6-again rule sucks!!!

[Thirteen]

It's a terrible rule. I think 6 is too many. I'd be happier to see it amended to "one again" - in other words, the ruck infringement is penalised, so the play is effectively replayed. They get that tackle again. Six more tackles is too harsh a penalty for what much of the time look like normal tackles. Even "2 again" would work - you get that play again, plus 1 bonus.

Maybe there could be a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 again based on the seriousness of the infringement. Left purely up to the refs discretion. And that stupid buzzer could buzz how ever many times to signal how many ‘again’ tackles. That would be good.

[Thirteen]

I think its a fantastic rule. The administering of it is crap

Precisely. It quickens up the game. Just wish the refs would police it more consistently.

[dice]

The luxury of being the boss. He gets to make decisions. What’s to say he didn’t get plenty of council about the rule changes? Just because the change was implemented quickly doesn’t mean he didn’t consult with the appropriate people. Did you prefer the old admin who never got anything done?

A few coaches have mentioned that the normal change of rule processes were not followed. It was very clearly a dictatorial decision by someone knows a lot less about the game than the refs and coaches.

[ism22]

IMO it's a decent rule but the application is pretty shyte. I saw 9-1 on the TV last night. The stats say there was a 9-1 count of 'ruck infringements' called against us plus 5-3 penalties against us.

Anecdotally, it's being used to tire us out when we're on top. The stats from last night concern me because we dominated, but ended up with less possession and more tackles.

A few stats:
- Overall, Sharks had 176 to 162 runs but made significantly less metres (1497 to 1629). This is because they were dominated in defence.
- Our completion rate was 81% to their 76% despite the fact they were 'given' completions. Hang on, so our attack was better?!? Guess that's why we scored 6 tries to 3 as well.
- Total sets are 41 to 32 in the Sharks' favour. 9 Extra sets in a game where they won 'ruck infringements' 9-1 and penalties 5-3. IMO this is far more telling than the fact they had '56% possession' (which is just 41 as a percentage of 73... right? So it's not actually telling us how many more minutes they had in possession as their play the ball speed was slower than ours and their completion rate was lower... so they had way more than 56% of he 'time with the ball' IMO)

These numbers frustrate me as they suggest the Sharks were poorly disciplined in every stat that counts, but the refs kept giving them penalties. As a result, we had to work harder than what the Sharks threw at us. In aggregate EVERY WEEK this leads to greater recovery times, more injuries and us having to spend time figuring out how to counter unfair treatment. It's a waste of time. We're amazing so it won't spoil our chances of winning but it's fukking annoying and wrecked what coulda been a much better game of footy IMO.

[dice]

IMO it's a decent rule but the application is pretty shyte. I saw 9-1 on the TV last night. The stats say there was a 9-1 count of 'ruck infringements' called against us plus 5-3 penalties against us.

Part of that is Roosters tactically giving them away to get defensive line set. It was the reason we topped the penalty count every year in the last decade. The lopsided counts are not necessarily a ploy against us.

[Mayes Magic]

Fair enough (perhaps). But now you need to explain why other teams consistently give away fewer penalties against the Roosters than every other team. Perhaps that’s partly the Roosters giving away more penalties so the opposition has more ball time and therefore not able to give away penalties. Perhaps. Maybe one a game. We all know what’s the driver there.

[dice]

Fair enough (perhaps). But now you need to explain why other teams consistently give away fewer penalties against the Roosters than every other team. Perhaps that’s partly the Roosters giving away more penalties so the opposition has more ball time and therefore not able to give away penalties. Perhaps. Maybe one a game. We all know what’s the driver there.

This has been discussed many years ago...I don't know why it is still happening.

The leading teams ensure their defensive line is set and prefer to give away penalties than risk a line-break. There is no doubt this is an intentional tactic, and no coincidence that the worst offenders of recent time (Manly/Storm/Roosters) are also the most successful.

Nobody knows for certain why the opposition don't give away penalties against us "baddies". My best guess is this is an inadvertent side-effect of having cheat sheets. I agree that refs should not be allowed to head into a game with any pre-judgement by way of a cheat-sheet.

[chopstiks]

I have changed my mind on this rule. I initially hated it because I knew it was brought in as a cheap attempt to break the Roosters and Storm defensive dominance. But IMO it has backfired spectacularly. We now give these away without any risk of conceding a penalty goal or penalty kick into touch.

As much as I hate the Storm I hope it ends up a Roosters vs Storm grand final to stick it up V'landys. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

I also hope its a roosters storm GF, more chance of getting a ticket

Last night sharks got so many 6 agains .. beep ..beep.. beep, i thought it was malfunctioning ! One of your best Cummins

[The Axe]

Good practise from Bent last night for what to expect v Souffs. Then whistles away semi finals

[ccfc bondi]

In answer to some of the comments:

I have not heard one coach say they have instructed their team to give away penalties on purpose....it's all media! It's like the salary sombrero - one wag brings it up, says it enough and a whole bunch run with it. It's called the KISS principle. It verges on the ludicrous that teams would happily give away a penalty in their own 20 metre area on purpose. Sure, they might stretch the envelope, but that is a different matter altogether.

It's not just about last night, and it's not just about us. There have been some big blow-outs and some stage-managed comebacks. It is about the fact the rule is unnecessary and the fact that it is applied at the whim of referees who apply it inconsistently, apply in many unwarranted situations, and by referees who are easily conned. Like I said, if there REALLY IS a penalty justified, the ref should have the balls to give a penalty, anything else is a cop out and masks what affect the ref is having on the game. Teams would prefer a penalty anyway.

To speed up the game? How fast do you want it? They did bring it in because players were trying to slow the play the ball, but as usual, instead of addressing the cause, the NRL used a band-aid solution. The cause was the introduction of the 10 metre rule, which was designed to create more space for creativity and ended up firstly with dummy half runs stealing 10 metres, then coaches working out if their teams did ultra-quick play-the-balls they could get a roll-on as the defending team couldn't physically get back on side no matter how they tried. In other words, the game became too fast for players to physically keep up. So rugby league became the only sport in the world where it became impossible for players to adhere to the rules even when they are doing their best to. The obvious solution would've been to reduce the 10 metres. Had they have done that, you wouldn't have seen the game you fear. You would've seen a game more reliant on ball-skill, chip-kicks, etc. You would've probably seen a game where 18 points was in most cases a match-winning lead. But even if I'm wrong about that last part, we'd be watching a fairer contest than we're watching now. The same goes for if they had've just let the game alone!

[Vasco]

It was brought in to eradicate teams intentionally giving away penalties to get their defensive line set. This was a big defensive advantage for the Roosters who topped the penalty stats every year...get a clue.

As for V'landys being great. No consultation with coaches and refs, no opportunity for teams to adapt tactically, no opportunity for players to adapt physically, just bang. The guy is a dictator and responsible for the worst injury toll in NRL history.

The game has lacked leader with balls.

[ism22]

Good practise from Bent last night for what to expect v Souffs. Then whistles away semi finals

Yeah you can only whinge so much ay. We know it'll always happen and it's good to have been given some practice in a game where we still got the 2 points (with a few key players out - while 3 of their key players broke down).

[ism22]

FWIW I reckon they introduced it to get rid of the stupid 5-man strips they introduced last year.

I have an idea... since 5 man strips come from a clarification about whether a player who strips out of a tackle can then strip 1-on-1 later on, why not draft it as follows.

[In place of the most recent change] 'TO CLARIFY... IF A PLAYER INVOLVED IN A MULTI-PLAYER TACKLE BREAKS AWAY FROM THE TACKLE, THEY CAN THEN SEPARATELY DO A 1-ON-1 STRIP ON THAT SAME PLAYER IF THEY RE-ENGAGE!!!'

The issue is 100% that players wrap-up the ball, wait for their arm to 'feel loose' (i.e. wait for a position when their grip has been compromised by the multi-player tackle having a shot at the ball) and then strip it. If you forced Bateman to break from the tackle then re-engage if he wants to strip then suddenly you've fixed the loophole while allowing (some random Tigpies forward?) to break away then have a go at doing a last line of defence strip.

Instead we get:
- An unused 20/40 rule
- A 6 again rule aimed at encouraging people not to strip... that has instead led to lotsa injuries/blow-outs

[chopstiks]

FWIW I reckon they introduced it to get rid of the stupid 5-man strips they introduced last year.

I have an idea... since 5 man strips come from a clarification about whether a player who strips out of a tackle can then strip 1-on-1 later on, why not draft it as follows.

[In place of the most recent change] 'TO CLARIFY... IF A PLAYER INVOLVED IN A MULTI-PLAYER TACKLE BREAKS AWAY FROM THE TACKLE, THEY CAN THEN SEPARATELY DO A 1-ON-1 STRIP ON THAT SAME PLAYER IF THEY RE-ENGAGE!!!'

The issue is 100% that players wrap-up the ball, wait for their arm to 'feel loose' (i.e. wait for a position when their grip has been compromised by the multi-player tackle having a shot at the ball) and then strip it. If you forced Bateman to break from the tackle then re-engage if he wants to strip then suddenly you've fixed the loophole while allowing (some random Tigpies forward?) to break away then have a go at doing a last line of defence strip.

Instead we get:
- An unused 20/40 rule
- A 6 again rule aimed at encouraging people not to strip... that has instead led to lotsa injuries/blow-outs

your neighbour Ricky has just spat the dummy after a referee finally did something about repeat offence and used the bin. Glorious to see. Throwing a water bottle thats a 2 week ban for Stuart.

[rented tracksuit]

I dislike it because every time one is awarded I jump up looking for the fire extinguisher!