Dear Mr V’landys, getting six again isn’t always an advantage

Yes six again particularly on the first tackle is no advantage. It should just be a penalty and then we would see some consistency which hasn't been evident as yet.

Having a penalty that varies with tackle count is not a good idea and the sin bin is not the solution. Making every 3rd 1st tackle restart an automatic sin bin would mean the refs would have to keep two counts. We don't need more sin bins we need to make penalties worth more by reverting tries to 3 points.

The refs don't need to use the sin bin more often they should just penalise the offence. The penalty should not have been devalued because it is used by a strong defence to hold down because they know the attackers will not kick. People whinged about teams kicking for goal so they made tries 4 points to discourage penalty goals so a strong defence can hold down forever and are not penalised resulting in people calling for more sin bins. It was silly of Arko and Quayle to make tries 4 points.

They should be penalised well before an exaggerated period of time has elapsed. Kicking a goal is the penalty converted or they can tap and go for the tries as they are 4 points, an incentive not to kick. When a break is made and the defence is not back then the defender needs to hold down for a period of time that warrants the sin bin. This happens now but the sin bin should not be used for the restart penalty or we would end up with Rugby League Nines. This would have people turning off the game even if it isn't a farce. It was making tries 4 points that devalued the penalty goal that is the proper penalty for holding down not sin binning.

im glad someone else sees this.

Im not a fan of the 6 again rule in any form, but I do like this addition for 2 reasons. Although it wont reduce cynical late in the half slowing down of the play, it does mean it wont go unpunished. Additionally stepping away from the 6 again rule it would make for more compelling ends to tight games. Though the amount of actual close contests each week seems to be forever decreasing.

When we copied US Football's 4 tackle rule we didn't take the whole rule and left out that the field goal was the only scoring option available. A little innovation would be to add the field goal rule and with the adoption of diffusing the bomb by punching it dead we could see the end of the boring bomb with all it's obstructions that rarely get penalised. We always see luck play a big part in bombs and that must be better for the spectators. While we have bombs our game will continue to be the luckiest game of them all.

Arthurson and Quayle were very good players but they gave us the 4 point try in the hope teams would not kick for goal but give us the boring bomb instead. They fell for the more tries implies more excitement argument and made a radical change that should be reversed. Gallop didn't play, he was a lawyer, and he gave us golden point, a terrible idea that makes game time variable and is not needed.

The game has become too predictable because of the six B's (Bash,Barge,Bash,Barge,Bomb) not because of stoppages for refs’ decisions. The inevitable bomb is always the kick on the sixth tackle near the line. This is what rugby fans rightly point out is the tedious, repetitious and boring thing about League. If they can't score in five they take the option to bomb, a lucky dip they don't deserve and it is common because it pays off. A field goal is all they deserve and bombs should be punched dead by a defender so that they would become a thing of the past. The bomb is common because it is easy and a reward for failure which is why it is popular. Rugby League the game that gives those with no talent the option to bash, barge and bomb.

As rugby league fans we whine because the game has become too predictable at times, too many stoppages for refs' decision etc etc. V'Landys has come along and seen the bleeding obvious ,which appears prior NRL administrators to have been placed in the too hard basket, and decided in his wham bam thank you manner to get things done.He pushed for a little innovation ,instead of refs blowing the whistle for a long hold down in defence and slow the game down, to give the attacking side another set.Play the advantage. IMO and yes I'm a mere pleb, it makes the game a better spectacle, sure there are other areas that need improving, but crawl before you walk. Like it or loathe it, the facts ARE ,the NRL is in the entertainment business.If you don't entertain you don't get bums on seats or eyeballs on the box, and sponsors to put their loot on board. Additionally television networks are reluctant to want the cough ,cough, splutter,"product". For eons our code has been crying out, since the days of Arthurson and Quayle for administrators with experience of having played the code, understand its inner workings, and potential from an entertainment perspective. Like Leonidas and the 300 Spartans,V'Landys(Greek descent) he has gone where many other NRL leaders feared to go because of the opposition from fans ,media and anti rl brigade, and damn it innovate. I applaud his courage and outspokenness in getting the code up and running as promised ,against the odds and trying to make the code more appealing.In fact I've seen a fair share of dog awful NRL games over the years. He doesn't appeal to everyone, show me a leader in any code or any Government who does, and I'll show you a BS meter. Got that rant off my chest, now to solve the South China Sea issue.

That's a good reason to keep the 2 ref system. All it needs is to not allow the second ref to overrule the main ref and have distinct tasks like monitoring the 10 metres.

Yes that would work. The interchange was created to help tiring defenders by making tries harder to get and indirectly created the bomb. Rugby League can't be the GGOA until they remove the bomb.

I'd add another , reduce the interchange .

Heres an idea . How about enforcing the rules we have before changing things . Im sorry some people need constant point scoring to keep them entertained, but i enjoyed the balance of defence against offence. Not this ref determined lottery of ruck infringements. Say what you will about the 2 ref system but the fundamentals of the game were properly enforced yet under this single ref system enforcing the 10m rule is non exisitant even with clearly visible 10m line markers. I say if you want to watch high scoring games with little to no enforcement of rules , go watch afl. Vlandys is a smart business man but his answers to the press on SBW and young Suaalii were very telling . If you dont like the rules , then change , bend , hell just break the foocken rules. Seems integrity means nothing to some.

The six-again rule was created because V’landys wanted to do something as the incoming boss but it was not necessary and should be scrapped. Why does the game need to be faster? The PTB should be set at a minimum time to reward low tackling so there would be no need for the wrestling and laying defender on defender to slow the game. Rugby League should not be about the PTBs but what happens between the PTBs. We should be making the game better not faster and we could do this by getting rid of the bomb.

I agree. Six Agas awarded within the 20M zones is just gift wrapping an opportunity for scoreboard assist, especially those awarded on tackle 4,5 or 6. IMO it constitutes an unearned advantage.

All good points Geoff I’m not saying the six again hasn’t helped I just don’t think we’ve gone from dour wrestle-a-thon to “free flowing” in half a season

Having lived in SA from the late 60s to the late 90s I didn't have a steady diet of watching NRL in the 1980s and 1990s. TV coverage of league was very limited in SA back then. But I do remember watching Grand Finals, State of Origin and Test matches at trhe end of the season which were usually played at a very high intensity involving the best players available. I can remember being very impressed by the quality of the games. Its why I took up the Raiders as they played such an attractive style of footy. Maybe the refs were more attuned to the game back then. Funnily enough I was always a bit of a neutral watching Origin and tended to support whoever was the underdog at the time - which tended to be Queensland funnily enough back in the 90s. Its only in the past few years that I've got behind the Blues having lived in the ACT for 20 years and wanting to see the end of the Maroons dominance. Its much harder for me to make comparisons on the standard of weekly minor round games. For mine in the 20 years I've been watching there has always been a pretty decent gap between the good and the bad teams and there have no doubt been some shocking games between lower teams this year and the better quality teams beating up on lower quality teams. But I think that is going to happen every year. The salary cap endeavours to even up the competition but its inevitable that the better coaches and better managed clubs find it easier to attract better quality players than others. But getting back to the impact of the 6 again rule I think its improved the standard of play and contest that we've been subjected to in the past 5 or 6 years at least. The alternative was to keep serving up the deadly dull grinding attritional trench warfare that Bellamy's Storm was responsible for.

Maybe the fact the Raiders are in contention has influenced yours :silly: I guess it’s in the eye of the beholder, but I would hardly describe the footy we’re seeing as “free flowing” As Rellum has said watch footy from the 90s as a comparison. Even the 80s which was a noted dour era at times with fewer points scored and the footy was far more free flowing...having said that it was more about how sides played than specifically the rules

100%. I've been saying the same thing for years. For penalties inside the 10m zone - most of which are deliberate - the attacking team gets a shot at goal and gets the ball back for a 10m tap. This would completely eliminate the cynical deliberate giving away of penalties in the attacking zone.