Jump to content

Six again


Recommended Posts

Again this came up on the game thread last night, but worth its own discussion.

I largely don't mind the set restart rule now it has settled down and it has reduced the number of penalties. However, following a turnover, teams have clearly calculated that giving a set restart away on the first tackle is a zero-cost play, so we see teams lying on for 15 seconds while the rest of the defence gets set. In that case, I think it has to be a 'proper' penalty and a yellow for the offender.

  • Like 4

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I'd just get rid completely. Awful rule. I recall in Warrington's loss to Leeds in July, Leeds gave away six again a to stop Warrington who were looking for a match winner as time was the key point.

I didn't blame Leeds for this, it was smart play and the right thing to do. But the law can be so easily exploited.

  • Like 5

Twitter: @TrylineUK
Latest Blog: Bringing the Game to a New Audience

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get rid, awful rule.

  • Like 7

PROUD TO BE A MEMBER OF http://www.rugbyleaguecares.org/ and http://www.walesrugbyleague.co.uk/article/8790/join-team-wales-for-2013

Predictions for the future -

Crusaders RL to get a franchise for 2012 onwards -WRONG

Widnes Vikings also to get a franchise - RIGHT

Crusaders RL to do the double over Widnes and finish five places ahead of them -WRONG

Widnes Vikings NOT to dominate rugby league in years to come! STILL TO COME

http://www.pitchero.com/clubs/cardiffdemonsrlfc/

http://www.walesrugbyleague.co.uk/

I promise to pay �10 to the charity of Bomb Jacks choice if Widnes Millionaires finish above the battling underdogs Crusaders RL. I OWE A TENNER!

http://www.jaxaxe.co...89/Default.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Just Browny said:

I largely don't mind the set restart rule now it has settled down and it has reduced the number of penalties. However, following a turnover, teams have clearly calculated that giving a set restart away on the first tackle is a zero-cost play, so we see teams lying on for 15 seconds while the rest of the defence gets set. In that case, I think it has to be a 'proper' penalty and a yellow for the offender.

We`ve gone through this on other threads.

And you`ve answered your own point. - Holding on for as long as it takes for the ref to call 6-again is like holding on after a clean break. It`s clearly a professional foul and should be treated as such.

I`ll be surprised if the NRL don`t make an announcement to that effect before the start of next year`s premiership. 

In the UK, might be different. Our administrators are usually well behind the curve. Likewise our media. None of them are well-acquainted with what happens on the pitch. So, as we`ve seen with the PTB, things are allowed to drift and degenerate.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Just Browny said:

Again this came up on the game thread last night, but worth its own discussion.

I largely don't mind the set restart rule now it has settled down and it has reduced the number of penalties. However, following a turnover, teams have clearly calculated that giving a set restart away on the first tackle is a zero-cost play, so we see teams lying on for 15 seconds while the rest of the defence gets set. In that case, I think it has to be a 'proper' penalty and a yellow for the offender.

As soon as it was announced that the rule was being introduced anyone could see that would happen. I would get rid of the 6 again completely.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great rule it just needs tweaking slightly. As has been mentioned the rule needs changing early in the tackle count. I coach players to take advantage of this rule because I would rather have a really good defensive line but an extra tackle to defend than risk an out of sorts defensive line early in the tackle count.

Also the rule would need looking at for late in the game, in a close game with a minute or so remaining it makes sense to give repeated six agains away to run down the clock and stop a team getting a potential match winning score. This would need a common sense element and maybe an onfield captains call if the game is within one score and the team behind has the penalty in say the last 5 minutes. Last thing I want is six again if 2 behind and in front of the posts with seconds remaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It feels like all the suggested additional complexity with regards to penalties if inside a team's 40m, if the offence is within the first 2-3 tackles, if it's in the last 5-10 minutes of a game...could just be avoided by binning off the rule entirely. There is no problem the 6 again rule is trying to solve

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

In the UK, might be different. Our administrators are usually well behind the curve. Likewise our media. None of them are well-acquainted with what happens on the pitch. So, as we`ve seen with the PTB, things are allowed to drift and degenerate.

 Not sure about being behind the curve. Scrums aside we follow everything the chain rattlers do in quite a timely fashion

Edited by Bedfordshire Bronco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

It feels like all the suggested additional complexity with regards to penalties if inside a team's 40m, if the offence is within the first 2-3 tackles, if it's in the last 5-10 minutes of a game...could just be avoided by binning off the rule entirely. There is no problem the 6 again rule is trying to solve

I'm in agreement about over complicating things. The 'problem' is supposedly stopping the game flowing by awarding a penalty - if this is an issue that needed fixing, I would suggest this:

When the ref calls six again, the attacking team's captain has the right to stop play to take a penalty instead if they would rather (no matter how far through the tackle count, where they are on the field or how many minutes left).

This would still keep play going in a lot of cases, the exceptions being where it benefits the penalised team to do so.

Edited by Barley Mow
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I like the 6 again as I was getting increasingly frustrated with the number of ruck penalties being blown before the law came in.

But I am also aware that the game is looking very repetitive to the casual viewer, especially this year with the absence of scrums. 

I would be happy to see the six again removed if it added a little more variety to the sport.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Barley Mow said:

I'm in agreement about over complicating things. The 'problem' is supposedly stopping the game flowing by awarding a penalty - if this is an issue that needed fixing, I would suggest this:

When the ref calls six again, the attacking team's captain has the right to stop play to take a penalty instead if they would rather (no matter how far through the tackle count, where they are on the field or how many minutes left).

This would still keep play going in a lot of cases, the exceptions being where it benefits the penalised team to do so.

I've never been a fan of 6 again but if we are to have it I've always thought that this should be the case.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

 Not sure about being behind the curve. Scrums aside we follow everything the chain rattlers do in quite a timely fashion

There is also the small matter of our PTB. I have an uncomfortable feeling some at the RFL think they`re ahead of the curve on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

But I am also aware that the game is looking very repetitive to the casual viewer, especially this year with the absence of scrums. 

The NRL introduced lateral options for scrums.

The RFL made the same change in the knowledge that we didn`t currently have scrums. I don`t think I`ve yet seen anyone choose anywhere other than the middle to restart. So wherever an error occurs on the field, the result is a slow-motion PTB in the middle. I`ve said it before - it looks more like a series of training drills than a game.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am Alex Walmsley and, for the life of me, cannot see any way in which I'd be still as effective if the six again rule was binned.

 

  • Like 1

England RU Coach Eddie Jones : "I spent a bit of time up at Hull and I like the full back there Connor, he's a tough, skilful player"

Jake Connor : "I've never played Union, it doesn't look that hard, you never say never but it looks too boring for me"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The NRL introduced lateral options for scrums.

The RFL made the same change in the knowledge that we didn`t currently have scrums. I don`t think I`ve yet seen anyone choose anywhere other than the middle to restart. So wherever an error occurs on the field, the result is a slow-motion PTB in the middle. I`ve said it before - it looks more like a series of training drills than a game.

I completely agree.

I was watching the State of Origin documentaries on YouTube a couple of weeks ago and there was so much variety in the game. Tactical kicking for touch and contesting a scrum close to an opponents line as an example. 

We are obsessed with speeding up the game but we are speeding up the wrong parts. We allow ridiculously sloppy non existent play the balls to make the game faster but wait an eternity for a turnover play the ball to restart after am (imaginary) error.

I would much rather we had players immediately pack a scrum and get on with the game... but again they took 40 seconds to set when we had them. Because the play is so frantic, all the players are looking for a breather so no one is interested in getting the play moving again. 

We need to rebalance the game... slow down the frantic play and restart quicker when play stops.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2021 at 16:51, Chris22 said:

I'd just get rid completely. Awful rule. I recall in Warrington's loss to Leeds in July, Leeds gave away six again a to stop Warrington who were looking for a match winner as time was the key point.

I didn't blame Leeds for this, it was smart play and the right thing to do. But the law can be so easily exploited.

Why didn't a Leeds player just go down with a sham injury that it seems is what all teams employ these days and is the useual way of stopping the momentum of an attacking team.

But agree, scrap the six again get back to proper infringements being called and a free kick being given, if a team is repeatedly being marched back 30 meters they will soon learn, but then again more opportunities for sham injuries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Old Frightful said:

I am Alex Walmsley and, for the life of me, cannot see any way in which I'd be still as effective if the six again rule was binned.

 

Brilliant. Why he doesn’t get penalised for milking the six again or stepping off the mark is totally beyond me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Dunbar said:

I completely agree.

I was watching the State of Origin documentaries on YouTube a couple of weeks ago and there was so much variety in the game. Tactical kicking for touch and contesting a scrum close to an opponents line as an example. 

We are obsessed with speeding up the game but we are speeding up the wrong parts. We allow ridiculously sloppy non existent play the balls to make the game faster but wait an eternity for a turnover play the ball to restart after am (imaginary) error.

I would much rather we had players immediately pack a scrum and get on with the game... but again they took 40 seconds to set when we had them. Because the play is so frantic, all the players are looking for a breather so no one is interested in getting the play moving again. 

We need to rebalance the game... slow down the frantic play and restart quicker when play stops.

Yep, we appear to have created so many inconsistencies around pace of the game. Refs appear to be walking in treacle when it comes to restarts, and this is clearly an intentional thing to control the pace of restarts. 

The shot clock at drop-outs has become a waste of time as they just stop for injuries again. 

I appreciate the player welfare element as well, but we are in a weird situation where we are stopping the game when a doctor enters the field for an injury 40metres away. 

The removal of the free-play was a real negative for me, it had become a nice little play and kept the game flowing, but now we have doubled-down with refs stopping any dropped ball, backwards or forwards. 

It's all a bit confused at the moment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...