Jump to content

Fri 18th March : SL : Salford Red Devils v Leeds Rhinos KO : 8:00pm SKY


Who will win?  

38 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win?

    • Salford Red Devils
      26
    • Leeds Rhinos
      12


Recommended Posts


11 hours ago, Dunbar said:

When a team concedes a 20m restart from a poor kick that goes dead, we are told that one of the punishments is that they have conceded a 7 tackle set.

And yet when a defending team concede an extra tackle with a six again early in the tackle count, we are told that this is to the benefit of the defending team.

I get the argument that it allows a team to set a defensive line but this logic seems a little contradictory to me.

I don't think it was your intention, but I think this point perfectly illustrates the flaw in the 6 again rule. 

If I put a grubber kick in and it goes an inch too far, the defending team is 'rewarded' with 7 tackles from the 20m line. 

If I tackle a player 1m from their line and then hold them down while we get set, the 'reward' is 7 tackles from the 1m line. 

For the whole history of the game (OK, I could be wrong on this, I'm only 43 😆) the 2nd scenario would have been more severely punished. One is foul play, the other is just a poorly executed kick. 

I think this is the issue I have with some of the tweaks recently. Firstly I think some are unnecessary and are 'fixing' things that weren't a problem, and secondly I think some changes are made in isolation without looking at the bigger picture and the potential contradictions the rules create.

I think we have a bit of an obsession with not wanting to stop a game, I don't have any issue with blowing for a penalty for foul play. Its been part of the game throughout its history. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last night must have had more set restarts than any other match I can recall, most of the time I did not see what they were given for just heard the claxton signalling a set restart, in effect they are a type of penalty but they are done so quickly the captain does not have the opportunity to ask the ref why or what was that for!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't think it was your intention, but I think this point perfectly illustrates the flaw in the 6 again rule. 

If I put a grubber kick in and it goes an inch too far, the defending team is 'rewarded' with 7 tackles from the 20m line. 

If I tackle a player 1m from their line and then hold them down while we get set, the 'reward' is 7 tackles from the 1m line. 

For the whole history of the game (OK, I could be wrong on this, I'm only 43 😆) the 2nd scenario would have been more severely punished. One is foul play, the other is just a poorly executed kick. 

I think this is the issue I have with some of the tweaks recently. Firstly I think some are unnecessary and are 'fixing' things that weren't a problem, and secondly I think some changes are made in isolation without looking at the bigger picture and the potential contradictions the rules create.

I think we have a bit of an obsession with not wanting to stop a game, I don't have any issue with blowing for a penalty for foul play. Its been part of the game throughout its history. 

Exactly 

theres nothing wrong with a stoppage if theres been an infringement.

in your example with the sox again on the first tackle near the mine (and it happens all the time) the attacking side don’t really get that much of an advantage.

 

its also frustrating as a spectator because the six agains can be given for quite a few things and the ref doesn’t make a signal as to why it was given other than the six again signal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Last night must have had more set restarts than any other match I can recall, most of the time I did not see what they were given for just heard the claxton signalling a set restart, in effect they are a type of penalty but they are done so quickly the captain does not have the opportunity to ask the ref why or what was that for!

Yes and it’s one of the reasons i dislike it.

 

what actually are the infringements it can be given for?

Hands on ball

too long in the tackle

flop

offside at marker?

Edited by Chrispmartha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I don't think it was your intention, but I think this point perfectly illustrates the flaw in the 6 again rule. 

If I put a grubber kick in and it goes an inch too far, the defending team is 'rewarded' with 7 tackles from the 20m line. 

If I tackle a player 1m from their line and then hold them down while we get set, the 'reward' is 7 tackles from the 1m line. 

For the whole history of the game (OK, I could be wrong on this, I'm only 43 😆) the 2nd scenario would have been more severely punished. One is foul play, the other is just a poorly executed kick. 

I think this is the issue I have with some of the tweaks recently. Firstly I think some are unnecessary and are 'fixing' things that weren't a problem, and secondly I think some changes are made in isolation without looking at the bigger picture and the potential contradictions the rules create.

I think we have a bit of an obsession with not wanting to stop a game, I don't have any issue with blowing for a penalty for foul play. Its been part of the game throughout its history. 

Yes, this scenario is the reason why the NRL has now gone for a penalty when a team is coming away from their own line and teams 'gaming' the six again law.  I think this is a good compromise.

My specific point was about people saying that an extra tackle (or two depending on when the six again was called) was of no value when in other circumstances it is described as a significant advantage.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

its also frustrating as a spectator because the six agains can be given for quite a few things and the ref doesn’t make a signal as to why it was given other than the six again signal.

Anecdote isn't data but, to my eyes, this is happening more and more across the board - not just for six again.

  • Like 3

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, this scenario is the reason why the NRL has now gone for a penalty when a team is coming away from their own line and teams 'gaming' the six again law.  I think this is a good compromise.

My specific point was about people saying that an extra tackle (or two depending on when the six again was called) was of no value when in other circumstances it is described as a significant advantage.

I don’t think anyone has said it’s of no value but it can be as much value to the team giving it away in some circumstances, unlike a penalty.

 

The 7 tackle set from a dead ball was brought in for a specific reason - to stop negative play by kicking it dead in purpose. It is also totally clear why they have got 7 tackles unlike the six again rule.

 

What specific reason was the six again rule brought in for?

Edited by Chrispmartha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I don’t think anyone has said it’s of no value but it can be as much value to the team giving it away in some circumstances, unlike a penalty.

 

The 7 tackle set from a dead ball was brought in for a specific reason - to stop negative play by kicking it dead in purpose. It is also totally clear why they have got 7 tackles unlike the six again rule.

 

What specific reason was the six again rule brought in for?

As I say, I think the NRL have got the balance right this year with penalties called when teams slow play down early in the tackle count when a team is bringing the ball away from their own line.

As far as I am aware, the six again was introduced to punish teams for interference at the ruck (and then extended to the 10m offside) without creating a stop/start game by seeing too many penalties being blown.

The six again is not for everyone, I understand that.  But I remember in the season before its introduction, there were games ruined by a huge number of penalties.  I am in favour of it because I think the positives outweigh the negatives but I fully understand that others have a different view.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Yes, this scenario is the reason why the NRL has now gone for a penalty when a team is coming away from their own line and teams 'gaming' the six again law.  I think this is a good compromise.

My specific point was about people saying that an extra tackle (or two depending on when the six again was called) was of no value when in other circumstances it is described as a significant advantage.

I think people saying that also had the thing about an extra tackle being on your own line as a booster though. That was certainly my point. 

7 tackles is another thing that I personally feel was ill thought out. I liked the zero part, but then giving 7 from 20m restarts etc was totally unnecessary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

As I say, I think the NRL have got the balance right this year with penalties called when teams slow play down early in the tackle count when a team is bringing the ball away from their own line.

As far as I am aware, the six again was introduced to punish teams for interference at the ruck (and then extended to the 10m offside) without creating a stop/start game by seeing too many penalties being blown.

The six again is not for everyone, I understand that.  But I remember in the season before its introduction, there were games ruined by a huge number of penalties.  I am in favour of it because I think the positives outweigh the negatives but I fully understand that others have a different view.

I agree that the NRL tweaks sound like they are an improvement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Segovia Carpet said:

Sale RU are

Why would they do that? They want a Tennant who will a) pay and b) pay market rent. That Salford have been neither of those at times over the past decade is Salford's problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

As I say, I think the NRL have got the balance right this year with penalties called when teams slow play down early in the tackle count when a team is bringing the ball away from their own line.

As far as I am aware, the six again was introduced to punish teams for interference at the ruck (and then extended to the 10m offside) without creating a stop/start game by seeing too many penalties being blown.

The six again is not for everyone, I understand that.  But I remember in the season before its introduction, there were games ruined by a huge number of penalties.  I am in favour of it because I think the positives outweigh the negatives but I fully understand that others have a different view.

I think the main issue i have is it is given for multiple things if it was just for deliberately slowing  the ruck down I wouldn’t think it was that bad.

it’s confusing and frustrating as a spectator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Why would they do that? They want a Tennant who will a) pay and b) pay market rent. That Salford have been neither of those at times over the past decade is Salford's problem.

Long story short as had been pointed out many times before is Salford have never fulfilled criteria of rent and never met highly optimistic targets .

Football club will switch with them, Devils will be able to grow commercially and off the field at Moor Lane.  

Sale will continue to be propped up by tv money and more bluechip sponsors despite averaging little better than Salford even though they have that rugby market to themselves.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Why would they do that? They want a Tennant who will a) pay and b) pay market rent. That Salford have been neither of those at times over the past decade is Salford's problem.

Irrelevant to the current situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Agar will get the blame but ultimately Leeds are bang average at best. They have a decent front row but the rest of the pack is a bunch of plodders and thugs.

The backline is very ordinary and Austin is extracting urine with his level of performance. Feel a bit sorry for Sezer as he hasn’t got much to work with. 

While Carney, Watkins, Wells, Brooks etc try and look for "what's going on or has gone wrong at Leeds" and "Is Agar the right man" Phil Clarke suggested that maybe the issue with Leeds is that they're just not good enough, he suggested the forwards don't make enough metres and don't work hard enough in defence etc, he was pulled up by Carney claiming that they have Oledski, Prior, Cam Smith, et al that they are good enough.

But are they? was Phil right? are they actually that good or just, like a lot of players, especially at Leeds, Warrington, Wigan etc, just over hyped?

From what I've seen of Leeds in recent years, Kruise Leeming is by far their best player consistently, Dwyer also impresses me but Leeds fans don't seem to rate him, Prior, Cam Smith, Donaldson, Martin etc appear to me to nothing than average SL players, their expensive half backs have been anonymous and they don't appear to have brought through any leaders since the likes of Peacock, Sinfield, McGuire, Burrow, JJB et all all packed in.

I know we all love taking the P out of Leeds, Leeds fans' excuses for their crapness but maybe, just maybe, they just aren't good enough?

Edited by meast
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, meast said:

While Carney, Watkins, Wells, Brookes etc try and look for "what's going on gone wrong at Leeds" and "Is Agar the right man" Phil Clarke suggested that maybe the issue with Leeds is that they're just not good enough, he suggested the forwards don't make enough metres and don't work hard enough in defence etc, he was pulled up by Carney claiming that they have Oledski, Prior, Cam Smith, et al that they are good enough.

But are they? was Phil right? are they actually that good or just, like a lot of players, especially at Leeds, Warrington, Wigan etc, just over hyped?

From what I've seen of Leeds in recent years, Kruise Leeming is by far their best player consistently, Dwyer also impresses me but Leeds fans don't seem to rate him, Prior, Cam Smith, Donaldson, Martin etc appear to me to nothing than average SL players, their expensive half backs have been anonymous and they don't appear to have brought through any leaders since the likes of Peacock, Sinfield, McGuire, Burrow, JJB et all all packed in.

I know we all love taking the P out of Leeds, Leeds fans' excuses for their crapness but maybe, just maybe, they just aren't good enough?

Leeds squad isn’t good enough to win the SL that i have no doubt, but equally I don’t think they are a side that should be at the bottom end of the table.

Dwyer is fine as an impact player but his distribution is shocking and his headless chicken rutine can look impressive its of no value in s poorly performing team, he is however not as bad as some Leeds fans think imo.

Prior is or should  I say was s fabulous player with a huge work rate but he looks to be on the decline.

Cam Smith is still only young which I think people forget, w a classic ball handling 13 who does s lot of work, put him in a side playing well and hed look a different player.

We are 2 good props short, we lack size punch snd an offloading game. We are getting absolutely  battered in the middle, Oledski cannot carry a whole pack, which then leads the underperforming halves to look even worse.

Its pointless looking back to when we had Peacock, McGuire, Sinfield etc, that was a once in a lifetime team to have sll those players at once, but I get your point.

 

TLDR

we aren’t good enough, but we are playing a lot worse than this group of players are capable of. Thanks down to the coaching setup imo.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Last night must have had more set restarts than any other match I can recall, most of the time I did not see what they were given for just heard the claxton signalling a set restart, in effect they are a type of penalty but they are done so quickly the captain does not have the opportunity to ask the ref why or what was that for!

The ref usually states what it's for, but you can't hear for the likes of Biz, Baz and Tez waffling on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

As I say, I think the NRL have got the balance right this year with penalties called when teams slow play down early in the tackle count when a team is bringing the ball away from their own line.

As far as I am aware, the six again was introduced to punish teams for interference at the ruck (and then extended to the 10m offside) without creating a stop/start game by seeing too many penalties being blown.

The six again is not for everyone, I understand that.  But I remember in the season before its introduction, there were games ruined by a huge number of penalties.  I am in favour of it because I think the positives outweigh the negatives but I fully understand that others have a different view.

I think the six again serves it's purpose well in reducing stoppages in play, but everyone can see that sometimes it would be more advantageous to the team in possession to have a penalty awarded.

The best solution I've heard would be to allow a 'captain's call', where when the ref calls six again, the captain of the team with the ball can say "we'll have a penalty instead".

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...