Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Future is League

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Edited by unapologetic pedant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because some don't like this rule doesn't mean they are against free-flowing rugby. My point is about the seemingly lack of fairness of it as compared under the current rule to the non-offending team. (And I don't need to see in in action several times to have that view).

If I was the non-offending team then I might sometimes prefer to take a kick at goal and score points instead of just having an extra six tackles  (ie: last minute of the game and losing by one point).

I also might wish to take a penalty to touch and restart my tackles about 40m downfield instead of having to use up my own strength and power to gain those same yards but then only be left with one or two tackles from the same position on the field as where I could have had six.

As I have said previously on this thread, if this rule is to be fair to both sides then why not, once the referee has shouted "restart", allow the captain of the non-offending team up to when the next tackle is completed to be able to tell the referee he wants a kick instead of a new set of 6 ?

That would then also give an indication as to which option is more popular to the players..

Edited by RL does what Sky says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by unapologetic pedant
mis-hits unhyphenated seems to be obscene
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by unapologetic pedant
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


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
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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...