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

[dkw]

23 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.

I used to think it was all about each team just picking a play randomly and going with it, then I watched some programme in the lead up to a superbowl and the expert went over plays in the semi finals, showing how each play was set to lead to another then another with an aim to exploit some defensive weakness they had identified with the player talking about their role, the detail was incredible, each player had a specific role in each play, then about 7 downs later they got the touchdown it had all been planned for. I was gobsmacked just how much information the players had to handle, down to which shoulder to lead with in the tackle, which way to move them, even one of them had to contact a player, move him a certain way then release him to make them think they had the run on him. Honestly it was mind blowing and I've a new appreciation of the sport.

[Dunbar]

Didn't want to start a new thread for this so adding here.

We are definitely seeing teams more prepared to concede a six again early in the tackle count as the penalty is less severe (i.e. fewer repeat tackles than conceding later in the count) and the ability to slow a team down and gain some ascendency in defence.

But what is a bit of an anomaly is conceding six again on the first play of a 7 tackle set from a 20 metre restart.

As the first tackle is tackle zero then a team conceding 6 again are not being penalized at all... i.e. the first tackle on a six again is tackle 1 and the second tackle of a 7 tackle set is also tackle 1. So exactly the same outcome with or without the six again call.

As a fast 20m restart is often a good play as the defence is broken then every team will surely slow the first tackle down and concede the six again as they will not suffer any negative consequences

[unapologetic pedant]

33 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Didn't want to start a new thread for this so adding here.

We are definitely seeing teams more prepared to concede a six again early in the tackle count as the penalty is less severe (i.e. fewer repeat tackles than conceding later in the count) and the ability to slow a team down and gain some ascendency in defence.

But what is a bit of an anomaly is conceding six again on the first play of a 7 tackle set from a 20 metre restart.

As the first tackle is tackle zero then a team conceding 6 again are not being penalized at all... i.e. the first tackle on a six again is tackle 1 and the second tackle of a 7 tackle set is also tackle 1. So exactly the same outcome with or without the six again call.

As a fast 20m restart is often a good play as the defence is broken then every team will surely slow the first tackle down and concede the six again as they will not suffer any negative consequences

Somewhere in the vast tangled undergrowth of the six-again, set restart related threads, someone did point out this special case anomaly.

It`s one for the sin bin. No other option. Wish people would say "zero tackle", not "7-tackle set".

[Dunbar]

22 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Wish people would say "zero tackle", not "7-tackle set".

Why is that?

[unapologetic pedant]

20 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Why is that?

I`ve been through this before, but I`ll plough through it again.

For reasons of recognition and consistency, I think it`s important to preserve the number 6 in RL terminology. When we are looking to establish around the world a clear identity, distinct from RU, conveying the nature of the PTB and limited possession is crucial. If we muck around with the figure, it potentially blurs the message.

Also, it keeps the Tackle game in line with non-contact forms, Tag and Touch, which I see as useful development tools in building mass participation and awareness. The sort which will happen under the aegis of RL clubs, rather than separately as is mostly the case currently.

And, when a team regather after an opposition error and use the ball extensively, we don`t describe it as a "7-tackle set". We say "zero tackle". No reason why that term can`t be used for a 20m restart. Most Aussie and NZ refs already say "zero coming" at the point of the tap.

[Dunbar]

9 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

I`ve been through this before, but I`ll plough through it again.

For reasons of recognition and consistency, I think it`s important to preserve the number 6 in RL terminology. When we are looking to establish around the world a clear identity, distinct from RU, conveying the nature of the PTB and limited possession is crucial. If we muck around with the figure, it potentially blurs the message.

Also, it keeps the Tackle game in line with non-contact forms, Tag and Touch, which I see as useful development tools in building mass participation and awareness. The sort which will happen under the aegis of RL clubs, rather than separately as is mostly the case currently.

And, when a team regather after an opposition error and use the ball extensively, we don`t describe it as a "7-tackle set". We say "zero tackle". No reason why that term can`t be used for a 20m restart. Most Aussie and NZ refs already say "zero coming" at the point of the tap.

OK.  I think you are personally overstating the value of this language and consistency but I understand your logic. 

[Phil]

At the moment it seems our refs have a distinct reluctance to use this rule 

[FearNothing]

On 24/06/2020 at 08:27, dkw said:

I used to think it was all about each team just picking a play randomly and going with it, then I watched some programme in the lead up to a superbowl and the expert went over plays in the semi finals, showing how each play was set to lead to another then another with an aim to exploit some defensive weakness they had identified with the player talking about their role, the detail was incredible, each player had a specific role in each play, then about 7 downs later they got the touchdown it had all been planned for. I was gobsmacked just how much information the players had to handle, down to which shoulder to lead with in the tackle, which way to move them, even one of them had to contact a player, move him a certain way then release him to make them think they had the run on him. Honestly it was mind blowing and I've a new appreciation of the sport.

I used to play Gridiron, and people used to look at me in disbelief when I described it as "chess with people"....the further you get into it, the more you see that it's a true analogy.

 

As for set restarts, I'm still catching up with watching all the recorded NRL games (think I'm up to around mid-july) but it seems to work very well....still some slugfest games but overall much more free-flowing, and yellow cards handed out for professional fouls when needed, something that needs to happen more in SL IMHO.

 

In contrast, the SL games so far look to still have much messier rucks and are slower...     

[Phil]

Watching Leeds v Saints and screaming at the screen “six again ffs!!!”

Why aren’t our refs using it? 

[DavidM]

The positives outweigh the negatives , the pace and flow of the game really are something . It’s like it’s on FF at times . I still think at times if there’s a restart in zero tackle or tackle 1 it’s no real penalty at all , and in front of the sticks and you’re level or 2 in front you see holding down and backing the defence with no chance to kick at goal 

[Blind side johnny]

6 hours ago, Phil said:

Watching Leeds v Saints and screaming at the screen “six again ffs!!!”

Why aren’t our refs using it? 

They are. You just don't agree with their decisions. Is this also new?

[Blind side johnny]

2 hours ago, DavidM said:

The positives outweigh the negatives , the pace and flow of the game really are something . It’s like it’s on FF at times . I still think at times if there’s a restart in zero tackle or tackle 1 it’s no real penalty at all , and in front of the sticks and you’re level or 2 in front you see holding down and backing the defence with no chance to kick at goal 

It looks good on TV but I feel that it gives too much advantage to the team with the slight edge. The adoption of this rule combined with the removal of scrums will pretty well eliminate any chances of surprise outcomes, reinforcing a criticism of the sport compared with such as soccer.

[Phil]

15 hours ago, Blind side johnny said:

They are. You just don't agree with their decisions. Is this also new?

Nah I’m a neutral in that game, I just think the Aussies are using it more 

[DavidM]

There’s a few whispers starting in the NRL about the 6 again rule and pace of play contributing to injuries . I don’t know about the correlation there but it is getting mentioned . Are we seeing more injuries due to the rule changes or is it just the nature of the game 

[The Rocket]

Don`t know why Robinson said this, there are plenty of teams who are fine , no more injuries than expected.

I`m wondering if it is because the Roosters put so many players into the tackle, holding players up and driving them back, new equivalent of the wrestle , that his players just aren`t a bit more fatigued than every one else and therefore more injuries.

[unapologetic pedant]

Paul Green, when still at the Cowboys, was the first coach to comprehensively sound alarm bells after only a few rounds of six-again. Neither he then, nor Trent Robinson now, have hard correlative evidence, but their intuitive view is still worthy of consideration.

It would hardly be positive for the game if a substantial number of our best players are out injured at any given time. And given the authorship and perceived success of six-again, the NRL`s current regime will be reluctant to recognise an explicit, causative link unless the evidence became overwhelming.