Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Total Rugby League

‘Six more tackles’ to be considered by RFL

Recommended Posts

1 hour 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.

Stop getting wound up about it !!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, arcticchris said:

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’.

Watch the number of passes in games some years ago as compared to the present day ..."Off the cuff" rugby and ball-handling skills have become less and less. That style of rugby used to be the British way but it has now we think the way to beat them is at their own game. We might win the odd game but there's no chance we will even equal them if we play their style - they have too many players to keep filling the gaps is someone becomes unavailable..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Liverpool Rover said:

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.

Yet the fitter the players become, the easier it will be for the Aussies to beat GB ... they have too many players to easily step in to fill any gaps. The British style used to be about passing and ball-handling skills, yet these days we think the power and stength game is the way forward. Yes that might be OK if you have enough players to keep replacing those who get fatigued ... we over here haven't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours 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.

OK, I just picked an Aussie match at random and watched the first 15 minutes of Manly v Canterbury and, as I have said before, it's isn't the style of RL that excites me (That might be because I have no interest in the teams - which is like any UK game where I don't have any real affinity to either of them - but moreso it was because there was not enough open play nor ball-handling skills).

In that first 15 minutes there were 27 passes made (not including from acting-half-back or from a scrum-half after a scrum).

I then picked an old UK game at random (and just an ordinary league game as per the Aussie match) and found Halifax v Warrington on 18 February 1994.   (If you want to find it then it is on You Tube)

Again, two teams I have no great affinity towards - so same there - but in the first 15 minutes there were 51 passes (almost double) and a lot less "one up rugby" which becomes boring with just tackle after tackle after tackle ... and I found the UK game far more entertaining. However, I would actually have liked to have found a full game even earlier in time because I think there would have been even more open play.

As for the new "restart rule", it happened twice in the first 15 minutes of the Manly-Canterbury game and both times I would certainly have preferred to have been able to kick downfield into touch and retstart my six tackles from well within the opponents' half. As it was, the two restarts were about 35m from the non-offending team's goal-line but their tackles ran out before getting near their opponents' line. It might keep the game going but just because it's faster doesn't make it better and it would also be better to have a more open game to watch.

Edited by RL does what Sky says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


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

OK, I just picked an Aussie match at random and watched the first 15 minutes of Manly v Canterbury and, as I have said before, it's isn't the style of RL that excites me (That might be because I have no interest in the teams - which is like any UK game where I don't have any real affinity to either of them - but moreso it was because there was not enough open play nor ball-handling skills).

In that first 15 minutes there were 27 passes made (not including from acting-half-back or from a scrum-half after a scrum).

I then picked an old UK game at random (and just an ordinary league game as per the Aussie match) and found Halifax v Warrington on 18 February 1994.   (If you want to find it then it is on You Tube)

Again, two teams I have no great affinity towards - so same there - but in the first 15 minutes there were 51 passes (almost double) and a lot less "one up rugby" which becomes boring with just tackle after tackle after tackle ... and I found the UK game far more entertaining. However, I would actually have liked to have found a full game even earlier in time because I think there would have been even more open play.

This is all very interesting but not very relevant to the conversation.

I have often said on these boards that I prefer the style of Rugby in the 80's and 90's to today but we are discussing Rugby League in 2020 and the impact of a law change.

5 hours ago, RL does what Sky says said:

As for the new "restart rule", it happened twice in the first 15 minutes of the Manly-Canterbury game and both times I would certainly have preferred to have been able to kick downfield into touch and retstart my six tackles from well within the opponents' half. As it was, the two restarts were about 35m from the non-offending team's goal-line but their tackles ran out before getting near their opponents' line. It might keep the game going but just because it's faster doesn't make it better and it would also be better to have a more open game to watch.

Great. As I have said, happy for you or anyone else to have an opinion on the impact of the new law but it would be best to actually see it first. If you don't like it, you don't like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


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

This is all very interesting but not very relevant to the conversation.

I have often said on these boards that I prefer the style of Rugby in the 80's and 90's to today but we are discussing Rugby League in 2020 and the impact of a law change.

errr .. so was I not supposed to be able to give my opinion on this ?

  14 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

----------------------------

(ie: How could I see anybody good on their feet if the ball isn't passed to them very often ?) ...

Furthermore, it is obviously NOT "universally agreed" ... stop using evocotive and false phrases just to try and emphasis your point.

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Great. As I have said, happy for you or anyone else to have an opinion on the impact of the new law but it would be best to actually see it first. If you don't like it, you don't like it.

I will repeat, as it seems you didn't read my full text ..  I saw it happen twice in the first fifteen minutes of the match I watched ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

57 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

errr .. so was I not supposed to be able to give my opinion on this ?

  14 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

----------------------------

(ie: How could I see anybody good on their feet if the ball isn't passed to them very often ?) ...

Furthermore, it is obviously NOT "universally agreed" ... stop using evocotive and false phrases just to try and emphasis your point.

Of course you can give your opinion on anything you want.  I am just pointing out that comparing the new 6 again law to the sport in the 80's and 90's is a not massively relevant as the law was introduced to change (improve hopefully) the sport in 2020 and in particular the wrestling and ruck interference that the last 10 or 15 years has seen.

Also, I am not sure that watching 15 minutes of a game is enough to determine how much fatigue plays a part in the outcome of a game.  You watched 15 minutes of the Manly game and in the other 65 minutes Manly scored a further six tries.    Maybe the fatigue had a part to play in some of those tries but you won't know because you made your mind up about the fatigue factor in the first 15 minutes of a game.

57 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

I will repeat, as it seems you didn't read my full text ..  I saw it happen twice in the first fifteen minutes of the match I watched ! 

Yes, I read it.

Let me make myself clear as I obviously wasn't in my last post.  Now you have seen it (albeit just 15 minutes) then great, give your opinion.  My whole point on this discussion is don't give your opinion until you have seen it and evaluated it for yourself as assumptions on the impact are not the same as the actual evidence of the games being played.

I am tempted to say that you had already made your mind up about what that opinion would be before you actually watched game but that would be cynical of me.  I was not convinced by the new law myself but over the 8 games I saw last weekend I thought it worked well although time will tell if that continues once coaches and players adapt their games. However, if you are content that 15 minutes is enough for you to make up your mind then fine.

Edited by Dunbar
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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

I am tempted to say that you had already made your mind up about what that opinion would be before you actually watched game but that would be cynical of me

No, have the guts to say it ... because I knew before you replied that is what you would say anyway !  I will actually say that I thought the same about you in that you had already made up your mind after watching just a few occasions of the new rule and you would fight its corner against anyone who said the opposite. Staus quo !

Please don't get wound up about it though !

Edited by RL does what Sky says

Share this post


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

No, have the guts to say it ... because I knew before you replied that is what you would say anyway !  I will actually say that I thought the same about you in that you had already made up your mind after watching just a few occasions of the new rule and you would fight its corner against anyone who said the opposite. Staus quo !

Please don't get wound up about it though !

Not at all.  I think it worked quite well in the last round of matches but there were no real contentious decisions.  The test of this new law will come when one or more of the following comes about.

1. The attacking teams start to milk the penalties and the ref's are asked to make too many subjective decisions on the infringements. 

2. The quality of the play the ball deteriorates (as I believe it even started to do in the last round).

3. A team is a point or two behind and would prefer to have a penalty awarded in the latter stages of the game.  At this point, is the ref supposed to decide on what the preference is for the attacking team or is all interference 6 again irrelevant of the time on the clock or the scoreline.  (I believe that this concern is one that you flagged and is very valid).

4. Coaches and players adapt their tactics to this new law.  Who knows if these new tactics will make the game better or worse as a spectacle.

All I will say (which I have stressed several times in this conversation) is that in the one round it has been used so far it has had a positive effect on some aspects of the game including fewer penalties blown and more time in play.  As a result I thought the entertainment was better than some of the stop start matches we see with too many penalties for ruck infringements.

and

Just look at the games before you make your mind up.  I wasn't sure that the change would be positive until I saw it.  The first impression is that it is but I concede that could change as we progress.  I would just ask you to keep an open mind on it rather than making assumptions and then watching 15 minutes of one game just to confirm those assumptions.

Share this post


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

As a result I thought the entertainment was better

Let me repeat what someone said earlier in this thread ...

5 hours ago, Dunbar said:

This is all very interesting but not very relevant to the conversation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


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
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:


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

From the statistics in the above report ...

Rounds 1 & 2     271.8 tackles @ 3.66 secs per tackle   =    994.79 secs      =     16m, 35s

Round 3              303 tackles @ 3.45 secs per tackle       =   1045.35 secs    =     17m, 26s

ie: 31 more tackles per game in round 3 which took an extra 51 seconds per game

Note that the number of "Six again infiringments" does not give an average per game but just an overall total of 53 for the 8 matches played .... that is an average of 6.625 per game = one every 12.75 minutes per game.

If, as currently, a penalty was awarded, then some of 6.625 average might be taken to touch and some at goal. The time allowed for kicks at goal can be governed by the timekeeper and, although giving a rest for the non-offending team, does allow their opponents to still score points.

So, if we give a more-than-average figure of that 6.625 as kicks to touch (ie 4 ... and therefore just two per team) and each takes approx 30 seconds to complete (ie kick to touch and second-phase tap) that's about 2 minutes during the game which has been taken up by that process.

Take away the average extra 51 seconds per game used by the extra tackles then the new rule is saving an average of about 1m, 09 secs per game.

What also should be noted is that the "Captain's challenge" increased by 1.5 per game, therefore also causing more stoppages.

No comment .. just numbers.

Share this post


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

From the statistics in the above report ...

Rounds 1 & 2     271.8 tackles @ 3.66 secs per tackle   =    994.79 secs      =     16m, 35s

Round 3              303 tackles @ 3.45 secs per tackle       =   1045.35 secs    =     17m, 26s

ie: 31 more tackles per game in round 3 which took an extra 51 seconds per game

Note that the number of "Six again infiringments" does not give an average per game but just an overall total of 53 for the 8 matches played .... that is an average of 6.625 per game = one every 12.75 minutes per game.

If, as currently, a penalty was awarded, then some of 6.625 average might be taken to touch and some at goal. The time allowed for kicks at goal can be governed by the timekeeper and, although giving a rest for the non-offending team, does allow their opponents to still score points.

So, if we give a more-than-average figure of that 6.625 as kicks to touch (ie 4 ... and therefore just two per team) and each takes approx 30 seconds to complete (ie kick to touch and second-phase tap) that's about 2 minutes during the game which has been taken up by that process.

Take away the average extra 51 seconds per game used by the extra tackles then the new rule is saving an average of about 1m, 09 secs per game.

What also should be noted is that the "Captain's challenge" increased by 1.5 per game, therefore also causing more stoppages.

No comment .. just numbers.

With respect.  There is a false logic in the way you have used these numbers - in particular to arrive at 'extra' 51 seconds per game.

The two variables here are the number of tackles and the speed of the play the ball and both of these two variables are being impacted by the adoption of the new law.

With the number of tackles, the higher the number the better (i.e. the more tackles, the more the ball is in play)

With the speed of the play the ball, the lower the number the better (i.e. less interference and a faster ruck)

(N.B. I will leave aside the argument that the game is too fast already as some say... just that these two are the outcomes that the law is trying to encourage - more time in play (i.e. fewer penalties) and less inference).

So, your false logic is multiplying a variable where the higher the value is the better with a variable where the lower the value is the better and arriving at an answer when each of these taken in isolation would have a positive effect on the game but when multiplied together their impact is negated.

Share this post


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

With respect.  There is a false logic in the way you have used these numbers - in particular to arrive at 'extra' 51 seconds per game.

The two variables here are the number of tackles and the speed of the play the ball and both of these two variables are being impacted by the adoption of the new law.

With the number of tackles, the higher the number the better (i.e. the more tackles, the more the ball is in play)

With the speed of the play the ball, the lower the number the better (i.e. less interference and a faster ruck)

(N.B. I will leave aside the argument that the game is too fast already as some say... just that these two are the outcomes that the law is trying to encourage - more time in play (i.e. fewer penalties) and less inference).

So, your false logic is multiplying a variable where the higher the value is the better with a variable where the lower the value is the better and arriving at an answer when each of these taken in isolation would have a positive effect on the game but when multiplied together their impact is negated.

 

43 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

No comment .. just numbers

 

Share this post


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

No comment .. just numbers.

I am only trying to help you understand how you have misinterpreted and misused the numbers in your calculations to come to your conclusions in your initial post. But if you are ok with not worrying about that then cool with me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I am only trying to help you understand how you have misinterpreted and misused the numbers in your calculations to come to your conclusions in your initial post. But if you are ok with not worrying about that then cool with me.

Oh well, it's looks like I'm wrong whichever way it is ... now you say I am not worrying whereas before you said I was getting wound up !  ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.’

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

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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...