Six again

[Scotchy1 322]

After a year of 6 again, by and large it had been a success imo.

However one aspect annoys me and doesn't work.

When a 6 again has been given, the defence has gained illegally. Tackle 1 is then taken against a set defence making it more difficult for the attack. The defence then have an increased chance of disrupting the attack and either stopping the attack winning the collision, stopping the attack making metres, or forcing a mistake. All advantages from illegal act.

This could be somewhat mitigated by making the first tackle after '6' again zero tackle, effectively giving the attack 7 tackles but also meaning if the attack knock on or make a mistake before gaining an advantage, the play would revert to the penalty for interference. 

I think that would improve the balance a lot and make teams much less likely to give away 'tactical 6 again' penalties like we see.

That would leave the slow play at the end of games where a penalty doesn't really matter as the the next problem to address.

[Oxford 5,011]

14 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

After a year of 6 again, by and large it had been a success imo.

I have several suggestions but they can summed up in:  the rules are fine, leave them alone, don't fix it, it ain't broke!

[Scotchy1 322]

7 minutes ago, Oxford said:

I have several suggestions but they can summed up in:  the rules are fine, leave them alone, don't fix it, it ain't broke!

I'm not sure we can say that is the case when we see a kick slightly too long punished more than deliberately slowing the PTB

[Jill Halfpenny fan 206]

What puzzle's me is a seven tackle reset from the 20m line, after the first tackle the ref shouts "six again" but they still had six tackles to go anyway.

Have I missed something because I cannot remember a "seven again" call.

[Oxford 5,011]

5 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

I'm not sure we can say that is the case when we see a kick slightly too long punished more than deliberately slowing the PTB

How about making your kicks more accurate ?

[Oxford 5,011]

Just now, Jill Halfpenny fan said:

Have I missed something because I cannot remember a "seven again" call.

No Jill, you've missed nowt!

[DavidM 10,125]

11 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

I'm not sure we can say that is the case when we see a kick slightly too long punished

I think that is a frustration at times . That rule was brought in to stop overtly negative kicking . I remember a Dragons Storm game where the Dragons were belting the ball dead purely to stop Slater running the ball back . That may even have been a catalyst for this , but it is a catch all. A good kick can have a bad bounce ... how often does a commentator say ‘ good kick .. oh nearly ‘ . A well intentioned kick can have one more roll etc . I don’t think these should be 7 tackle sets . You can end up discouraging kicks , especially attacking kicks . More teams now take the tackle on the last . I would look at that 

[Scotchy1 322]

15 minutes ago, Oxford said:

How about making your kicks more accurate ?

We should do that. But can we really argue a misplaced kick deserves a harsher punishment than deliberate foul play?

[Oxford 5,011]

5 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

We should do that. But can we really argue a misplaced kick deserves a harsher punishment than deliberate foul play?

When the rule was brought in to prevent the attack from using the kick to achieve very negative outcomes we can certainly argue that.

But surely we upgrade the punisment for foul play if that's the case.

[Scotchy1 322]

1 minute ago, Oxford said:

When the rule was brought in to prevent the attack from using the kick to achieve very negative outcomes we can certainly argue that.

But surely we upgrade the punisment for foul play if that's the case.

Thats what i was suggesting, that 6 again, became 7 again with first tackle as a zero tackle to negate the advantage the offending team had gained. 

[Oxford 5,011]

3 minutes ago, Scotchy1 said:

Thats what i was suggesting, that 6 again, became 7 again with first tackle as a zero tackle to negate the advantage the offending team had gained. 

If we had seevn again for that the refs would be able to walk St Helens over the try line in hugely one sided games.

Maybe you should ask their fans ?

[Rupert Prince 1,539]

1 hour ago, Scotchy1 said:

After a year of 6 again, by and large it had been a success imo.

However one aspect annoys me and doesn't work.

When a 6 again has been given, the defence has gained illegally. Tackle 1 is then taken against a set defence making it more difficult for the attack. The defence then have an increased chance of disrupting the attack and either stopping the attack winning the collision, stopping the attack making metres, or forcing a mistake. All advantages from illegal act.

This could be somewhat mitigated by making the first tackle after '6' again zero tackle, effectively giving the attack 7 tackles but also meaning if the attack knock on or make a mistake before gaining an advantage, the play would revert to the penalty for interference. 

I think that would improve the balance a lot and make teams much less likely to give away 'tactical 6 again' penalties like we see.

That would leave the slow play at the end of games where a penalty doesn't really matter as the the next problem to address.

No.  Stop fiddling.  We should cancel the 6 rule.

[Dunbar 9,368]

5 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

No.  Stop fiddling.  We should cancel the 6 rule.

So we can all go back to moaning about how many ruck penalties are blown and how the ref is ruining the game with a penaltyfest.

[Rupert Prince 1,539]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

So we can all go back to moaning about how many ruck penalties are blown and how the ref is ruining the game with a penaltyfest.

We have managed without 6 again for decades. We only have it because the NRL can't afford an extra referee.

Really bad flops can be penalised for kick to touch. Flops and offside close to the line can be sent to the bin. I believe that rucks should be contested more and defenders should be allowed to able to steal the ball.  Attackers should protect the ball. Old stagers like McTigue could still slip the ball.  Today we get ball rips given as knock one and vice versa.  The most skilful players are the ones who are members of the Magic Circle.

The current situation is really is a bit fake. It's bad enough that we have a 11 yard line, it's just left the game with repetitious drives yo yoing back and forth up and down the field.  Its not just that yardage is being made, it's that there is no point to it.  Readers might say I am biased but last Friday really only Wigan were looking to move the ball away from the middle.