Set restarts.

[Loiner]

I have watched quite a few Aussie games recently and can't get my head round the set restarts rule. Can anyone explain it ? I've even paused and rewound the action and failed to see the infringement, what is the criteria. On another note I thought George Williams looked good this morning.

[DavidM]

10 minutes ago, Loiner said:

I have watched quite a few Aussie games recently and can't get my head round the set restarts rule. Can anyone explain it ? I've even paused and rewound the action and failed to see the infringement, what is the criteria. On another note I thought George Williams looked good this morning.

I agree with what Gus Gould said on his podcast . Offences should be obvious . If they’re not obvious , if they’ve no material bearing on the play then they don’t need flagging by officials . He warned of being to pedantic and far to technical , and said over technicality has crippled Union . Fans shouldn’t be wondering about minimal pedantic technical infringements . You’re not blowing the whistle but it’s still a penalty . The change is good , but I’m a believer that penalties and penalty offences should be at a premium and nowadays they’re just not . It’s to micromanaged 

[Dunbar]

54 minutes ago, Loiner said:

I have watched quite a few Aussie games recently and can't get my head round the set restarts rule. Can anyone explain it ? I've even paused and rewound the action and failed to see the infringement, what is the criteria. On another note I thought George Williams looked good this morning.

From a purely technical perspective, the new law allows the referee to reset the tackle count in lieu of a penalty for ruck infringements.  This is essentially for holding an opponent down for too long, putting their hand on the ball, pulling the tackled player's leg or flopping onto the tackle.  A set cannot be reset for offside, markers not square or for foul play.

A referee can also give a penalty and punish a player with a sin bin if the infringements are persistent.

As with the actual penalties for ruck infringements, the call is subjective.  How long is too long in the tackle, what constitutes a flop etc. Because of this subjective nature, we are bound to see variations across ref's no matter how much we crave consistency.

I guess one of the key points is whether the referees are giving set restarts for infringements that wouldn't have been pinged with a penalty previously.  If this is the case then perhaps it is micro management.

The problem with ruck penalties is that when we clamp down as a sport we get too many penalties and a disjointed game and when we are more lenient the ruck becomes a mess.  Overall, with this law, I think we are seeing reduced penalty counts in games and in general I think the ruck is cleaner than it has been in previous seasons.  On that count, I think it is a success.

Is it perfect - no.  Is the NRL great to watch at the moment - yes.  Whether the law has made a massive difference who can tell but I am really enjoying the rugby on show.

[unapologetic pedant]

33 minutes ago, Loiner said:

I have watched quite a few Aussie games recently and can't get my head round the set restarts rule. Can anyone explain it ? I've even paused and rewound the action and failed to see the infringement, what is the criteria. On another note I thought George Williams looked good this morning.

Of the set restart calls I`ve seen, had the same ruck occurred last year without a penalty, most would have brought the thought "lucky to get away with that" to mind. Defenders go to the edge of what`s allowed. There is therefore a margin close to that edge where something would not be called a penalty unless it were a repeat offence, but which is now being called as six-again.

It would help (TV viewers at least) if refs verbally called the breach, although this is harder now with play continuing and only one ref. And I`m not convinced that most would understand a snappy explanation anyway given the level of ignorance of the RL tackle and ruck rules. People are relentlessly told that everything in RL is simple, so they assume it`s just "player gets tackled, gets up, plays ball".

[unapologetic pedant]

4 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

From a purely technical perspective, the new law allows the referee to reset the tackle count in lieu of a penalty for ruck infringements.  This is essentially for holding an opponent down for too long, putting their hand on the ball, pulling the tackled player's leg or flopping onto the tackle.  A set cannot be reset for offside, markers not square or for foul play.

A referee can also give a penalty and punish a player with a sin bin if the infringements are persistent.

As with the actual penalties for ruck infringements, the call is subjective.  How long is too long in the tackle, what constitutes a flop etc. Because of this subjective nature, we are bound to see variations across ref's no matter how much we crave consistency.

I guess one of the key points is whether the referees are giving set restarts for infringements that wouldn't have been pinged with a penalty previously.  If this is the case then perhaps it is micro management.

The problem with ruck penalties is that when we clamp down as a sport we get too many penalties and a disjointed game and when we are more lenient the ruck becomes a mess.  Overall, with this law, I think we are seeing reduced penalty counts in games and in general I think the ruck is cleaner than it has been in previous seasons.  On that count, I think it is a success.

Is it perfect - no.  Is the NRL great to watch at the moment - yes.  Whether the law has made a massive difference who can tell but I am really enjoying the rugby on show.

I had written my previous post before I saw yours so there`s a bit of duplication.

One new point though, Annesley announced this week that they can now reset for markers not square.

 

[Dunbar]

Just now, unapologetic pedant said:

I had written my previous post before I saw yours so there`s a bit of duplication.

One new point though, Annesley announced this week that they can now reset for markers not square.

 

I hadn't seen that, thanks for the update.

[Number 16]

One issue seems to be so many resets on T1. Teams seem happy to offend on the first whilst their defence resets. Teams can defend 7. I would think about changing to blowing on T1 thus allowing the offended against the kick to march up field. 

[Stuff Smith]

Hold on, this is one of the things that gets on my nerves, but what's all this "ruck" business? It's not a ruck, it's a play the ball.

[Damien]

2 hours ago, Number 16 said:

One issue seems to be so many resets on T1. Teams seem happy to offend on the first whilst their defence resets. Teams can defend 7. I would think about changing to blowing on T1 thus allowing the offended against the kick to march up field. 

Surely that defeats the point of it in the first place.

[Copa]

2 hours ago, Stuff Smith said:

Hold on, this is one of the things that gets on my nerves, but what's all this "ruck" business? It's not a ruck, it's a play the ball.

From Wikipedia 

 

[Man of Kent]

Must admit there’s been a few times when I wasn’t sure why six-again was given either.

Then again, I’m sitting at home 10,000 miles away and don’t have as good a view as the ref to judge who’s won the ruck, whether there’s been any interference, a second effort etc.

[Adelaide Tiger]

IMHO the set restarts have been a good introduction.  But I have a couple of issues;

1. Some teams are happy to commit an offence on the first tackle if the attacking team are in their own 20m zone.  So, as someone stated above, award a penalty for an indiscretion on the first tackle.

2. The Referee should shout out what the offence is so viewers at home can hear him and indicate to the crowd why he has restarted the tackle count.  Also you need to have an explanation flash up on the screen every time.

My concern with the SKY coverage will be that the commentators will focus upon the ‘offence’ and repay it straight away to dissect the decision Whilst the game continues unlike here in OZ when the commentators/tv coverage just get on with it.

It is good to read that so many UK fans agree with the rule change but I can’t wait to read the reactions on here when a reset is called against their team.

[Harry Stottle]

3 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Must admit there’s been a few times when I wasn’t sure why six-again was given either.

Then again, I’m sitting at home 10,000 miles away and don’t have as good a view as the ref to judge who’s won the ruck, whether there’s been any interference, a second effort etc.

Yes you are 10,000+ miles away, but in effect you are a lot closer to the action than you will be when watching live at the ground, As the OP states even with the advantage of close up and play back it is hard to distinguish what the set as been restarted for, when it comes here and crowds will be back in and fans are non the wiser why the offence has been awarded especially if one team is recieving far more than the other there will be all kinds of accusations pointed at the official.

Our officials have a history of going over the top when any new rule is introduced it may be because everything they do is scrutinized on TV and they want to show as much consistency as possible and on that score our commentators are not like the Aussie callers, they will want to bisect and trisect every incident, as someone has already mentioned there needs to be some clarity of why the ref is making his judgement.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Adelaide Tiger said:

IMHO the set restarts have been a good introduction.  But I have a couple of issues;

1. Some teams are happy to commit an offence on the first tackle if the attacking team are in their own 20m zone.  So, as someone stated above, award a penalty for an indiscretion on the first tackle.

2. The Referee should shout out what the offence is so viewers at home can hear him and indicate to the crowd why he has restarted the tackle count.  Also you need to have an explanation flash up on the screen every time.

My concern with the SKY coverage will be that the commentators will focus upon the ‘offence’ and repay it straight away to dissect the decision Whilst the game continues unlike here in OZ when the commentators/tv coverage just get on with it.

It is good to read that so many UK fans agree with the rule change but I can’t wait to read the reactions on here when a reset is called against their team.

I think we are on the same wavelength, I hadn't got to yours before writing mine, but as you say the fans watching on TV need something of an explanation perhaps a 'flash' up on the screen, I consider it will be much more of a problem for those inside the stadium.

[thebrewxi]

I find the whole thing confusing, and the decisions don't seem balanced within a match. Not a fan.

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

15 hours ago, Dunbar said:

From a purely technical perspective, the new law allows the referee to reset the tackle count in lieu of a penalty for ruck infringements.  This is essentially for holding an opponent down for too long, putting their hand on the ball, pulling the tackled player's leg or flopping onto the tackle.  A set cannot be reset for offside, markers not square or for foul play.

A referee can also give a penalty and punish a player with a sin bin if the infringements are persistent.

As with the actual penalties for ruck infringements, the call is subjective.  How long is too long in the tackle, what constitutes a flop etc. Because of this subjective nature, we are bound to see variations across ref's no matter how much we crave consistency.

I guess one of the key points is whether the referees are giving set restarts for infringements that wouldn't have been pinged with a penalty previously.  If this is the case then perhaps it is micro management.

The problem with ruck penalties is that when we clamp down as a sport we get too many penalties and a disjointed game and when we are more lenient the ruck becomes a mess.  Overall, with this law, I think we are seeing reduced penalty counts in games and in general I think the ruck is cleaner than it has been in previous seasons.  On that count, I think it is a success.

Is it perfect - no.  Is the NRL great to watch at the moment - yes.  Whether the law has made a massive difference who can tell but I am really enjoying the rugby on show.

There was a concern coaches would work a way around it.... Haven't seen much to suggest this yet... Not sure how they would anyway

[The Rocket]

Recent article by Roy Masters (if you get a chance read his stuff ,great knowledge and involvement in the game and written in an amusing and erudite manner) said that refs where so well known for having different things that they cracked down on in the 70`s that when Match Day refs where announced on tuesdays in the racing section of the daily rags  the coaches were the first ones out of bed to get the paper so that could plan the rest of the week. Maybe we are going back to that given that we don`t know what these restarts are given for  , but we do know that some give more restarts than others.

[Harry Stottle]

17 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Recent article by Roy Masters (if you get a chance read his stuff ,great knowledge and involvement in the game and written in an amusing and erudite manner) said that refs where so well known for having different things that they cracked down on in the 70`s that when Match Day refs where announced on tuesdays in the racing section of the daily rags  the coaches were the first ones out of bed to get the paper so that could plan the rest of the week. Maybe we are going back to that given that we don`t know what these restarts are given for  , but we do know that some give more restarts than others.

We (or I) have not heard of any reaction from the fans who have had the pleasure of being in the stadium as far as this re-set rule is concerened, any reports or anything been quoted over there Rod?

[Tommygilf]

I like it in principle and think it will work.

I'm yet to see my team play with the rule (or indeed anyone play against Wigan) and the biases that come with it however.

[Man of Kent]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes you are 10,000+ miles away, but in effect you are a lot closer to the action than you will be when watching live at the ground, As the OP states even with the advantage of close up and play back it is hard to distinguish what the set as been restarted for, when it comes here and crowds will be back in and fans are non the wiser why the offence has been awarded especially if one team is recieving far more than the other there will be all kinds of accusations pointed at the official.

We kind of already have that now. The crowd can rarely hear the ref call dominant  and surrender tackles and the extra time given to the defending team can raise hackles with some fans.

At least with six-again the ref visibly wipes the tackle count.

[John Rhino]

16 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Of the set restart calls I`ve seen, had the same ruck occurred last year without a penalty, most would have brought the thought "lucky to get away with that" to mind. Defenders go to the edge of what`s allowed. There is therefore a margin close to that edge where something would not be called a penalty unless it were a repeat offence, but which is now being called as six-again.

This is the problem. If you have a rule that is subjective then there is always an "edge".

If you "tighten up" up on the rule all you are doing is moving the edge not eliminating the offence. It's a fine balance and up the the authorities to bear in mind what the speccy wants to see and not try to micromanage the game 

[The Rocket]

42 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

We (or I) have not heard of any reaction from the fans who have had the pleasure of being in the stadium as far as this re-set rule is concerened, any reports or anything been quoted over there Rod?

Some great analysis and thoughtful commentary going on in this thread , but to your question , I haven`t heard any interviews with people at the grounds or have been to a game , but the over all public response over here has been incredible. The telling response has been the commentary coming from players and supporters of other codes. Everyone is talking about the non-stop action of the League and why can`t and how can ... we get that. Believe me in OZ the codes don`t complement each other. Another funny thing is the ARU`s  adoption of some very League like rules   -  WHAT A HOOT !     40/20`s , line dropouts ,sin bin ,    tinkering of course .

[Harry Stottle]

33 minutes ago, Man of Kent said:

We kind of already have that now. The crowd can rarely hear the ref call dominant  and surrender tackles and the extra time given to the defending team can raise hackles with some fans.

At least with six-again the ref visibly wipes the tackle count.

That's not the point, yes there will be much less free kicks awarded but with this new ruling people on the terraces will be scratching thier head saying "whats that for". Presently there is no need for an audible call from the ref at least he gives a visual action saying what discretion has been commited in awarding a free kick, be totally honest Kent and you as well Tommy if you are reading this, do you know, see or realise every time a set- restart is awarded what it is for even with your close up television view?

It will be interesting how it is viewed ftom the terraces and how well it will be received over here.

And I do wonder if our player's are as collectively fit and conditioned enough as the NRL player's. I would go as far as to say if we want to win the World Cup then don't adopt this rule change and risk it being adopted internationally.

Just a thought.

[DavidM]

3 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

crowds will be back in and fans are non the wiser why the offence has been awarded

I think this is a salient point . Yes there’s a siren , but if we get a spate of restarts and the game carries on at a pace the crowd will be wondering often what they’re for . There’s no stoppage for explanation , and doubly magnified if something comes off the back of it . As I say , I like this change , but I just think the application shouldn’t be picky and over technical . Especially when the fans return . They can’t hear the refs mic 

[Harry Stottle]

36 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

Some great analysis and thoughtful commentary going on in this thread , but to your question , I haven`t heard any interviews with people at the grounds or have been to a game , but the over all public response over here has been incredible. The telling response has been the commentary coming from players and supporters of other codes. Everyone is talking about the non-stop action of the League and why can`t and how can ... we get that. Believe me in OZ the codes don`t complement each other. Another funny thing is the ARU`s  adoption of some very League like rules   -  WHAT A HOOT !     40/20`s , line dropouts ,sin bin ,    tinkering of course .

Thanks for the reply Rod, as for your last comment that has been going on for years adopting our rules and style of play, my stock question when discussing the merits of both games with a Rah Rah follower is "How many coaches as Rugby League employed from the Union ranks to improve our game, not many if any at all, then compare that to how many coaches the Union game has employed from Rugby League to improve their game, enough said.

Someone once said to me that union would dearly love to drop two players from the field to open it up, but they can't do that, as a few years ago the word Union was dropped from their title and the game became known now officially as Rugby which was registered, so because in the kerfuffle that erupted in France in the 30's when League was taking a strong hold and the union authorities would do anything to try to halt it's progress the French RL registered the name Rugbytreize or the 'game of thirteen' subsequently not allowing Union to reduce the player's on the field to thirteen if they ever so wished to do so, how much that is true I don't know, perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject could inform me.