AH yes, the six again rule.
Brought in to speed up the game back in 2020, first in the NRL and then into Super League, the six again rule allows a referee to award an attacking side six more tackles for ruck infringements rather than a penalty.
Since then, the rule has been both criticised and lauded with proponents arguing that the ball is in play for longer whilst opponents believe it has been exploited by defensive sides, knowing they will not be penalised.
For retired Super League official, James Child – who announced his retirement before Christmas – the six again rule has been a ‘positive’ for the sport in terms of not allowing defending teams to reset their line on an attack.
“From a referee’s perspective we were conscious that teams were willing to concede a penalty on their goal line to reset their goal line defence,” Child told League Express.
“Six agains were introduced in part to combat teams deploying that tactic. It was also designed to create continuity. To be fair, I think it’s worked very well.”
Child also explained how referees have started to brandish yellow cards as a way of punishing those who are willing to concede a six again early in the tackle count where officials have interpreted the act as a tactical one.
“There have been occasions where teams have been willing to concede set restarts early in the tackle count or in yardage because the deterrent is not as big as conceding the penalty.
“To combat this referees have sin binned for repeated set restarts or patterns of conceding set restarts where it has been considered to be tactical.”
In terms of how the six again has been received by fans, Child does have sympathy for some supporters who might be puzzled as to why a reset of the tackle count has been given.
“I would generally say it has been positive and has created greater continuity and flow. It’s been less stop and start.”
“One drawback for some fans is that they may have a greater level of confusion as to why a set restart has been given rather than a penalty, as there’s no specific signal for the nature of ruck offence.”
