Should we follow the NRL's lead?

[Martyn Sadler]

I give my reaction to some of the proposed changes proposed by the RFL Rules Committee.

I'm not completely enthusiastic.

[Hela Wigmen]

1 minute ago, Martyn Sadler said:

 

I'm not completely enthusiastic.

That isn’t surprising. 

 

[HarrogateKnights]

There are players saying getting rid of the scrums and reset back to zero speeds the game up too much and you may as well play with 13 wingers etc. However I personally think increase the interchange bench by a couple and I would make it a permanent change, there would be no confusing the sports between us and union we would be such a quick sport and great watching . 

[Tommygilf]

I'm still yet to be convinced by the 6 again rule. I'm inclined to think "this will work" rather than "this is working". We have to diminish the wrestle, but we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

For supposedly the tightest competition in the world there's been a fair few blow outs since the restart. Naturally the team on top has been getting the set restarts and putting the other team to the sword. That said 6 again has worked better at tidying the ruck than a second referee did.

Perhaps the solution may lie in having only 1 set restart then a penalty for the second infringement, in conjunction with a renewed interpretation of what constitutes a professional foul. 

[unapologetic pedant]

The reasons the RFL are offering for dispensing with scrums suggest they`re drawing from the same epidemiological advice that`s produced government policy.

A virus that is transmitted through scrums but not eighty minutes of multiple-player tackles is recognisably the same one which is transmitted if we get closer than two metres to each other in the queue for the supermarket, but not if we participate in mass protests and riots.

Everybody seems to be against wrestling. They want to address wrestling, diminish wrestling, stop wrestling. Still yet to see an explicit explanation of what is meant in RL terms by wrestling. Does it refer to contact before or after the tackle is complete? How is it distinguished from efficiently completing the tackle?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Man of Kent]

I’m sold on six-again mainly because players & coaches know that fans - at home on TV and in the stands - hate it when referees blow the pea out of their whistle. 

That sounds like a minor thing but it has the subconscious effect of undermining the ref’s authority and has lead to all sorts of nonsense at the ruck. 

If you remember, the NRL previously tried to solve the PTB problem via a penalty clampdown. But after one match involving Melbourne that had 33 penalties the NRL was soon humbled into an embarrassing U-turn because it was virtually unwatchable.

Six-again solves that problem. It ‘penalises’ ruck infringements while letting the game flow and, for me, enhancing the spectacle. 

[Tommygilf]

2 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

I’m sold on six-again mainly because players & coaches know that fans - at home on TV and in the stands - hate it when referees blow the pea out of their whistle. 

That sounds like a minor thing but it has the subconscious effect of undermining the ref’s authority and has lead to all sorts of nonsense at the ruck. 

If you remember, the NRL previously tried to solve the PTB problem via a penalty clampdown. But after one match involving Melbourne that had 33 penalties the NRL was soon humbled into an embarrassing U-turn because it was virtually unwatchable.

Six-again solves that problem. It ‘penalises’ ruck infringements while letting the game flow and, for me, enhancing the spectacle. 

I agree thats largely where I'm at with it. I still think a compromise with limited "6 agains" may be the future.

[Dunbar]

3 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

I’m sold on six-again mainly because players & coaches know that fans - at home on TV and in the stands - hate it when referees blow the pea out of their whistle. 

That sounds like a minor thing but it has the subconscious effect of undermining the ref’s authority and has lead to all sorts of nonsense at the ruck. 

If you remember, the NRL previously tried to solve the PTB problem via a penalty clampdown. But after one match involving Melbourne that had 33 penalties the NRL was soon humbled into an embarrassing U-turn because it was virtually unwatchable.

Six-again solves that problem. It ‘penalises’ ruck infringements while letting the game flow and, for me, enhancing the spectacle. 

My thoughts exactly. 

Clamp down with penalties and the game suffers as a spectacle. 

Be lenient and the ruck becomes a mess.

Here, the ref can penalise a team for interference without affecting the enjoyment of the viewers. It feels like a nice solution and seems to be working well so far.

[DavidM]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

My thoughts exactly. 

Clamp down with penalties and the game suffers as a spectacle. 

Be lenient and the ruck becomes a mess.

Here, the ref can penalise a team for interference without affecting the enjoyment of the viewers. It feels like a nice solution and seems to be working well so far.

Indeed . We can pick things apart but they’re minor really . It’s a lot better and the optics are better because it’s not all whistle .