Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Total Rugby League

‘Six more tackles’ to be considered by RFL

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

But with no tackles left to use.

Yet they would have been in that attacking position via the penalty kick downfield and with 6 tackles still to use.

Furthermore, while the non-offending team might be given 30 seconds or so rest because of that kick to touch, the attacking team will have also been given a rest from contuinally feeling the force of those tackles.

I don't want to appear rude but you have told us that you don't watch the NRL.

So some of us are commentating on what actually happened in the games with this new law in place (although early days yet of course) and you are making assumptions based on what you believe would/could happen.

Watch a few of the games this week and then let's have a chat about it.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I don't want to appear rude but you have told us that you don't watch the NRL.

So some of us are commentating on what actually happened in the games with this new law in place (although early days yet of course) and you are making assumptions based on what you believe would/could happen.

Watch a few of the games this week and then let's have a chat about it.

I don't need to watch it to know it could happen ... and when it does happen then who benefits from it as opposed to how the rule is now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RL does what Sky says said:

I don't need to watch it to know it could happen ... and when it does happen then who benefits from it as opposed to how the rule is now?

When we were discussing this change before then we were all speculating on the impact.

Now that there is some games played we can do away with the speculation and talk about how the changes have impacted the way the games are played.

But you can't because you don't watch it and so you are still speculating.

Can you not see the problem with this?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

When we were discussing this change before then we were all speculating on the impact.

Now that there is some games played we can do away with the speculation and talk about how the changes have impacted the way the games are played.

But you can't because you don't watch it and so you are still speculating.

Can you not see the problem with this?

I would answer but, as before, you will only say I am getting wound up about it instead of just accepting a different point of view. So, you know my view and I know yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

I would answer but, as before, you will only say I am getting wound up about it instead of just accepting a different point of view. So, you know my view and I know yours.

Stop getting all passive aggressive.  I think asking someone to watch how a law change effects the game before commenting on how a law change effects the game is a fairly reasonable request.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Stop getting all passive aggressive.  I think asking someone to watch how a law change effects the game before commenting on how a law change effects the game is a fairly reasonable request.

 

12 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

I would answer but, as before, you will only say I am getting wound up about it instead of just accepting a different point of view. So, you know my view and I know yours.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its generally been a good introduction in the NRL and if introduced in SL should see teams cut out a lot of the messing around in the ruck (O'Loughlin might as well retire now ? )

One element I haven't seen used yet is the penalising of the attacking team for milking. The commentators mentioned that this was also an option for the Ref now if they committed an infringement in the ruck in an attempt to milk a penalty (or get 6 more tackles)


Lets Get Brexit Done !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Copa said:

According to The Australian newspaper:

Players in the Roosters-Rabbitohs match on Friday night had almost 55 minutes with the ball in play. That’s six minutes more than the average last year. Six minutes more value for your money.“

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/nrl/rugby-leagues-transformation-should-worry-union/news-story/68ee570198e5316fb089b2bd21a9897b
 


‘The result is a game transformed. V’landys promised to make rugby league more entertaining with more opportunity for the truly skilled players to shine and he has succeeded.

’While NRL fans are loving it, over in the troubled world of Australian rugby union, they will be beside themselves. When the domestic-only Super Rugby competition — mired in endless penalties, five-minute scrums and rolling mauls — finally gets going, how boring will it look in comparison to the new-look rugby league?’

Good article. Six-again (and one ref) is a bit of a great leap forward for the NRL and very exciting. It promises to make every game a good watch.

I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion this should be a worldwide rule ASAP so it’s in place for the World Cup.

Edited by Man of Kent
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RL does what Sky says said:

Yes but the non-offending team are still the ones losing out just so the overall game can be made faster ... surely an offending team should be the ones given the disadvantage ?

If I was in possession inside my own 20m area and was given a choice to either start six tackles against a slightly tired team from there or to start those 6 tackles from 40m downfield against a team who have had a rest for about 30 seconds, then I know where I would rather be.

I dont agree.. after watching the games i felt they were getting just as much out of it as they would with a kick and then 6 tackles.. it may not make sense but it seems to work. I'd be happy with it and frankly as a defending team 10 tackles on the bounce or 4 tackles, a bit of a break, time to reset and then go again for 6 i would be much happier to give a penalty away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it strikes me, as the other thread on this does too, that those who have watched it have a different view to those that have not.. theory and practice are not always the same.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, RP London said:

it strikes me, as the other thread on this does too, that those who have watched it have a different view to those that have not.. theory and practice are not always the same.

Indeed.  

I'm happy for people to have different opinions but at least base your opinion on actually watching the law change in question rather than just making assumptions.  It's like a juror not bothering to listen to the case because they know already what would have happened.

It's infuriating.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Indeed.  

I'm happy for people to have different opinions but at least base your opinion on actually watching the law change in question rather than just making assumptions.  It's like a juror not bothering to listen to the case because they know already what would have happened.

It's infuriating.

It's also infuriating to be told you are getting wound up about something by someone who doesn't even know you and says it just because you are giving an opposite view to their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, RP London said:

I dont agree.. after watching the games i felt they were getting just as much out of it as they would with a kick and then 6 tackles.. it may not make sense but it seems to work. I'd be happy with it and frankly as a defending team 10 tackles on the bounce or 4 tackles, a bit of a break, time to reset and then go again for 6 i would be much happier to give a penalty away.

That's fine ... a different viewpoint.  At leat we wouldn''t be coaching our teams to do the same things ! ?

Edited by RL does what Sky says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

That's fine ... a different viewpoint.  At leat we wouldn''t be coaching our teams to do the same things ! ?

no... i'd have been watching mine ? ? 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:


‘The result is a game transformed. V’landys promised to make rugby league more entertaining with more opportunity for the truly skilled players to shine and he has succeeded.

’While NRL fans are loving it, over in the troubled world of Australian rugby union, they will be beside themselves. When the domestic-only Super Rugby competition — mired in endless penalties, five-minute scrums and rolling mauls — finally gets going, how boring will it look in comparison to the new-look rugby league?’

Good article. Six-again (and one ref) is a bit of a great leap forward for the NRL and very exciting. It promises to make every game a good watch.

I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion this should be a worldwide rule ASAP so it’s in place for the World Cup.

I`m not convinced that the decline in Super Rugby is due to the usual Union shortcomings like "five-minute scrums and rolling mauls". Most SR games are open and high-scoring, but that might be their problem. It looks like glorified sevens, too much space, too easy to score. When they initially put this more superficial product on the market it was very popular, but over time tailed off, and has kept tailing off. 

The NRL should be careful. A more transparently "entertaining" product could yield short-term benefits, but getting the right balance between attack and defence will retain interest long-term.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

Slowing the game (or the attacker) down has been going on for a very long time.  Certainly up the the 60’s.  It’s not new and was more blatant then in my opinion.

We forget that in this modern age, the attacker is coached to ‘win’ a penalty.  It’s carp but it’s just professionalism.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the Panthers-Knights game and it did keep the game flowing but if I was coaching or playing and my team was in our own half I would always want the penalty and field position. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've only had one round of it so far. Let's see if some of the coaches figure out crafty ways of gaming the new rule.

  • Thanks 1

"Men will be proud to say 'I am a European'. We hope to see a day when men of every country will think as much of being a European as of being from their native land." (Winston Churchill)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Mumby Magic said:

This is another negative of our sport. How can one country have one set of rules and another different ones?

Don't worry.. we will soon. Because "they" say we must !

And it'll be yet another way the game changes so as to suit the strength and power game - at which we are not even anywhere near being a poor second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.’

DEA78FC0-8DED-4F6F-9AF2-AB08EA86E3B5.png

Edited by Man of Kent
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

Don't worry.. we will soon. Because "they" say we must !

And it'll be yet another way the game changes so as to suit the strength and power game - at which we are not even anywhere near being a poor second.

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RL does what Sky says said:

Don't worry.. we will soon. Because "they" say we must !

And it'll be yet another way the game changes so as to suit the strength and power game - at which we are not even anywhere near being a poor second.

Completely and utterly wrong. If anything it suits the enterprising skilful player who can play off the cuff and react to what they see.

 

At present the strength and power game is mostly beneficial to getting a dominant tackle and ‘earning the right to slow the play the ball’.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RL does what Sky says said:

Don't worry.. we will soon. Because "they" say we must !

And it'll be yet another way the game changes so as to suit the strength and power game - at which we are not even anywhere near being a poor second.

It will keep the ball in play longer which will help to increase their fitness levels so I would imagine that it will be brought in over here, even if it mainly to try to help the England team to keep up with them.

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...