The problem might be you, not six again

I think that's where it's headed and surprised we haven't seen it yet

No need for concession Tim...... just healthy debate about RL. I feel your pain, at that point the golden point loss was the 5th GF I’d lost Without winning one....... sometimes we love RL without it loving us back at times. Good luck buddy!

I concede to your higher authority as my playing days were a long time ago and mostly in the St.George JRLFC competitions. I got smashed in a 1972 trial game against Lalor Park and spent the whole year getting knocked out more easily each time. My father wanted me to play Soccer. I feel for you losing in Golden Point, it is not fair. My team , Allawah, always made the final/grand final but never won until I retired and was replaced by Robert Stone who took Allawah to their first premiership. Good Luck Churchie.

I would prefer no restarts and just penalise holding down. A good defence is happy to give away penalties if they don't convert their penalties. I would like to see the bomb neutralised as it is a reward for failure. Rugby League took it's 4/6 tackle rule from US Football where a touchdown is the goal for the first four downs. If they fail to score they can only kick a field goal. In RL teams take the safe option of 5 hit ups taking no chances because the bomb is a lucky dip and the best chance of scoring a try. They should only allow a field goal on the 6th so they would have to be creative in the first five hit ups.

I feel like you keep moving the goal posts Tim........ I guess we need to agree to disagree on the six again rule. As a coach I know trying to score a try against a team that has 60secs break for conceding a penalty on their try line becomes very difficult. So I like the six again, it’s “do it at your own peril“...... now if you were able to take quick taps inside the ten we might have been able to avoid the six again but hey it’s changed, so we adapt! Golden point is one thing we can agree on though buddy! Scrap it, use it for finals only but that’s after 5 mins each way extra time. As a player that lost a golden point grand final without touching the ball in golden point..... grossly unfair to not have a right of reply and not what the definition of a fair contest is. Sadly we might need an NRL grand final when someone loses golden point without touching the ball to get this changed!

Of course you take the win by any means necessary. Although as a coach, I wouldn’t drop someone for making a mistake even if that mistake cost the team a win. If your team is resilient enough to turn away the attack despite how many six again’s you give away then isn’t that rewarding the defensive part of the contest? I strongly disagree about devaluing or removing tries scored from kicks. As you said, the game is “primarily a contest“. They have all but removed contested scrums these days, so do we want to go further and remove the contested ball from kicks? I don’t believe RL People would like to see the bomb removed at all. Tries are celebrated the same way whether from kicks or not. Most tryscorers are mobbed by teammates so NRL players don’t think they are worth any less. You hardly ever see the goal kicker mobbed unless it’s a kick to win the match. I, in no way, am discouraging taking penalty goals. merely stating that the new six again was brought in to stop teams giving away penalties to get a break for their team with the added value for fans to see ball in play and teams trying to score tries.

Six again has been more positive than not. There was no need for it and it is varies with tackle number so you see players getting away with it early in the the count. Removing or modifying Golden Point is far more important. It is not fair that two teams can draw and one gets two points and the other gets none. If they must have it they should change the points scoring system to :- ………………………………………. Win : 4 points; Golden Point Win : 3 points; Draw : 2 points; Golden Point Loss : 1 point; Loss : 0 points;

The game is primarily a contest and if your team wins from penalty goals you wouldn't complain, or would you? If players gave away penalties that cost their team a win they would be dropped but now they are rewarded by the attack playing on and failing to score. Do you agree that tries scored from bombs should be devalued as they come from kicks? The bomb could be removed with a simple rule change. It encourages safety play for five tackles knowing that on the sixth they can put up a bomb and have a 1/2 chance of scoring a four point try. The bomb is a reward for failure and we should have copied the US Football rule that allows only a field goal on the last tackle as one point is a more fitting reward. I'm sure most RL people would love to see the bomb removed as games are being decided by kicks.

Tries should revert to three points and the problem would go away......... So let me get this right...... you want to reduce value of tries to 3 points to encourage more penalty goals? Forgive me but I feel I speak for most RL people I know when I say this, we want to see tries scored not goals kicked. Not very entertaining in my opinion, rugby union is the game for anyone that want to see penalty conversions. You can defend your line all day if you get a 30-60secs break for every penalty like it used to be. With the six again most teams would struggle to defend over 20 consecutive tackles.

It’s inception was to stop the deliberate penalty defending the try line.…………… The deliberate penalty defending the try line was made popular when the try was changed to four points. This devaluing of the penalty encouraged teams to go for the try rather than take the two points and a good defence can hold on forever. Tries should revert to three points and the problem would go away. This is better than adding more rules within rules and sin binning over a minor infringement. Giving away penalties would stop if it meant giving your opposition points.

That's just human nature

Big T, great article my good man! It’s very important to note that the refs, while taking this all into account also have to set the ten, position themselves and ensure markers are square amongst a host of other decisions that happen at each tackle. I think it’s encouraging for fans to research the rules each year as they always change. You’d be surprised how many players don’t know certain rules even at the elite levels. Six again has been more positive than not. Field position should be taken into account, it’s inception was to stop the deliberate penalty defending the try line. The challenges the NRL face is introducing rules that negates other rules. If you have a captains challenge then you should be able to challenge any decision, six again doesn’t allow for this. So makes no sense to only be able to challenge calls when play stops. The anomaly with the six again is, when one is conceded in the play the ball, on that play the attacking team can knock on at dummy half and lose possession of the ensuing scrum. Advantage isn’t played cause this is essentially a penalty right? Love the introduction of where you want the scrum packed. Deliberately offside from scrums which is the norm now, should be a professional foul though. While on this, if you have someone sin binned you should be made to pack all scrums with full complement of players to maximise the Indiscretion.

My thing is I just want to know why it's called. Having that signalled somehow would make the ruling instantly in understandable which would remove most people's frustration.

Big T, you're a bloody star

Good article. I’m probably the biggest critic of official when it comes to inconsistent rulings. The problem is I think they have over complicated the interpretations. Like my favourite it can travel forward or his hands were pointing backwards when It’s obviously been caught in front of where it was passed. Or he didn’t intentionally touch his head. It’s a simple game but we are consistently trying to make exceptions to a rule. A tackle is complete when a player is taken to ground and held or their forward momentum is stop and they are no longer able to continue the attack by pushing away from the defenders or promoting the ball. A good low tackle should have just as much release time as a 2-3 man tackle. Same as a grassing legs tackle from the side or behind is no different to a dominant tackle IMO. It’s a good safe tackle and shouldn’t be discouraged. We shouldn’t want touch football speed play the balls either. The hardest things with officiating is probably understanding what is the purpose of a rule and when they are being exploited to gain an advantage. Moving of the mark, placing the ball on the ground before getting to your feet. Submitting or going to ground to deliberately to gain an advantage. The Storm are obviously well coached because they understand the tackle rules. Smith and co will get players into the tackle, keep a defender off the ground but generally concede a metre of forward momentum to control the speed of the ruck. I don’t like the voluntary tackle but I certainly don’t like 2 and 3 men pushing blokes backwards into the in goal.

At some point we see a player deliberately knock on when playing the so the 6 again becomes a penalty

I am one of those horrified this arbitrary COVID-19 inspired thought bubble is now an entrenched part of the game. This rule gets my goat. With "six again(!)" league is no longer a six tackle game, end of. When you defend from six to twenty tackles around a ruck without stoppage you're playing union, but with levels of exhaustion not built into that game via it's lesser intensity and extra two players. Defending 20 tackles non-stop is like getting a player sin-binned. Its a feedback loop stacking the odds against winning the contest. Worse, it rewards cheese eating surrender monkeys coached by the Trent Robinsons and Craig Bellamy's of this world who drop to their knees in the doggy-style position the minute a defender touches them. BTW, of course the decisions are arbitrary. They're applied by humans with independent thought processes. And the more complex the rules the more arbitrary it is.

It's really difficult to say but dividing the penalties at the half way line liks you say may not be such a bad idea. It might stop the cynical hold down on the first tackle after a long kick to let the line reset. Kicking 30 m downfield is a much bigger penalty than an extra tackle 10 out from you own line. I wouod like to see these changes made in trial games or lower grade games first to iron out obvious issues before adopting them. But what you say is worth some thought.