way as much as possible

The thing that messes it up for me is when a try is scored.  VR people look at every little infringement to disallow or give a try, when those infringements do not get a seconds thought during normal play..

[unapologetic pedant]

22 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

I think this is an excellent approach.  Our game is usually referred to as having simple rules, not left to referees interpretation, and despite coaches being coaches, we need to keep it that way as much as possible

The thing that messes it up for me is when a try is scored.  VR people look at every little infringement to disallow or give a try, when those infringements do not get a seconds thought during normal play..

I don`t accept that the rules are simple, and their interpretation certainly isn`t. The notice from Annesley fails to recognise the trade-off between offside line and ruck speed. A simplistic approach can make PTBs so quick that it becomes literally impossible to be onside anywhere other than behind the goal-line. We are going through one of those periods where good defence is seen as bad for the game.

The VR point is one that Gus Gould was in a lather over this week on channel 9. Paranoid refs do send virtually every try to the bunker, who then look minutely for the slightest reason to chalk it off. If they didn`t, the likes of channel 9 and Fox League subsequently would, and vilify officials for not doing so.

[dkw]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Under the old rule there were disparities in the degree of advantage from a penalty, determined by which area of the field it was awarded. A penalty in your own half gives extra possession augmented by the distance from a kick. One inside the opposition`s 10m line only brings the extra possession. It`s an example of an anomaly that we don`t object to because we`re used to it.

This is not a decisive argument for or against the new rule, but we should be aware that after well over a century of amendments, there is no perfect set of rules. 

Thats a very good point, there has always been a disparity over the location of penalties given so this is no different.

I cant see how anyone doesnt see the advantages to the game from this rule. Yesterday in the first half there were 6 penalties given, and 7 set resets. Previously this would have seen 13 penalties given in one half, so one every 3 minutes pretty much which would have seen a very stop start game, as it was it was a belting contest, especially in the forwards.

[Lowdesert]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I don`t accept that the rules are simple, and their interpretation certainly isn`t. The notice from Annesley fails to recognise the trade-off between offside line and ruck speed. A simplistic approach can make PTBs so quick that it becomes literally impossible to be onside anywhere other than behind the goal-line. We are going through one of those periods where good defence is seen as bad for the game.

The VR point is one that Gus Gould was in a lather over this week on channel 9. Paranoid refs do send virtually every try to the bunker, who then look minutely for the slightest reason to chalk it off. If they didn`t, the likes of channel 9 and Fox League subsequently would, and vilify officials for not doing so.

I was referring to our game having simple rules, which I think it has and interpretation was exactly my point, so I’m lost with your comment mate.

A  player making a genuine effort to be on side is entirely different to a player with his foot on the onside line. Quite obvious a few aren’t making much of an effort and    appear to be testing referees with this.  They are absolutely right in trying it to deal with it early.

I seem to remember similar comments on here regarding minor indiscretions versus VR in SL.  There is no easy answer imo.

[bobbruce]

2 hours ago, dkw said:

Thats a very good point, there has always been a disparity over the location of penalties given so this is no different.

I cant see how anyone doesnt see the advantages to the game from this rule. Yesterday in the first half there were 6 penalties given, and 7 set resets. Previously this would have seen 13 penalties given in one half, so one every 3 minutes pretty much which would have seen a very stop start game, as it was it was a belting contest, especially in the forwards.

Having watched it the reset is a massive improvement in the flow of the game. I’m sure there will be issues going forward of teams giving restarts away when defending high up the pitch. Maybe it can be looked at that you get a penalty when you’re coming off your own line upto the your own 40 anywhere else and it’s a restart. 

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, Lowdesert said:

I was referring to our game having simple rules, which I think it has and interpretation was exactly my point, so I’m lost with your comment mate.

A  player making a genuine effort to be on side is entirely different to a player with his foot on the onside line. Quite obvious a few aren’t making much of an effort and    appear to be testing referees with this.  They are absolutely right in trying it to deal with it early.

I seem to remember similar comments on here regarding minor indiscretions versus VR in SL.  There is no easy answer imo.

Over the years I`ve become allergic to the word "simple" when applied to RL, partly because of the irritating comparison with the supposedly more complex RU. Also, I`m convinced a larger audience could be attracted to RL if more people realised it`s not as simple as it`s portrayed. 

I watched RL for years before I comprehensively read the rulebook. The rules, particularly relating to tackle and ruck, were nothing like as simple as I had assumed. Attempts to over-simplify them can have negative consequences unforeseen by administrators who too easily believe the "simple game with simple rules" idea.

 

[Dunbar]

2 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Over the years I`ve become allergic to the word "simple" when applied to RL, partly because of the irritating comparison with the supposedly more complex RU. Also, I`m convinced a larger audience could be attracted to RL if more people realised it`s not as simple as it`s portrayed. 

I watched RL for years before I comprehensively read the rulebook. The rules, particularly relating to tackle and ruck, were nothing like as simple as I had assumed. Attempts to over-simplify them can have negative consequences unforeseen by administrators who too easily believe the "simple game with simple rules" idea.

 

I agree with this and I also think the tactics in Rugby League are much more complex than people give them credit for - even within the game.

If you watch the likes of Trent Robinson at the touch screen talking through the execution of a series of plays you learn just how much thought is given to executing on a game plan in our sport.

We don't celebrate this nearly enough and we dumb down our commentary and analysis far too much.

 

[Lowdesert]

3 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Over the years I`ve become allergic to the word "simple" when applied to RL, partly because of the irritating comparison with the supposedly more complex RU. Also, I`m convinced a larger audience could be attracted to RL if more people realised it`s not as simple as it`s portrayed. 

I watched RL for years before I comprehensively read the rulebook. The rules, particularly relating to tackle and ruck, were nothing like as simple as I had assumed. Attempts to over-simplify them can have negative consequences unforeseen by administrators who too easily believe the "simple game with simple rules" idea.

 

Thanks.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, Celt said:

"The likes of..."

You got some other examples?

If so I would love to see them.

Trent's piece was brilliant, and I have saved it and use it to show people about RL etc etc, but it seems to be trotted out all the time by people.... And I can't find much comparable stuff from other coaches.

If you could give me a few more examples it would be really helpful.

 

Matt Elliot does a reasonable job in the 'coaches corner' part of the NRL.com website.

https://www.nrl.com/tv/shows/coaches-corner/

[DoubleD]

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I agree with this and I also think the tactics in Rugby League are much more complex than people give them credit for - even within the game.

If you watch the likes of Trent Robinson at the touch screen talking through the execution of a series of plays you learn just how much thought is given to executing on a game plan in our sport.

We don't celebrate this nearly enough and we dumb down our commentary and analysis far too much.

 

It doesn't help that the commentators over here are not very articulate or knowledgeable

[DoubleD]

2 hours ago, Celt said:

"The likes of..."

You got some other examples?

If so I would love to see them.

Trent's piece was brilliant, and I have saved it and use it to show people about RL etc etc, but it seems to be trotted out all the time by people.... And I can't find much comparable stuff from other coaches.

If you could give me a few more examples it would be really helpful.

 

I've seen Ian Watson do a very good piece before. I agree that some players are better than others (Brough I seem to recall is pretty good)

[unapologetic pedant]

6 hours ago, Celt said:

Thanks - will have a root about for Watson's one.

As we can see from your response, these nuggets are few and far between. 

This kind of reinforces the stereotype that RL is a simple game for simple people etc etc.

The best analyst to regularly appear on TV here was Brian Smith who, when he coached Hull FC, partnered Clive Tyldesley on Granada`s RL coverage. This was about 30 years ago and I have not heard anything as good since.

Trent Robinson at the touch screen is more illuminating than in a general discussion because of the specific visual illustration of his analysis. For the same reason a forensic pundit on TV commentaries can be similarly effective, but the lead commentator has to also be clued up to make it so.

There was a brief period in the nineties when Clive moved to the BBC for Soccer coverage. Which had me dreaming of his becoming their RL commentator. What a difference that could have made.

[unapologetic pedant]

11 hours ago, DoubleD said:

It doesn't help that the commentators over here are not very articulate or knowledgeable

The philosophical argument put by philologists is that the more extensive your vocabulary, the better your understanding of the world around you. A narrow vocabulary limits the ability to recognise, and the desire to look for, greater complexity. 

Even our more experienced, successful players and coaches struggle to communicate their knowledge. It could be a sound investment if the RFL sent the more prominent ones back to college.

[bobbruce]

9 hours ago, Celt said:

He does indeed mate. Thanks. I didn't' mention his stuff, as he is miles behind Trent i find (in terms of detail), and also it seems to have died a death since last year.

Still - worth a mention i agree.

Jonny Lomax pieces are usually good. 

[THE RED ROOSTER]

Phil Gould nails it:

 

Quote

 

@PhilGould15

 

Same rules for these two teams as every other team. Same with Panthers and Storm last night. No blowouts in either game. No easy points. Great attack and desperate defensive efforts. Can’t blame rules for big scores. Blame sub-standard teams.

 

 

[RP London]

On 19/06/2020 at 18:38, DoubleD said:

I've seen Ian Watson do a very good piece before. I agree that some players are better than others (Brough I seem to recall is pretty good)

Kevin Brown was always good when i saw him do it.. 

If you watch the NFL coverage on SKY and a bit on the BBC highlights they are really good at showing the intricate nature of plays and would love to see that more ( i know there is more time to look at these things in an NFL show with the stop start nature of the game but their analysis is fantastic)

[unapologetic pedant]

21 hours ago, RP London said:

Kevin Brown was always good when i saw him do it.. 

If you watch the NFL coverage on SKY and a bit on the BBC highlights they are really good at showing the intricate nature of plays and would love to see that more ( i know there is more time to look at these things in an NFL show with the stop start nature of the game but their analysis is fantastic)

There`s an element of Parkinson`s law about NFL coverage. That is, with an hour of action spread across 3 to 4 hours, the perceived intricacy expands to the level required to fill the available time. American sports, like their entertainment industry, are brilliant at projecting themselves. Would NFL analysts be as plausible if they spoke like Barrie McDermott?

Not saying the emperor has no clothes. Just not quite so elaborately attired.

[RP London]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

There`s an element of Parkinson`s law about NFL coverage. That is, with an hour of action spread across 3 to 4 hours, the perceived intricacy expands to the level required to fill the available time. American sports, like their entertainment industry, are brilliant at projecting themselves. Would NFL analysts be as plausible if they spoke like Barrie McDermott?

Not saying the emperor has no clothes. Just not quite so elaborately attired.

While i agree with part of that (as i pointed out pretty much what you said in my original post, the stop start nature of the game lends itself to heavy analysis) the game is also an intricate game with the different plays designed specifically and each player with a job to do within it. For me there are still good and bad pundits within the coverage and Osi and Jason Bell are much better than some of those on SKY, they are also extremely charismatic and explain it with great detail but also zeal. With regards talking like Barrie McDermott i find him difficult because i dont think he explains it well so no they wouldnt be as plausible if they didnt explain it well, if we're talking accent then i think they would, there are plenty that do within RL circles. 

The point of me bringing NFL in is they use technology well, they have charismatic people explaining intricate plays etc. We wouldnt need to do it as much as they do as we dont have the space to fill (as i previously said) but we need charismatic people doing it, we need them explained well. The BBC can do this for the NFL and do it well, I dont understand why those producing the RL highlights show dont do it better.

[unapologetic pedant]

16 hours ago, RP London said:

While i agree with part of that (as i pointed out pretty much what you said in my original post, the stop start nature of the game lends itself to heavy analysis) the game is also an intricate game with the different plays designed specifically and each player with a job to do within it. For me there are still good and bad pundits within the coverage and Osi and Jason Bell are much better than some of those on SKY, they are also extremely charismatic and explain it with great detail but also zeal. With regards talking like Barrie McDermott i find him difficult because i dont think he explains it well so no they wouldnt be as plausible if they didnt explain it well, if we're talking accent then i think they would, there are plenty that do within RL circles. 

The point of me bringing NFL in is they use technology well, they have charismatic people explaining intricate plays etc. We wouldnt need to do it as much as they do as we dont have the space to fill (as i previously said) but we need charismatic people doing it, we need them explained well. The BBC can do this for the NFL and do it well, I dont understand why those producing the RL highlights show dont do it better.

Broadcasters are locked into an unshakeable view that RL is simple and hence not susceptible to analysis. This stems from the culture of our heartland communities not the game itself. The NFL`s "charismatic people" are products of American society. Our ex-player pundits have all the charisma of a sausage roll.

Mark Chapman presents both RL and NFL for the BBC. His assumption of the complexity of NRL is reinforced by their ex-players, his assumption of the simplicity of RL is reinforced by our ex-players.

An instance in the 2017 challenge cup final encapsulates this. The first try came from a Tommy Leuluai kick on play 5. Had it been play 6, it would have been straight down the Hull winger`s throat, but with this player still up in the line, the kick found grass, was reclaimed by Wigan, and Bateman scored. The key tactical point of the kick, the reason why it resulted in a try, was that it was on play 5. The commentary team, and the half-time pundits, neither mentioned nor even noticed it (apart from a brief, tentative comment from Jonathan Davies). All we had was John Kear wittering about backspin on the ball. Can you imagine NFL commentators being unaware of the significance of whether a play was third or fourth down?