RFL law changes for Super League restart

[HarrogateKnights]

We could be in a position where the only time the game stops during play is for points scored, taps (presumably the scrum is replaced by one with a shot clock) shot clock goal line drop outs and head injuries. As everything else you could easily reset the tackle count (6 again) the game would require even more fitness and would really get quick, possibly more points scored too. 

[Lowdesert]

16 hours ago, Dave T said:

I don't really get the point of the 6 again as to why this helps during the pandemic.

I understand one of the reasons the NRL did it is because they went back to 1 ref, but I don't follow the logic for SL.

It doesn’t.  Just BS to support getting playing.  Other than that imo it’s a good innovation that will get some tweaks.  

We either let the game be played or we don’t.  Trying to contrive a solution to completely mitigate Covid is impossible.  

The new rule regarding 3rd player in, again imo and experience, should have applied to all secondary tackles some years ago.  The 2nd tackler can do damage just the same.  Some careers have already been wrecked.

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Lowdesert said:

It doesn’t.  Just BS to support getting playing.  Other than that imo it’s a good innovation that will get some tweaks.  

We either let the game be played or we don’t.  Trying to contrive a solution to completely mitigate Covid is impossible.  

The new rule regarding 3rd player in, again imo and experience, should have applied to all secondary tackles some years ago.  The 2nd tackler can do damage just the same.  Some careers have already been wrecked.

I'm not particularly against the 6 again rule but I think it is clumsy. There is little advantage to getting 6 again when you have been tackled on your own line on tackle 1 for example, we are likely to just see holding down. 

Similar after a break on an early tackle, you are better holding down to allow your defence to get set. 

We need to be really careful of unintended consequences. 

[gingerjon]

These law changes apply to all levels (as they should, I'm not a fan of too many distinctions between levels) but they will have the impact, I think, of making it tougher for amateur players. We already have what I think is one of the most demanding sports people can play 'socially' and it's just got harder.

[Harry Stottle]

22 hours ago, M j M said:

I wouldn't mourn scrums, they're not that important to Rugby League, but the long term ditching of them needs to be driven by actual strategy rather than short term health considerations. 

Still this season gives us scope to experiment with this sort of stuff.

I don't agree MJM, done properly and marshalled correctly by the officials scrums could be a big part of the game, as I eluded to in their present form as a group of player's doing nothing more than leaning on each other and possession 99.99% guaranteed they have become another defensive stratergy that all coaches employ, when not in possession many times both halfbacks join the 'pack' while two forwards take their place and it is not uncommon to see second rows occupying a centre spot, even on the offensive side of scrums the No 9 (no need to refer to them as hookers a longer) either feed or go to 13 to dustribute, even last week in the Roosters game Ryan Hall was feeding the scrum - what is all that about? It tells the other team we will not be attacking down that side of the field, getting rid of the scrums would just result in two teams always lining up against each other, but as you say they are not inprotant to RL to that I would add not in their present form.

Operated properly and contested they can open up the game considerably, not only in the formation of the scrum itself with the 6 and 7 in their 'correct' positions directing the threequarters on planned and structured moves and I will still maintain that there are not many better sights than a try being orchestrated direct form a scrum especially if it is 30 meters plus away from the line, a big way of speeding the offensive game up is slowing the forwards down so if they packs had to really contest the scrums and shove against each other that will tell in the course of a game in that they will tire, creating more space for the entertainers to entertain.

The authorities keep looking for ways to 'speed' up the game as with the new 6 again rule that has been introduced in Aus, when here infront of us is a simple way of speeding the game up, just bring back contested scrums.

On the 6 again rule which is OK on TV with the commentary pointing out when it has been judged by the ref, but once crowds are back I think there will be a lot of headscratching on the terraces and in the stands, even on TV it is hard to see why the ref has called 6 again it is an observation by him at close quarters fans 60, 70 - 100 meters away won't see it, and if it is seemingly awarded to one of the teams more than the other - even adjudged correctly - there will be much more finger pointing than ever in the direction of the referee, just my thoughts.

 

[Harry Stottle]

19 hours ago, Dave T said:

I don't really get the point of the 6 again as to why this helps during the pandemic.

I understand one of the reasons the NRL did it is because they went back to 1 ref, but I don't follow the logic for SL.

I think the logic is as I referred to above to speed up the game, but I also see a down side, no question we will follow the Aussies, and I will imagine it becoming an International ruling to if the fans once returned accept it.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

I think the logic is as I referred to above to speed up the game, but I also see a down side, no question we will follow the Aussies, and I will imagine it becoming an International ruling to if the fans once returned accept it.

But speeding up the game seems a perverse objective at this point and it literally nothing to do with Covid. They have badged it as a response to the current climate. 

[Harry Stottle]

14 hours ago, dkw said:

Those moves are very very rare now, it's got to a point where forwards stand out of the scrum and wingers feed it. That shows how teams use it now. 

As I referred to in one of the first posts DK it is now just a defensive stratergy employed by all coaches everywhere.

[Dunbar]

37 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Similar after a break on an early tackle, you are better holding down to allow your defence to get set. 

This is still a penalty and 10 minutes in the sin bin for a professional foul.

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

But speeding up the game seems a perverse objective at this point and it literally nothing to do with Covid. They have badged it as a response to the current climate. 

Not saying it has anything to do with Covid, the thread headline is about rule changes and scrums were mentioned, I have stated in my opinion that scrums are now just part of the modern idiom to make the game as defensively orientated as possible, and one of thd rule changes is the '6 again' I have also aired my views on that ruling look up a few of posts if you missed it.

[Harry Stottle]

14 hours ago, DoubleD said:

He learnt the art from his countryman Isaac Luke

Rangi Chase ?

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Not saying it has anything to do with Covid, the thread headline is about rule changes and scrums were mentioned, I have stated in my opinion that scrums are now just part of the modern idiom to make the game as defensively orientated as possible, and one of thd rule changes is the '6 again' I have also aired my views on that ruling look up a few of posts if you missed it.

Yeah, I just don't get the logic. It's as though they had to say something other than 'we' re copying the Aussies'. 

[Lowdesert]

53 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not particularly against the 6 again rule but I think it is clumsy. There is little advantage to getting 6 again when you have been tackled on your own line on tackle 1 for example, we are likely to just see holding down. 

Similar after a break on an early tackle, you are better holding down to allow your defence to get set. 

We need to be really careful of unintended consequences. 

Like I said, there will be tweaks in this.  Whatever they are, and I like touch rugby, we do not want the game to become too frenetic.  It then becomes too difficult to manage and also to watch.

The NRL are playing a game a week.  SL are planning those plus midweek matches. There is an obvious implication on injuries.  The game needs more quality, not less.  Ignore the safety elements and the quality will fail, guaranteed.  This principal applies to most businesses but I think some SL CEOs are lacking in those areas.

[Harry Stottle]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yeah, I just don't get the logic. It's as though they had to say something other than 'we' re copying the Aussies'. 

In all honesty I do not think there should be any 'local' rule changes, all suggestions should be ratified by the International Board and either dismissed or adopted globally.

Obviously try them out somewhere but have the trial period timescaled and then take the decision. 

[Lowdesert]

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

In all honesty I do not think there should be any 'local' rule changes, all suggestions should be ratified by the International Board and either dismissed or adopted globally.

Obviously try them out somewhere but have the trial period timescaled and then take the decision. 

I do not think the NRL would follow the IB.  They appear to be self important.  

I might have missed it but the IB, RFL or RLIF are not at the forefront of any innovation.  

[Blind side johnny]

16 hours ago, Liverpool Rover said:

Scrums do give space for the team in possession to attack the defensive line so I wouldn’t mind them being brought back next year, only this time have it enforced that forwards are in the scrum and no half backs or wingers like you can get now.

I guess if the players wore numbers 1-17 then that would make it easier for the ref to monitor this too.

[dkw]

17 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't know if I was imagining it but in the first two rounds of NRL since restarting I've seen a lot less "head to head niggle", both in the tackle and on the floor. In some tackles its looked like players were actively avoiding eachothers heads. Like I say I don't know if that true, or even if it is true whether its new guidelines or just subconsciously doing it.

I dont think you are imagining it, after the first 2 games where the rule was used and definitely caused the defending team a lot of problems the following games have been much tidier in the tackle. I`m certain its had an impact in the tackle and it will over here too. Its not about penalising teams, its about stopping them dicking about.

[Liverpool Rover]

From the NRL games that I have seen there have been occasions where the referee has been a bit to quick to award 6 again and it isn’t always clear as to why it has been awarded.

I think we should wait to see how it goes before bringing it in for next year if it is wanted but based on what I have seen I am leaning towards not having it.

[Man of Kent]

All proposed changes approved by the RFL board https://www.rugby-league.com/article/56889/rfl-board-meeting--july-

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

All proposed changes approved by the RFL board https://www.rugby-league.com/article/56889/rfl-board-meeting--july-

They put a lot of words in releases that say little. 

[Scubby]

On 11/06/2020 at 12:47, Dave T said:

I don't really get the point of the 6 again as to why this helps during the pandemic.

I understand one of the reasons the NRL did it is because they went back to 1 ref, but I don't follow the logic for SL.

The NRL did it to speed up play for television. The idea was to make it a faster spectacle with no fans in the ground. It is not based on any safety.

[sentoffagain2]

On 11/06/2020 at 09:35, THE RED ROOSTER said:

Rugby League is a collision sport, scrums or no scrums, testing will be required

  Why would you have testing when only 1 in every 2200 people have the virus.Any player not feeling well or with a temperature would probably have one for his teams benefit.

[wiganermike]

1 hour ago, sentoffagain2 said:

  Why would you have testing when only 1 in every 2200 people have the virus.Any player not feeling well or with a temperature would probably have one for his teams benefit.

Regular testing is I believe a condition of being able to restart the season.

[DoubleD]

12 hours ago, wiganermike said:

Not a match rule as such but the last thing we did that the NRL copied would probably be the top 8 playoff system we had during the 14 team licensed SL period.

The 6 again rule could initially prove a nightmare for clubs that have emphasised wrestling in recent years to dominate the ruck. We could see some teams barely touch the ball until they adapt their tactics due to constantly reset tackle counts. We also now have an England coach who is very keen on the wrestle so you will probably be right about it setting England back come the World Cup. That is unless it isn't adopted in the International rules.

I'm not sure you can make such a deduction. Players and teams adapt, certainly the best ones. Wigan have always been one of the fittest sides and have a mobile forward pack so i'd expect them to excel in the new rules.

And I'm sure Wane will be fully aware of this too

[Rupert Prince]

37 minutes ago, DoubleD said:

I'm not sure you can make such a deduction. Players and teams adapt, certainly the best ones. Wigan have always been one of the fittest sides and have a mobile forward pack so i'd expect them to excel in the new rules.

And I'm sure Wane will be fully aware of this too

Yes.

Its silly to moan about some teams "wrestling".   A ruck is a contest.  Rolling on late as the the 3rd man is what is the real slow down and foul.  And the real culprits are those who fake it.