6 again on first tackle

[meast]

How long are we going to persist with this shambolic rule that in effect legalises cheating.

All teams on defence now use this to gain an advantage and it's time it was stopped. 

Some examples from yesterday, Giants caught a kick, Saints chasers bring him down, 2 Saints players then lay all over the top of him and held him down, set restart, advantage to the defence, another one, there was a chance of a quick break, but again Saints held down, any other tackle but the zero/first and it's a penalty and a sin bin for professional fouling, set restart and advantage to the defence.

Then the most ridiculous of the lot, Giants were awarded THREE restarts on the same play, advantage certainly to the defensive side, when does it become a penalty?

It's a total mess, the PTBs are a total mess, the defensive side know there's little risk in conceding 6 again as they aren't being put at a disadvantage it just makes the whole thing unwatchable at times.

Obviously every team including my own are guilty so it's not just picking on one team, some are better and cleverer at it than others.

Time to scrap it and start penalising players for cheating not rewarding them.

Edited August 14, 2023 by meast

[ELBOWSEYE]

Totally agree,

[Agbrigg]

I totally agree, if you infringe on the first tackle it's basically a penalty of an extra tackle which defensively makes it a small price to pay. However if you infringe on tackle five, you are penalised six extra tackles. This is bonkers, an infringement is an infringement and the penalty must be the same irrespective of the tackle count number.

[Trojan Horse]

Simple, just scrap 6 again. It’s such a terrible and inconsistently applied rule. 
 

The sport was perfectly fine before Covid when it didn’t even exist. 
 

Just revert back to original penalty for offences and the deterrent is a loss in territory whether it’s on the first or last. 

There was never an issue before 6 again and didn’t it only get applied to follow the NRL.

[Dunbar]

The NRL have found the right balance for me with a penalty when a team is penalised for a ruck infringement in the opposition 40 and then a set restart outside the 40.

I am certainly not against trialing different elements and that includes going back to just a full penalty but I remember the number of penalties we used to get in a game and that was when the game was harder to watch, for me anyway. 

What I do find odd though is the inconsistency in the arguments against the six again.  One week it is bad because it favours attacking teams and leads to blow outs while the next week it favours the defending team.

[johnh1]

Or just give two extra tackles. Makes no difference then if it's on tackle 1 or tackle 5.

[Damien]

I've never been a fan of it. Like with many rule changes, which often just seem to be for the sake of it, there are negative consequences unforseen by the administrators.

[gingerjon]

44 minutes ago, meast said:

How long are we going to persist with this shambolic rule that in effect legalises cheating.

All teams on defence now use this to gain an advantage and it's time it was stopped. 

Some examples from yesterday, Giants caught a kick, Saints chasers bring him down, 2 Saints players then lay all over the top of him and held him down, set restart, advantage to the defence, another one, there was a chance of a quick break, but again Saints held down, any other tackle but the zero/first and it's a penalty and a sin bin for professional fouling, set restart and advantage to the defence.

Then the most ridiculous of the lot, Giants were awarded THREE restarts on the same play, advantage certainly to the defensive side, when does it become a penalty?

it's a total mess, the PTBs are a total mess, the defensive side know there's little risk in conceding 6 again as they aren't being put at a disadvantage it just makes the whole thing unwatchable at times.

Obviously every team including my own are guilty so it's not just picking on one team, some are better and cleverer at it than others.

Time to scrap it and start penalising players for cheating not rewarding them.

I mostly agree with all that but changing will lead to an increase in penalties/stoppages etc.

Now, can we trust the RL media/social media/this board to be calm and rational in response to that.

[sam4731]

8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I mostly agree with all that but changing will lead to an increase in penalties/stoppages etc.

Now, can we trust the RL media/social media/this board to be calm and rational in response to that.

It wouldn't. If anything you'd see less penalties for offside/ruck infringements than you do 6 agains because refs would be more reluctant to give a penalty because a 6 again is very easy to give.

[Trojan Horse]

15 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I mostly agree with all that but changing will lead to an increase in penalties/stoppages etc.

Now, can we trust the RL media/social media/this board to be calm and rational in response to that.

On the counter side we may see higher quality rugby instead of rigid one dimensional running it in behind the ruck to force 6 agains and fatigue the opposition. 
 

Since the introduction of 6 again the tactics have changed. There is less attacking play focused on breaking the opposition down but more emphasis on quick plays and direct centre channel attacking. 
 

The rugby isn’t as exciting as it used to be years ago. The extra allowance to holding down and quick plays has also made the ruck scruffy. 
 

Adding to this I think officials struggle to apply the rules consistently for 6 again. They have so much to manage and now the pace of the game has been increased I sympathise with them and mistakes are creeping in. 
 

There seems a real split on 6 agains but if it has to remain then they need to look at 2 referees on the field. I personally hope they scrap 6 again. I thought it was introduced temporarily anyway along with scrums going. 

[daz39]

It's awful, This week when i sat down with Ian Watson and he was asked what rule do you hate the most and would change it was that one and i agree, he also brought it up in his post match interview last night too.

What is the point of the Ref's awarding 6 again on the 1st tackle, 20 metres out, twice, maybe three times in a row, what benefit is there to the attacking side? it's still 1st/zero tackle no matter how many times they call it, a defensive side can do this as many times as they like till their line is set and ready with no punishment at all.

We need to either scrap it, make it a penalty either on the 1st tackle or in your own 40 or add a tackle on because at the moment it is an absolutely pointless rule that is essentially there to benefit the defensive team only, punish it properly and lets eradicate it.

[meast]

43 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

The NRL have found the right balance for me with a penalty when a team is penalised for a ruck infringement in the opposition 40 and then a set restart outside the 40.

I am certainly not against trialing different elements and that includes going back to just a full penalty but I remember the number of penalties we used to get in a game and that was when the game was harder to watch, for me anyway. 

What I do find odd though is the inconsistency in the arguments against the six again.  One week it is bad because it favours attacking teams and leads to blow outs while the next week it favours the defending team.

This would be a solution but not ideal.

It's the whole conceding an extra tackle on the first play that does me, it rewards the offending side rather than the non offending side.

It effectively means that defenders can do what they want on the first tackle and not be put at a major disadvantage.

Obviously the risk is much greater to the defensive side further down the field and on later plays, that's how it should be.

[meast]

25 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I mostly agree with all that but changing will lead to an increase in penalties/stoppages etc.

Now, can we trust the RL media/social media/this board to be calm and rational in response to that.

Without the reward for the defenders they wouldn't be committing these offences to begin with.

 

Hopefully anyway.

[sam4731]

It's interesting because during Covid, most sports were trying to find ways of slowing down, getting extra breaks and preserving players, whereas Rugby League players decided to make the game quicker, have less breaks in play and running the players into the ground.

[daz39]

44 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

It wouldn't. If anything you'd see less penalties for offside/ruck infringements than you do 6 agains because refs would be more reluctant to give a penalty because a 6 again is very easy to give.

Correct, and teams/players/coaches know at the moment there is no deterrent to them in defence so will continue to do it, make it a penalty and 40/50 yards of field lost and they'd soon stop it.

Edited August 14, 2023 by daz39

[sam4731]

3 minutes ago, daz39 said:

Correct, and teams/players/coaches know at the moment there is no deterrent to them in defence so will continue to do it, make it a penalty and 40/50 yards off field lost and they'd soon stop it.

Also none of this NRL rule where its a penalty in your own 40. Referees have enough to do without them giving something else to watch.

[Damien]

6 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

It's interesting because during Covid, most sports were trying to find ways of slowing down, getting extra breaks and preserving players, whereas Rugby League players decided to make the game quicker, have less breaks in play and running the players into the ground.

And a faster game doesn't necessarily equate to better.

[sam4731]

Just now, Damien said:

And a faster game doesn't necessarily equate to better.

The authorities are convinced that the reason we can't attract a new audience is because we haven't got a good enough product. We can't attract a new audience because we don't tell them that the sport exists.

[Trojan Horse]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

And a faster game doesn't necessarily equate to better.

The quality has diminished last few years that’s for sure. 
 

Who wants to watch rigid direct middle assaults repeatedly? Bring back the mavericks and inventive expansive play to break down teams. 

[The Phantom Horseman]

52 minutes ago, johnh1 said:

Or just give two extra tackles. Makes no difference then if it's on tackle 1 or tackle 5.

I've suggested this on several occasions on this board (though I've usually said make it an extra three).

The other side of the coin is that you hardly ever see a 6 again on the fifth tackle, or even the fourth. It's probably partly because defenders are more careful to concede them at that stage in the tackle count, but I also think refs tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the defence at that stage, becuase it would be such a huge call.

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

The authorities are convinced that the reason we can't attract a new audience is because we haven't got a good enough product. We can't attract a new audience because we don't tell them that the sport exists.

A faster game always results in more scooting and 1 out easy runs down the middle because it is easy to gain a large amount of metres doing that. A faster game also makes it much easier to play for penalties and 6 agains.

[phiggins]

Scrap six again, go back to penalties for infringements but also we need to go back to making players play the ball properly. Naturally slowing the game down a fraction will likely increase the spectacle as will reduce some desparation of the wrestle.

[daz39]

5 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

I've suggested this on several occasions on this board (though I've usually said make it an extra three).

The other side of the coin is that you hardly ever see a 6 again on the fifth tackle, or even the fourth. It's probably partly because defenders are more careful to concede them at that stage in the tackle count, but I also think refs tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the defence at that stage, becuase it would be such a huge call.

I said this last night at the game, Saints did to us 30 metres out on the 5th tackle the exact same thing they'd been doing on the 1st tackle all game which obviously were all signalled 6 again but not in that situation, what the hell is the difference? surely 6 again has to be applied where and whenever not just in a backfield, low tackle count play?

[Dunbar]

43 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

Also none of this NRL rule where its a penalty in your own 40. Referees have enough to do without them giving something else to watch.

Why's that? It has pretty much solved the problem over there that we are discussing here.

[Dunbar]

29 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Scrap six again, go back to penalties for infringements but also we need to go back to making players play the ball properly. Naturally slowing the game down a fraction will likely increase the spectacle as will reduce some desparation of the wrestle.

100% agree with this.  Whether it is a penalty or six again, the underlying issue is how the ruck is managed / allowed to be played out.

We have tollerated the 'roll ball' which advantages the attacking team because the time it takes to play the ball properly (while small) is beneficial to the defensive line.

And so in order to mitigate the advantge of the incorrect play the ball, tacklers are managing the ruck, wrestling and holding down and referees are allowing this to a degree.  So we are stuck in this viscous cycle of allowing tacklers lattitude to hold down so a player doesn't get up too quickly to play the ball incorrectly.

Punish incorrect play the balls and punish lying on and we will be in a better position as a sport.