Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Total Rugby League

‘Six more tackles’ to be considered by RFL

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 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?

Exactly ... which, in my opinion, is giving less of a benefit to the non-offending team. Either allow them the choice or at least add the new 6 to the ones already still remaining in the curent set (ie 6 + 3 remaining = 9). In relation to the current rule it is all benefiting the offending team.

Edited by RL does what Sky says

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Correct, it appears that because too many penalities were being given that the new rule has been introduced so as to prevent them.  Yet what is the bigger deterent to stop a team offending ... allow their opponents a new set of 6 tackles from the point where the infringement occurs or let the non-offedning team either gain some points or restart that set of six tackles from about 40m downfield ?

Yes, under the new rule then play continues but - in relation to the "old" rule" - which team is benefiting from it ?

It would be interesting to have some games where the captain of the non-offending team has a choice as to either have a penalty or restart the set of 6 tackles ... and then see which option is chosen more often.

Share this post


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

Yet what is the bigger deterent to stop a team offending ... allow their opponents a new set of 6 tackles from the point where the infringement occurs or let the non-offedning team either gain some points or restart that set of six tackles from about 40m downfield ?

That is an important question and one we will start to see the answer to if the teams are continuing to give away repeat sets.

I think a lot of it depends on field position. When a team is attacking 10 or 20 out the defending team were happy to concede penalties for slowing down the ruck knowing they would have time to reset their defence. The 6 again will pile massive pressure on them so they have to be squeaky clean. Although, sometimes the attacking team would of liked the two points I guess.

As for a penalty and advancing 40 downfield. I am sure that over the next few weeks we will start to see comparisons of scores from attacks where a team got a repeat 6 again compared to those from a penalty restart.  Again, it will be an interesting insight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That is an important question and one we will start to see the answer to if the teams are continuing to give away repeat sets.

I think a lot of it depends on field position. When a team is attacking 10 or 20 out the defending team were happy to concede penalties for slowing down the ruck knowing they would have time to reset their defence. The 6 again will pile massive pressure on them so they have to be squeaky clean. Although, sometimes the attacking team would of liked the two points I guess.

As for a penalty and advancing 40 downfield. I am sure that over the next few weeks we will start to see comparisons of scores from attacks where a team got a repeat 6 again compared to those from a penalty restart.  Again, it will be an interesting insight.

Whatever happens I know I won't get wound up about it !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 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.

Yes, referees are employees of the RFL and, like with any boss in any form of business, it is they who the referees have to satisfy otherwise they won't last very long. So any moans should go to the RFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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...