6 again makes me sick again

[Jacks Fur Coat]

The 6 again rule is too greater penalty on the defending team, game changers.

And it doesn't speed things up necessarily, there is no way the ref calls penalty on most of them if the 6 again option didn't exist.

Helps lazy nitpicking match officials though.

[player 1]

A shit rule that gives refs enormous power to engineer results.

If they were serious about speeding up the game they would dismiss the bunker and all replays. And the captain's challenge. Just go with the onfield decision.

But then how would they make cash out of KFC?

[Bruce Pickett]

A shit rule that gives refs enormous power to engineer results.

If they were serious about speeding up the game they would dismiss the bunker and all replays. And the captain's challenge. Just go with the onfield decision.

But then how would they make cash out of KFC?

That's why I hate this dispicable rule so much Player 1. It is hidden.

If a penalty is called, play stops, commentators make a comment, the crowd make a comment - the ref is exposed to scrutiny. If a 6A is called, zilch, narda, nothing is said, talked about or scrutinised. eg if the ref gave 8-1 penalties against us, even some Souffs fans might question things and feel sorry for us. But an 8-1 6A? Not one word.

Disgraceful rule.

I'd actually prefer to lose the penalty count 9-5 where we can re-set our defences than to have this shiit rule.

I wonder if there is correlation between all our injuries last year and the 6A, because from my (biased) perspective, we conceded more 6A on tackles 3-5 and on consecutive tackles than any other teams last year.

[A Country Member]

I can live with 6 again. It’s the 7 tackle set from a ball kicked dead in-goal that’s gotta go. Boot it

[Mickie Lane]

I can live with 6 again. It’s the 7 tackle set from a ball kicked dead in-goal that’s gotta go. Boot it

It was brought in because teams were deliberately kicking the ball dead, wasting time. It has helped the game IMO.

[Mickie Lane]

That's why I hate this dispicable rule so much Player 1. It is hidden.

If a penalty is called, play stops, commentators make a comment, the crowd make a comment - the ref is exposed to scrutiny. If a 6A is called, zilch, narda, nothing is said, talked about or scrutinised. eg if the ref gave 8-1 penalties against us, even some Souffs fans might question things and feel sorry for us. But an 8-1 6A? Not one word.

Disgraceful rule.

I'd actually prefer to lose the penalty count 9-5 where we can re-set our defences than to have this shiit rule.

I wonder if there is correlation between all our injuries last year and the 6A, because from my (biased) perspective, we conceded more 6A on tackles 3-5 and on consecutive tackles than any other teams last year.

All teams are in the same boat & all teams 1 eyed supporters feel their team is getting the rough end of the pineapple with the refs.
It all works out in the end mate & 99% of the time the best team all year wins the comp.

[Eggspert]

All teams are in the same boat & all teams 1 eyed supporters feel their team is getting the rough end of the pineapple with the refs.
It all works out in the end mate & 99% of the time the best team all year wins the comp.

The Roosters seem to be in a boat all by themselves paddling against the current for quiet a few years now. We seem to have to work extra hard than most to win matches since becoming successful.

Rugby League seemed to be doing fine for 120 odd years before Valandys started mucking around with certain rules.

[ARD]

Being at the game I enjoyed the second half refereeing and lack of six agains/ penalties. I don’t know if that’s statistically backed up but it felt like he put away the whistle and let both teams figure it out.

I was nervous the whole time he’d randomly wave his silly arm but it didn’t come. Had a great time watching that arm wrestle.

[A Country Member]

It was brought in because teams were deliberately kicking the ball dead, wasting time. It has helped the game IMO.

It has robbed the game of attacking kicks rather than the rare kick that probably amounted to approx 2% of total kicks. The benefit of the extra tackle far outweighs the offence. It’s nearly as big a letdown to a try being overturned

[King Salvo]

The 7 tackle rule should not have been extended to include field goal attempts/grubbers inside the 20 that go dead /Kicks caught on the full in goal and or a player has one foot in goal and catches the ball or even worse for when the attacking teams make mistakes in goal attempting a try

None of those are deliberate acts to set the defence

It was only brought in as teams where kicking the ball dead as a tactic against certain fullbacks - once they retired it wouldn't be needed.

Why is it then that if a player catches a kick on the full in goal it's 7 tackles but a line drop out if a defending player regathers a grubber kick in goal and is tackled in goal - both saved potential tries being scored but one is rewarded and the other not.

Best to keep coaches and players away from making the rules or lobbying for certain rules

[King Salvo]

The Roosters seem to be in a boat all by themselves paddling against the current for quiet a few years now. We seem to have to work extra hard than most to win matches since becoming successful.

Rugby League seemed to be doing fine for 120 odd years before Valandys started mucking around with certain rules.

Coaches and players have made/lobbied successfully for many more rules changes that have affected the game and should never have been allowed - i.e the 7 tackle set was a coach driven one.

Coach driven was also the third man-defender in / changes to tackle descriptions and time i.e surrender/dominant and the wrestling and judo rubbish and the types of "tackles" that have come from that.- oh we can't slow the play the ball down the game is too fast nonsense

Call every tackle the same way with no extra time for the defenders and as I said in another post keep coaches and players away from rules committees - self interest only prevails

[Vee08]

yes i saw the replay, slightly obscured by the post, but definitely direct contact of his forearm with Sitili’s jaw… yet no big fuss about it?… he wasn’t groggy for no reason… “a strong tackle around the shoulders” as the commentators put it!!! Should be spending some time on the sidelines for that… but most likely not!

[King Salvo]

yes i saw the replay, slightly obscured by the post, but definitely direct contact of his forearm with Sitili’s jaw… yet no big fuss about it?… he wasn’t groggy for no reason… “a strong tackle around the shoulders” as the commentators put it!!! Should be spending some time on the sidelines for that… but most likely not!

Although Brown was placed on report he wasn't charged so not sure what conclusion the match committee came up with when they reviewed this - penalty sufficient or maybe no penalty should have been awarded ?

[Eggspert]

yes i saw the replay, slightly obscured by the post, but definitely direct contact of his forearm with Sitili’s jaw… yet no big fuss about it?… he wasn’t groggy for no reason… “a strong tackle around the shoulders” as the commentators put it!!! Should be spending some time on the sidelines for that… but most likely not!

Originally didn't see the arm across his jaw when they showed the replays due to the posts. But freeze frame shots can also be misleading. I still think the damage was done with his head hitting the ground hard while his arms were pinned by Brown. The ref had the best view & did nothing about it.

[The Lip]

All teams are in the same boat & all teams 1 eyed supporters feel their team is getting the rough end of the pineapple with the refs.
It all works out in the end mate & 99% of the time the best team all year wins the comp.

How can you say it all works out in the end - you have seen the penalty numbers for the past 20 years Mick - in the famous words of Braith - "you're off your head"