When I first started following rugby league in the 1950s, the outcome of a scrum was unpredictable.
The ball was required to be fed into the middle of the scrum and we had hookers who actually hooked for the ball. Now there are hookers in name only.
Sides no longer push in the scrums so the size of your scrum is basically irrelevant. The size of your forwards now has more to do with their abilities in general play and softening up their opponents than anything to do with winning a scrum. So why do we still have scrums? Who knows?
Touch judges used to run onto the field with their flags raised to report infringements. When was to last time you saw that happen in the modern game? Even when they are basically on top of the play, touch judges and referees would rather leave the decision to the bunker. Better to have someone else take the blame if the decision is wrong. And heaven forbid if a touch judge actually comments on a blatant forward pass.
So what exactly does the bunker do? It does whatever it wants to do. Let’s say a referee refers a try to the bunker for it to check that the player has maintained control and grounded the ball. The first thing the bunker will do is check that everyone is onside.
Hang on, did I ask you to do that? I asked you to check the grounding. That is all I asked you to do. But no, the bunker will basically check everything. The referee has already made a decision on all aspects apart from the grounding of the ball. So now the referee is no longer in charge of the game.That has been delegated to the bunker.
But, ironically, the bunker can’t rule on a forward pass. Why? Once again, who knows? So if there has been a forward pass, the bunker will replay everything over and over and over again to try and find some other reason for disallowing the try.
Pity the players can’t whip out a pack of cards to pass the time waiting for the bunker to get its act together.
So the bunker had usurped the referees’ authority as far as tries and other referrals are concerned. That’s a bit unnerving for a referee. So to maintain the status quo, let’s introduce the six-again rule. Instead of letting a captain decide whether he would rather have a penalty in relation to an infringement, let’s give that decision to the referee.
Even commentators, in a lot of instances, are confused about why a team has been given six-again. But that’s okay because although a referee might mumble something at the time which the defending captain might or might not hear, who cares anyway because as there is no stoppage in play and you can’t make a captain’s challenge.
And how long is an NRL game anyway? Well, that depends. It could be 80 minutes or maybe 82 or 83 minutes or anything up to 90 minutes. Except for the finals where there has to be a winner and a loser, there is absolutely no point playing extra time. Yes, I know we have penalty shoot-outs in football but these can no way be compared with the bash and barge of the modern-day NRL game.
And the seven-tackle rule also needs to be revised. I know it was introduced for a valid reason but it wasn’t meant to capture a failed field goal attempt or a kick from within the 20-metre line that just dribbles over the dead ball line but could have easily resulted in a try.
If a rule that has been introduced for a valid reason has unforeseen consequences, then change it. It’s better to admit a mistake and change it then let it linger and be a blight on the game.
Tom G
Roar Rookie
The ones they don’t call are definitely the problem.. as you said there are plenty hence the frustration
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
Tom, I agree with what you say re the bunker and captains challenge but to say get rid of the six again because of a lack of scrutiny is harsh. I think the answer is to provide the scrutiny. How. ? Put up a video clip of all the six again calls for each game on nrl .com. If we can see them , we can criticise them. That's the scrutiny we require. I have watched a few games where I replay and watch every six again call. IMO 95% are right . The problem as usual is not the ones they call but the ones they don't. There are a heap more they could and should call.
Tom G
Roar Rookie
The key difference from before with the six again though is that unlike a penalty, they are awarded without almost no scrutiny. As for the decision to award them, if anything it’s even less consistent than it was prior because as it happens on the run, the refs aren’t held to account. If the officials had been policing the ruck properly to eliminate wrestling years back, it would’ve been penalised out of the game by now. The bunker needs to go definitely as does this stupid captain challenge. The NRL really needs to focus on fixing what they have without continually introducing new elements that add nothing
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
Great article Wayne, good thoughts. A major issue with all this is the inbred acceptance that coaches and clubs will attempt to rot, bend, exploit every rule. Gus talks about new rules and then talks about how it won't take long for coaches to exploit them. Winning is above honesty, good form, fairness, the good of the game etc etc. Now we have guys diving to con refs. Firstly, we need refs we have faith in who are fair across the board. As seen this weekend, lessor, weaker and no-so-influential clubs definitely get shafted when it comes to 50/50 calls. Then we need to support - with strength- these refs and their interpretations. Blow up the bunker, let the ref make the call and support him with touchies who are supported and not thrown under the bus. Now educate the coaches and start the year by refereeing the trials games firmly. Start touchies calling forward passes in bulk, blow up forward passes, every guy that steps off the mark to play the ball, every guy who grabs someone chasing through on a kick. Blow the pea out of the whistle and when the comp starts simply tell the coaches - that's the standard, there are the rules - don't whinge if the penalty count is 20-1 against you. "Hey copper, the other guys are speeding too" never worked against the police.
DP Schaefer
Roar Rookie
And you got my vote!!
Big Daddy
Guest
Rellum, I like the idea of a sin bin for a player say has 3 indiscretions around the ruck. If we go back to scrums years ago hookers were regularly sent off for repeated scrum infringements and look at the scrums now, they're a farce.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I don’t mind the six again rule...it’s an improvement but it still needs some work It’s still reliant on refs applying it - and if they felt they couldn’t enforce the penalty and sin bin rule, why do we think they’ll be able to apply this rule consistently In the very first game of the six again rule, after half time Parra started giving away cynical restarts on early tackles down the other end to get their defensive line set I don’t know if it would be too hard to enforce but maybe reverting to a penalty for ruck infringements in your own 60 metres and then six again in the attacking 40 would help...
Kevin
Guest
Greg thats spot on In the NFL , a similar game with “ shared Possession “ the thinking is that the kickoff gives the defence of the conceding team a break .. I know out guys are on the park the whole time , but it would buy them 90 seconds and thus allow for some respite before the next onslaught
Nick Maguire
Roar Rookie
thanks Rellum , I'll have a look.
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
To be fair they have released some stats. Annersley often gives some in his Monday round up. Play the ball speeds are faster. ( can’t remember exact figures) and the ball is in play a few minutes longer in every game, as well as longer periods between stoppages. It has done a lot of what it was designed for. Like I said , keep people informed and you will win them over.
Rellum
Roar Guru
There is already a stat for that on the NRL website is there not?
Nick Maguire
Roar Rookie
Jimmmy maybe put a stopwatch on every tackle for a few games and release the data also. I would have thought that if you put in a significant rule change you would collect some objective data to see if it did what you hoped it would .
Rellum
Roar Guru
On the 7 tackle set every one thought 7 tackles for a kick into touch was a massive punishment for a missed kick but now 7 tackles is no biggy. Personally I think that if you commit two straight ruck infringements then someone is binned and a penalty blown. So if a team does it twice when the opposition is coming off their line then it is a sin bin and a penalty.
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
Worth a thought. Has it made for closer super league games?
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
Yeah Nicko , the lack of scrutiny is an issue. I would like the nrl to put out a package of the six agains awarded so we can have a look post game. Also I would like a list of which tackle the six again was given on for example , 4 restarts (2,3,2,1) I kept some records for a while and definitely more awarded on early tackles. This makes sense . Push the boundaries early and be careful late. It also means the six again is not as big an ad vantage as people make out, if it is often just one or two more tackles. I think education is the answer.
Nick Maguire
Roar Rookie
Jimmmy, thanks for doing the research! ! just see so much variation from tackle to tackle. I see a nice low tackle with a bit of help and a quick roll away penalised then another with a wrestle on to the back let go. It seems to be all teams but perhaps the team with momentum gets a better run? I don't mind the rule although allowing the refs to penalise and sin bin without the outcry from the media would probably have achieved the same thing! One of the issues is it seems to be passing without sufficient scrutiny and analysis.
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
Tom, you say all the six again has done is add more inconsistency and yet it's exactly the same as before. Whether you award a six again or a penalty is immaterial, the issue is the inconsistency. It's not whether you kick for touch or just get more tackles. That affects nothing. I agree totally that the bunker is broken. Refs are allowed to make mistakes. The bunker is not. With the technology the bunker has they should never make a howler and yet we get one every week. Bin it, bin the captains challenge as well and let's to what we have done for 100 years. Whinge about the Refs.
Greg
Guest
I think they need to adjust another rule - the team that scores a try should kick off to restart, not the other way around. That will help in breaking momentum, it's about the only decent thing that Super League did.
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
TB, just two points. Firstly ,imo the six again is a great rule. It has stopped some of the cynical infringements teams make on their own try line. It has speed the game up. There is more time of the ball in play SO all good . BUT, we have some of the same issues as before. Inconsistent Reffing not just between games but within them. This is no different than it was before at all. I keep a little tick sheet , in which I call a tackle fair or foul ( and I know I am probably harsher than most ) and what I find is I agree with almost all of their calls , the issue is I usually have another 10 I would add to the list. Refs just won't keep blowing six again even if deserved . Just like penalties , they get to a point where they think ' oh too much'. Gus has a lot to answer for. We either crack down ( unlikely), go back ( no because it was worse) , or say ' it's just the way it is'. If there is a fourth way I don't know it. On The 7 Tackle sets. It's the best and sometimes only way to change momentum in a game. I am a little anti kick so when they kick instead of run and get it wrong ,tough.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I think you’ve hit on some good points here There’s a lack of genuine contest for the ball. Once teams have momentum we regularly see points coming in 20 point blocks. We’ve had a huge number of blowouts this year but even in close games there’s heaps that go to say 18-0 then to 18-20 Something had to be done about teams giving away cynical ruck penalties to set their defence and stymie opponents attacking opportunities. But we had rules for that...when refs tried to enforce the rules we had people blowing up that 5hey were ruining the game. So the six again rule was worth a shot, but i don’t think it’s delivering in its current format. It’s random and haphazard in its application and we have some refs using it all the time and others hardly at all. Has it led to a better quality product? I don’t think so. It’s not a bad rule, it’s just not working in its current format The seven tackle set rule definitely needs to be looked at...kicks that go dead is one thing but if an attacking player knocks on a metre out from the line, it’s a 10 metres scrum and six tackle set. If he knocks on over the try line, it’s a 20 metre tap and a seven tackle set. It’s completely illogical.