6 again on first tackle

[The Blues Ox]

It is a really easy fix using the NRL method or just by using a few little tweeks to it. One easy way to get rid of so many six agains on te first couple of tackles would be just to add a full set of 6 tackles on top of the the remaining tackles that a team has left. Suddenly giving a six again and having to defend 12 tackles wouldn't be so appealing. 

[sam4731]

25 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

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

 

1 hour 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.

 

[Dunbar]

Just now, sam4731 said:

 

 

Yes, I read that.

But the NRL ref's do this and don't seem to have any problems and it has pretty much completely removed that cynical first play where teams are happy to concede the six again after a kick as it is no punishment.

[sam4731]

Just now, Dunbar said:

Yes, I read that.

But the NRL ref's do this and don't seem to have any problems and it has pretty much completely removed that cynical first play where teams are happy to concede the six again after a kick as it is no punishment.

It's just so unfair to add something else for them to do. I think if we're going to continously add more rules for them to police, we simply cannot criticise them for making mistakes.

[meast]

20 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

It is a really easy fix using the NRL method or just by using a few little tweeks to it. One easy way to get rid of so many six agains on te first couple of tackles would be just to add a full set of 6 tackles on top of the the remaining tackles that a team has left. Suddenly giving a six again and having to defend 12 tackles wouldn't be so appealing. 

I think that was kind of the original thinking but it's now got twisted into a tactic to only concede 1 more tackle rather than 4,5 or 6.

As alluded to earlier, it's very rare to see a restart given on tackles 4 and 5.

[Dunbar]

11 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

It's just so unfair to add something else for them to do. I think if we're going to continously add more rules for them to police, we simply cannot criticise them for making mistakes.

I fully agree with the sentiment.

We place our referee's in a horrible position.  We ask them to ignore some of the laws of the game completely.  Then we ask them to ignore some of the laws in favour of modern 'interpretations' which are entirely subjective.  And then we expect them to be consistent - both individualy and as a group.

In this particular instance though I don't think it is the straw that breaks the camel's back - in fact I think the NRL ref's ability to blow a penalty for a ruck infringement in the opposition 40 has given the ref a lot more authority than just being able to call a six again on the cynical first play.  I think it has benefited the ref's to have that in the locker.

[Click]

15 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

It's just so unfair to add something else for them to do. I think if we're going to continously add more rules for them to police, we simply cannot criticise them for making mistakes.

I think ref's are usually well aware of where the 40 metre line is to be able to judge on 40/20's etc that may be attempted. I don't think this is all that "much" extra for them to do.

[redjonn]

As a sport surely we want a set of rules/laws that simplify the game to the watching audience, plus for sure in attracting newcomers. Yet we forever introduce rules to further complicate. Whether that is to improve an existing rule/law to apply differently depending upon what area of the field the infringement is or what we deem to apply subjectively through changing the interpretations.

We seem to be more and more a niche sport over here and the rules/laws fiddling suggests we like it being a niche sport to us anoraks.  The six again and if the application changed depending on field position is just a manifest of this underlying approach.

Edited August 14, 2023 by redjonn

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

3 hours 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.

Scrap it for a penalty 

[Anita Bath]

37 minutes ago, redjonn said:

As a sport surely we want a set of rules/laws that simplify the game to the watching audience, plus for sure in attracting newcomers. Yet we forever introduce rules to further complicate. Whether that is to improve an existing rule/law to apply differently depending upon what area of the field the infringement is or what we deem to apply subjectively through changing the interpretations.

We seem to be more and more a niche sport over here and the rules/laws fiddling suggests we like it being a niche sport to us anoraks.  The six again and if the application changed depending on field position is just a manifest of this underlying approach.

Dead right, and if you need proof of this, look at rugby union, law tinkering that has made the game unwatchable.

[Bostik Bailey]

Here is my 2 pennarth. Six again is only for 'Markers Not Square' Lying On and any other messing about penalty, Oh and moving off the Mark Penalty.

[north yorks trinity]

30 minutes ago, Bostik Bailey said:

Here is my 2 pennarth. Six again is only for 'Markers Not Square' Lying On and any other messing about penalty, Oh and moving off the Mark Penalty.

But lying on is exactly what teams like to do on the first tackle; better to defend one extra tackle with no loss of territory and a set defence than risk dealing with broken play.

[Lowdesert]

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

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

not sure how these are collated but it gives an idea.

 

 

https://www.rugbyleagueeyetest.com/2023/06/19/the-most-prolific-referees-and-team-discipline-in-2023/

[Trojan Horse]

1 hour ago, Bostik Bailey said:

Here is my 2 pennarth. Six again is only for 'Markers Not Square' Lying On and any other messing about penalty, Oh and moving off the Mark Penalty.

Why just overcomplicate things though. The refs have enough to deal with. Just revert back to penalty for all offences. It worked for decades and 6 again is recent and the point of so much confusion and controversy. Why add more.

[Bostik Bailey]

1 hour ago, north yorks trinity said:

But lying on is exactly what teams like to do on the first tackle; better to defend one extra tackle with no loss of territory and a set defence than risk dealing with broken play.

aint punctuation important (sorry)

Here is my 2 pennarth. Six again is only for 'Markers Not Square'.

Lying On and any other messing about penalty, Oh and moving off the Mark Penalty.

 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

1 hour ago, north yorks trinity said:

But lying on is exactly what teams like to do on the first tackle; better to defend one extra tackle with no loss of territory and a set defence than risk dealing with broken play.

Think he saying that 6-again should be for only being not square. 

Then anything else like lying on is a penalty 

He missed some punctuation 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

25 minutes ago, Bostik Bailey said:

aint punctuation important (sorry)

Here is my 2 pennarth. Six again is only for 'Markers Not Square'.

Lying On and any other messing about penalty, Oh and moving off the Mark Penalty.

 

Ha....just sent his after I posted 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

26 minutes ago, Trojan Horse said:

Why just overcomplicate things though. The refs have enough to deal with. Just revert back to penalty for all offences. It worked for decades and 6 again is recent and the point of so much confusion and controversy. Why add more.

When it works it is good I guess.....allows continuation of an attack near the oppos line rather than giving defense time to reset 

[bobbruce]

3 hours ago, Trojan Horse said:

Why just overcomplicate things though. The refs have enough to deal with. Just revert back to penalty for all offences. It worked for decades and 6 again is recent and the point of so much confusion and controversy. Why add more.

It didn’t work that’s why 6 again was brought in in the first place. 

[DavidM]

The 6 again has in general been positive imo , but there are frustrations and like any rule it gets worked by players . Its very noticeable how many sides give them away on tackles 1 or 2 , it’s barely a punishment. Also the number given away in your own 20 - teams back their defence and the attacking side can’t kick at goal . I also think a number of these are professional fouls , either in the ruck or offside to block a clear try scoring chance  and should be sin bins . Also , how many restarts is a sinbin ? Not only in a short time but over a game . I don’t think I’ve ever seen a sin bin for giving away lots of restarts , unlike penalties . Refs just keep calling them . Restarts can also look completely random or you don’t know what they’re for , but I guess that was the same for penalties . So it’s good and bad , swings and roundabouts but I wouldn’t be scrapping them . Ultimately my biggest gripe with the modern game is its over officiated generally . The tolerance of anything is to low , however laudable the aims , so restarts and penalties litter games , affecting the spectacle and having to great an influence on the game . Ironically players are more disciplined now than ever , and some things you just can’t penalise out of the game however hard you try 

[JT RL]

Give the team receiving the infringement the option;

Six again, tap or kick to touch, or kick at goal. 

[JT RL]

Repeated infringements, team yellow.

[Dunbar]

47 minutes ago, JT RL said:

Repeated infringements, team yellow.

I reckon a side could really run away with a game if the opposition team are all off for 10 minutes.

[DavidM]

9 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I reckon a side could really run away with a game if the opposition team are all off for 10 minutes.

That made me laugh 

[Barry Badrinath]

I'd quite like to see a return of the team warning, with clearly defined parameters though.