‘Six more tackles’ to be considered by RFL

[RP London]

11 hours ago, Dunbar said:

This change has not been introduced to suit the 'strength and power game'. In fact it is universally agreed that the increased ball in play time will suit the smaller, more athletic and mobile forwards while the extra fatigue will open up space for the players who are good on their feet.

In fact, I would say it is the exact opposite of a law change to suit the strength and power game.

"there are none so blind than those that WILL not see" springs to mind mate.

[Lowdesert]

14 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Defenders are often in the moment when making and completing a tackle. They`re not necessarily thinking strategically, just looking to win this discrete contest.

A lot of ruck penalties are not simple cases of holding on too long, they are more technical matters relating to the body positions at the point of completion of the tackle. Even when the illegality is sheer length of time, defenders will rightly go to the edge of what`s allowed. It`s no more their job to facilitate quicker ruck speed than it is to obligingly step aside to let the ball- carrier through unopposed.

It can be a myriad of reasons.  We know defenders try and slow the game down and that coaches coach that.

The points I am making are that delaying the PTB has been around for donkeys years.  Also, although not uncommon donkeys years ago, attackers trying to 'win' a penalty is more prevalent now -  in another myriad of ways and reasons.  It is now even more in the attackers interests to gain advantage by professional means.

[Tonka]

It's a big rule change and if we don't adopt it over here it'll create a headache for the international rules.

[Man of Kent]

For me the killer stat is 57.31 minutes ball in play time. That’s about the same if not often better than soccer and, as a percentage of the match time, considerably better. 

[dkw]

You cant watch 15 minutes of one game and make an educated decision on it, your basing your entire argument on something you know nothing about, thats just pointless.

[Harry Stottle]

It won't be good for teams populated with ageing player's, now where is Kayakman?

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

Thought this was a pretty good article on the subject. Shows how the ‘6 again’ rule was a follow-on from the decision to go back to one ref, given the NRL has been plagued by ruck ‘management’ for years and one ref risked making it even more sticky in there... 

 

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/why-annesley-not-v-landys-deserves-credit-for-ruck-revolution-20200601-p54yfr.html
 

 

[DoubleD]

On 01/06/2020 at 20:11, Man of Kent said:

Key stats: https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/why-annesley-not-v-landys-deserves-credit-for-ruck-revolution-20200601-p54yfr.html

‘There were 303 play-the-balls for the round; that’s 30 more than the average in rounds one, two and the 2019 average.

Nine penalties per game; down from an average of 13 in 2019 and 14 in rounds one and two. There were 72 penalties across the round compared to 101 in round three last year.

The ball was in play an average of 57 and a half minutes per match. That’s up four minutes on round three last year. The Panthers-Knights game had 72 minutes of ball-in-play, albeit with 10 minutes of extra time.

There were 6.25 tries per game, which is half a try per game up compared to rounds one and two but still less than the average 6.6 in 2019.

There were eight line-breaks per game, which is 0.6 a game higher than 2019 and 2.75 per game higher than in rounds one and two.

The drop to one referee did not slow down ruck speeds relative to 2019 averages. The average play-the-ball speed was 3.45 seconds in round three compared to 3.48 seconds across 2019.’

I've been banging the drum about 2 refs being nonsense and now they've got rid and combined with a rule to clean up the ruck, it's wonderful. Captain's challenge is also a great initiative too. Now let's get these rule changes unified and leave any future ones to the IRL.

I'm quite liking this V'landy's chap though, cuts through all the BS and just gets stuff done. Bravo

[BadlyOverdrawnBoy]

From what I've seen so far, I'm in favour. The only possible negative I can see is if a team is 1 or 2 points ahead close to their own line in the last minute, they could run the clock down by slowing the ptb and the attacking team could do nothing about it.

[Dunbar]

8 minutes ago, BadlyOverdrawnBoy said:

From what I've seen so far, I'm in favour. The only possible negative I can see is if a team is 1 or 2 points ahead close to their own line in the last minute, they could run the clock down by slowing the ptb and the attacking team could do nothing about it.

From what I saw in the last round, if a player interferes and the ref deems it a professional foul and a sin bin offence then he can blow a penalty and send the player off for 10.

In the scenario you say here (which is a worry I agree) then I suspect that punished would come into play.

[BadlyOverdrawnBoy]

Isn't every ptb slow down a professional foul?

[jamescolin]

Just clarify for me. If a side is given a penalty are you saying they must take another six tackles and CAN'T have a kick at goal instead?

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, jamescolin said:

Just clarify for me. If a side is given a penalty are you saying they must take another six tackles and CAN'T have a kick at goal instead?

The six again is instead of blowing a penalty so there is no choice involved.

From what I understand so far:

This is only for a slow ruck.  If there is foul play or if the markers are not square then it is a penalty as usual.

A penalty that was deemed to be a professional foul (i.e. a very deliberate attempt to stop a team from scoring a try) can still be blown and the player sent to the bin for 10.  I believe that if a side were deliberately and continually slowing the play the ball at the end of a match then this action would be taken but that hasn't occurred yet.  

[Dunbar]

22 minutes ago, BadlyOverdrawnBoy said:

Isn't every ptb slow down a professional foul?

In this context I of course mean a foul that warrants a sin bin.

Otherwise we would be playing 7 aside if every ruck penalty meant a sin bin.

[saddleworth]

38 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

In this context I of course mean a foul that warrants a sin bin.

Otherwise we would be playing 7 aside if every ruck penalty meant a sin bin.

Here we go again with the demand and insistence upon rule changes at every opportunity. All we require are  officials who have the strength and courage to implement the rules, indicate to the players the consequences of cheap shots combined with slow ptb etc. The flow of any game is governed by the lack of discipline as applied to the players. 

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, saddleworth said:

Here we go again with the demand and insistence upon rule changes at every opportunity. All we require are  officials who have the strength and courage to implement the rules, indicate to the players the consequences of cheap shots combined with slow ptb etc. The flow of any game is governed by the lack of discipline as applied to the players. 

I am not going to argue with that.  If the game were played (and refereed) in the way that followed the laws of the game then this change would absolutely not be needed.

Is it better than it was before the NRL introduced it with all the penalties blown for ruck interference?  at first glance yes but time will tell as a lot of variables have not yet come into play.

Should we have needed the change?  No but unfortunately it seems like we did.

[ATLANTISMAN]

15 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I am not going to argue with that.  If the game were played (and refereed) in the way that followed the laws of the game then this change would absolutely not be needed.

Is it better than it was before the NRL introduced it with all the penalties blown for ruck interference?  at first glance yes but time will tell as a lot of variables have not yet come into play.

Should we have needed the change?  No but unfortunately it seems like we did.

Is the CORRECT ANSWER:)

 

Paul

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, saddleworth said:

Here we go again with the demand and insistence upon rule changes at every opportunity. All we require are  officials who have the strength and courage to implement the rules, indicate to the players the consequences of cheap shots combined with slow ptb etc. The flow of any game is governed by the lack of discipline as applied to the players. 

The "strength and courage" needs to come from the RFL, not the poor old referees. A bit of integrity from coaches and players wouldn`t go amiss either. When this year the statement was issued requiring players to make a genuine attempt to play the ball with the foot, the refs were faced with a mass refusal to comply. Refs can only deal with individual, isolated instances. Collective, sustained, brazen recalcitrance is the responsibility of the governing body to resolve.

[Dunbar]

28 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The "strength and courage" needs to come from the RFL, not the poor old referees. A bit of integrity from coaches and players wouldn`t go amiss either. When this year the statement was issued requiring players to make a genuine attempt to play the ball with the foot, the refs were faced with a mass refusal to comply. Refs can only deal with individual, isolated instances. Collective, sustained, brazen recalcitrance is the responsibility of the governing body to resolve.

I agree wholeheartedly with this and I would say the weight of responsibility falls even further to the coaches and players (and fans).  I get fed up listening to people talk about football as if its full of cheats when our players willfully and cynically break the laws of the game on almost every play.  It used to be that the players play to the laws of game and those not doing so would get penalized.  Now, the laws of the game and how it is actually played bear no resemblance to each other at all.  You may as well throw away the laws of the game when it comes to the scrum, ruck and play the ball as we don't really bother with them any more.