I popped onto the internet today to find talk of a new rule change: six again. I was intrigued, given I wrote an article on this site in March outlining why we should introduce that very rule change.
My ego would like to think the Project Apollo team read my piece and decided to implement the change.
Of course, that is unlikely, but I am ecstatic that the rule change is a realistic chance of happening.
They are, I assume, bringing in the rule to stop cynical penalties from teams defending their line, but I suggested the rule to increase fatigue in players. I do not think six again for ruck infringements is enough on its own, but it is a start.
Laurie Daley has already said this will turn the game into touch football, a favourite piece of spin put forward against any change to the rules over the years.
The rule is supposed to speed up the game Laurie, because the game is too slow right now. The point is to reduce stoppages and tire the players out.
Teams will still wrestle and try to see just how long they can lay in the tackle but if the refs are consistent with when they call held and treat any second effort after that as holding down the tackler, the game will speed up. Players will get more fatigued.
(AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
We also have our first reported response from the coaches.
“I was speaking to coaches yesterday and they said ok we are at our 20-metre line and they are lying on us and we just get a six again,” Danny Weidler told Big Sports Breakfast.
“We’d (NRL coaches) rather kick the ball 50 metres upfield with a penalty and then take our next six.”
This is an interesting response given how much they have talked about the seven-tackle rule from kicking the ball dead in-goal giving too much advantage to the team with the ball. Are coaches really going to give away penalties 75 metres out from their own line when they already find seven-tackle sets too much to defend?
There is no way they would want to give away penalties in that position.
To tackle their main argument, the notion that coaches would rather kick the ball 50 metres (do they ever find touch that far up the field) and then take the next six is exactly why we need change the rule, they would rather take the rest. They wouldn’t want to take the kick for touch if they were attacking in the 20-metre zone.
They are against the rule because it takes away some of the rest that coaches try to manage. The fact that they are already leaking out opposition to the rule shows it will have real impact, take control away from coaches and fatigue the players, which is a great thing for the game.
Coaches should never have a say in the rules. Never.
The six-again rule is not enough on its own and we need to use the sin bin if teams keep re-offending. The rule will encourage more wrestling in the short term as teams test the limits. The refs need to make the call to speed up the game and to reduce the wrestle. I for one think the only real way to ban the wrestle is to make players too tired to keep it up for the whole game.
If this rule does come in, it will encourage more fatigue, more open play and more diverse styles of play.
Greg
Roar Pro
"Control the first tackle and you control the set" is something teams frequently speak of. The 3-5 seconds used to slow down the first play the ball is all that is needed to set the defence and ensure they are not on the back foot for the 2nd tackle. Thus they are in position to then control the 2nd tackle and so on. This is how they are halting momentum and resetting their line if the ref just calls six again. But now, they essentially have minimal consequences for slowing down the first tackle. All they are risking is the one additional tackle in exchange for controlling the whole set. I understand reduced stoppages should lead to greater fatigue, and maybe this will be the case for the final 10 minutes of the game. But in my opinion teams will not be fatigued after 10ish consecutive tackles if the majority of those tackles have all been controlled and slowed by the defensive team. If the rule change requires the refs to blow the whistle what is the point of the rule change?
theHunter
Guest
But it's an existing rule for years. They should have continued on with it despite the Coaches complaints until the Coaches themselves understood this wasn't going away and they needed to change their tactics. Isn't this the reason why we are introducing the new rule? To stop cynical penalties only when we can have players sin binned or sent off for repeat offense until it gets into their head that the short number on the pitch is costing them games? I believe the BIN rules can achieve the main goal of stopping cynical penalties. They should just keep enforcing it despite the complaints instead of introducing a new one, having players and coaches exploit it's loops and holes and then complaining in the end that why some of them repeat offenders aren't being sent to the BIN.
Rellum
Roar Guru
Go read my original article that is linked in the above text. It fleshes out much more of what I was thinking. I don't think the NRL can just implement a six again rule with adding in at least the sin bin and offsides as well.
Rellum
Roar Guru
The refs have to blow the whistle when teams digress. That should mean more calls than they currently give. My idea was all focused on exhaustion for the players which I believe is the only way to open up the game and get away from the wrestle.
Flexis
Roar Rookie
Depends if referees are more inclined to wave six again than they would have been to blow a penalty. I certainly hope that’s the case! But based on the above points the referee would have to apply discretion to certain situations. The risk vs reward to the defending team isn’t consistent. And we all know how that ends.
JohnB
Guest
Why not just let the attacking team choose to take a quick tap?
Marco
Guest
Instead of "6 again", it should be "plus 6". Your on your line and infringe on tackle one, you're looking at 11 more. That'll clean up the ruck quick smart.
soapit
Roar Guru
so you lie on someone too long and the ref calls 6 again, whats to stop you then keeping laying on the to get full value for money and slow it right down. dont get me wrong im positive about this but it needs to be fully nutted out how coaches will manipulate thigns before they start otherwise the baby will be thrown out with the bath water. make it for offsides also. surely this has to be included as the next easiest way teams will seek to get penalties with a rest. they also need to be treated like penalties, if you get too many 6 again calls someone has to go to the bin just the same as if they were penalties (which should be more anyway) all has to be fleshed out, naive to assume that coaches wont be plotting to wring out every ounce of benefit they can from the new rule and should plan accordingly
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
This may speed the game up but we will still see teams that can’t score tries in 5, 6 or 7 tackles put up a bomb and be rewarded for failure. The bomb is a lucky dip that is by far the best way to beat a good defence. We should make a field goal the only option to score points on the last tackle. If you can’t score a try in 5 you don’t deserve any more. Another rule the NRL must bring in to stop the bomb is allow defenders to punch a ball to make it dead instantly. Tap to restart from the 29 metres out.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
This just encourages good defences to infringe and not be penalised. There will be more ruck infringements and the only answer is to sin bin and have teams of 11 or 12 players. There could be more tries but the refs would be seen as biased if they aren't consistent and we could end up playing a Nines grand final.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
The clock should be stopped while the ball is dead. The TV money won't allow it so we'll probably never see it.
Rellum
Roar Guru
But they just wrestle that momentum away. The rule change will need the refs to blow the whistle. Otherwise there is no change. It is not like right now we have fast play the balls or players getting off the ruck quickly.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
They are not concerned with giving away two points because since tries were changed to 4 points teams are not interested in kicking for goal. Penalties were devalued so it became more tempting to score tries. A good defence can be penalised all game and not concede one try. Changing back 3 points would solve that problem.
Flexis
Roar Rookie
The defensive advantage gained is not solely the time taken up by the penalty. The seconds in each ruck is more significant in my opinion. You’re more likely to score from 5 tackles with momentum than you are with 7 or 8 tackles of flat footy. I’d say teams hate the 7 tackle sets as they start with plenty of momentum. Not due to the extra tackle. Rolling backwards is more taxing on the defence.
Flexis
Roar Rookie
Yeah good point. I hadn’t thought about that situation. 20m restart could be this rules Achilles heel.
Rellum
Roar Guru
How are they halting momentum and resetting their line if the ref just calls six again. The exact opposite will happen. There will be no stopping and no resetting. If you face a 7-9 tackle set, you will be more exhausted than the massive rest you get from the penalty being blown. It will be easier to defend that set than a continuous 7-9 tackle set and both intances will generally give you an attacking kick. Teams hate the 7 tackle set because they suffer for many sets afterwards. Coping an early 6 again ruck infringement will be just a influential. The notion that teams running back from a kick makes any real difference is not valid.
Rellum
Roar Guru
You are expecting reason from the 9 mob? They will complain just as loadly about the game becoming touch football and the fabric of the fame being under threat. They have to be ignored.
The Barry
Roar Guru
“ We already have the sin bin and sent off in place. Soccer and rugby union uses this with no fail every time. Why can’t we enforce this existing rule instead of this new six again rule?” The NRL and refs tried that last year and coaches, players and commentators claimed that by enforcing the rules they were ruining the game. Hence the requirement for a new rule. Maybe it won’t work, but I think it’s worth a crack. Sides giving away cynical penalty after penalty in their own 20 is bad anyway but when they're inherently rewarded for doing it, something has to change
Greg
Roar Pro
agree, using the seven tackle set as an example. It is a threat, not just because of the extra tackle, but because the now defending team is typically still retreating after chasing the kick through. This momentum then continues through the rest of the set. With the proposed rule change, the defending team would just massively hold down in the zero tackle. They may concede the extra tackle but they halt the momentum and start the new set with a set defensive line.
theHunter
Guest
Every sport does that were a team or players purposefully explore loops in rules to their advantage. What makes you all think that we are different that we need to plug hole in every rule (which I think is impossible to do anyway) We already have the sin bin and sent off in place. Soccer and rugby union uses this with no fail every time. Why can't we enforce this existing rule instead of this new six again rule? I personally don't see any change this rule will bring in anyway. One week we'll complain about the ref not giving a six again call during a close fought game, another week we will be questioning what is the acceptable time duration for a player to get off of a tackle before he is penalized with the six again call, to referees giving away this six again call against players they are not fond of very much. The above situations are already what's happening with the existing rules. And unless we enforce our Sin Bin and Sent Off rules, these new rules will change nothing.