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

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I have only just found out; perhaps others already did .....

A report of activities in the Northern Union in 1897 ...

"At the 1897 Annual Meeting it was suggested that two referees, without the assistance of touch judges, would be able to control the game more efficiently. This system of control was put to the test in the Lancashire County Trial Match and found to be impracticable, although improvements In the scrummaging were apparent."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, del capo said:

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.....

Or just add the new six to those already in play (ie the 4 remaining in the set plus the new 6 = 10)

OK, a problem it might cause is would it make it harder for the referee to keep count ? (ie He is used to a tackle count ending at 6 whereas it might become a different number every time).  However, perhaps the video referee or someone else could give him a call via his earpiece when the last tackle is due ?

Edited by RL does what Sky says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Edited by Dunbar
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes 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.

 

"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.

 


Rugby League: Alive and Handling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally - I think whether we like it or not (I like it personally) - 6 again is here to stay.

Reason being: the simple change leads to a visibly faster game and gives 3 mins(?) extra ball in play time. There is no way on earth the NRL will go back to the old ways if they can get 3 mind extra play from such a simple change.

Ball in play time appears to be massive in RL (and other codes) so this one is here to stay IMO. And let's face it... If the NRL does it, then the international game will effectively have to follow. 2 refs was coming eventually, but a simple change like this which had no real costs, will arrive much quicker throughout the game.

Edited by Celt

Rugby League: Alive and Handling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

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...