The match between the Panthers and Eels on Friday night brought to light some issues with the rules that are new to 2020, some that may have big ramifications as the finals fast approach.
The change to one referee and the new “six again” rule has drawn plenty of praise from fans in speeding up the ruck and adding to the pace of the game this season. There has been more free-flowing football off the back of some bold decisions by Peter V’landy’s after the first two rounds of the competition.
Another new process this year has seen the introduction of the captain’s challenge, with each team receiving one challenge per game – subject to the outcome of that first challenge.
The captains challenge has been a bit of a case of be careful what you wish for. The thinking behind it has some merit, the players are closest to the action and have a feel for the game. It is good to have the onus on them for a change, with plenty of questionable challenges demonstrating it is not the referees getting it wrong all the time.
What it has done is give us more of the bunker – certainly not what anyone wanted. In the line-ball cases it just means more time wasted on spooling through footage in slow motion, often to get the same decisions we got in the first place.
It seems the exact opposition of what the six again rule has tried and succeeded in, speeding the game up. It is also limited, with captains only able to challenge when there is a stoppage in play directly following a decision.
The issue that came up in the Panthers game was a challenge by the home side on a call of stripping. The ref blew a penalty for a strip, while the Panthers argued it was a loose carry. After reviewing the footage, the decision stood, on the basis that their wasn’t really enough evidence either way and in the same way the video ref works in try-scoring scenarios the decision reflects the referee’s opinion.
(Photo by Jason McCawley/Getty Images)
The fact was that really their wasn’t a great angle available, and certainly you couldn’t have conclusively said the Panthers did strip it. Consequently they were without a challenge for the rest of the game. It didn’t cost them but in a big game, with plenty of the match to go, you never know when the lack of a challenge might come back to haunt you.
If we are going to persevere with the challenge maybe a scenario needs to exist where inconclusive evidence is another basis for a team retaining their challenge, even if the decision is upheld, or otherwise upping the challenges for each team to one per half.
Ultimately the rule seems at odds with what we are trying to achieve. We are yet to see a challenge have a massive impact on a game and maybe we are best accepting that we can’t get all decisions right, something rugby league fans already struggle with.
Another issue with our new rules in the Battle of the West, was an incident with the Panthers leading 12-2 and deep on the attack. The Eels were penalised for markers no square a couple of metres out from their line and virtually in front.
In a rare incident, Clint Gutherson appealed that the call was incorrect and instead the Panthers should have been awarded six again and thus shouldn’t get a kick at goal that they had opted for from the penalty. He was right and Gerard Sutton changed the decision.
The six again rule is a straight swap for ruck infringements. It was made on the basis that it was a heavier penalty for teams trying to slow down the ruck, particularly while defending their own line. For the most part it works, but it also reflects the rule change that saw us have “seven tackle sets”, when the ball goes dead in goal.
That rule was supposed to deter teams from kicking the ball dead intentionally to get set starts rather than have fullback return the ball in broken play. But the rule now mean teams pay a big price for missing field goals and the like, probably an unnecessary byproduct of what was trying to be achieved.
The same applies with the six-again rule this year. We have been told that the ref has discretion to blow a full penalty and put a player in the bin for repeat infringements. That isn’t far from what we used to have with full penalties, except teams normally got a warning and miraculously cleaned up their discipline.
The six again doesn’t necessarily benefit a team that much. When a team is working it from their own line for example. To signal six-again early in the tackle count is barely an advantage to the attacking team, and the defensive team wouldn’t mind that at all.
The penalty should reflect what the infringing team would be most hindered by, in that case having the attacking team receive a full penalty and kicking for touch.
In the case of Friday night, it just tosses up some scenarios we could see in big games coming up with tighter margins. Every point can count but as it stands teams can infringe but not in a way that leads to a shot at goal. Of course the multiple infringement and sin-bin is a risk but late in a game and depending on the margin that could be a risk worth taking.
We previously only had the differential penalty as the only scenario where a penalty was awarded but a shot at goal couldn’t be taken.
The Panthers wanted the shot at goal on Friday for an infringement, recognising a 12-point lead was the best option for them. What the new rule has done is take that option away. A line from Peter Sterling is that when he was playing he would think about what the opposition wouldn’t want you doing.
It was obvious from Clint Gutherson’s reaction that he would far rather his team defend a set than concede two points. They would end up surviving that set, even if they lost the game, but in a different week it could have been very significant.
Clint Gutherson (Brendon Thorne/Getty Images)
What the new rule does it take away that advantage of choice in certain situations. Particularly in close matches the two is much more important.
Take a scenario in a grand final as an extreme with one side up by 2. In years gone by, a ruck infringement could have meant a shot at goal and a chance to tie things up for the side trailing. The likes of Nathan Cleary, Adam Reynolds and Jarrod Croker in particular as the elite goal-kickers of our game would want to have a shot if they earned a penalty at a difficult angle or from a long way out.
Now a team can give away six-agains and slow down the play knowing that won’t eventuate unless they infringe multiple times.
Further what if a team needs to go the length of the field to win the game? The defensive team can infringe in the ruck without piggy-backing a team out of their end like years gone by.
It just takes time off the clock and the attacking team still needs to go the length, potentially with time an issue.
Well drilled team like the Storm and Roosters are going to back their defence in that situation and would live with the extra tackles going against them.
The new rules this season have provided some quality rugby league and have a place in our game moving forward. But our game has a history of knee-jerk reaction and blanket fixes.
The off-season will provide an opportunity to really think about the effects the likes of “six-again” and the captains challenge have had, and whether they work in all cases. I’m predicting that with the finals around the corner we will yet see some controversy with the new rules.
Heyou
Roar Rookie
I enjoyed reading your article. You raise many vey interesting and important points, which have me thinking along some new lines about these issues. It is a topic that interests me greatly, as I watch the game of rugby league change annually, as the powers that be make these decisions. These ‘new rules’ don’t merely change the way the game is played, but influence the methodologies of coaching, training, sport science and sports medicine in a myriad of complex ways.. Thank you
Heyou
Roar Rookie
Good points all. Scrap golden point altogether for mine A draw is a draw in the rounds. A draw in the finals.-extra time - first penalty goal or first try wins. I realise that will never happen in the modern game, but winning or losing a finals game based on a field goal, after such a hard fought draw, seems wrong to this old school league enthusiast. It is what it is and I guess I’ll continue to live with It.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
Anyone would prefer watching a game where the ref just blew the whistle and that was the end of the story and if the majority wanted that I would accept it. I would like to see them try the idea of not going to the bunker for tries and only checking if the captain challenged. Another is challenges on the run and just keep playing while the bunker views the challenge. It doesn't need to be so formal I suspect. It would also allow a challenge on a wider range of issues.
Opposed Session
Roar Rookie
Early 2018 NRL introduced football department salary cap. TP agreements are based on your marketability as an organisation and The strength of how well your commercial department performs or is able to “sell” your club to TP’s. From a governance and management position, each club has the power to get the right people in those departments and you would think by extension the football program. So if you have a set player salary cap, set football department cap and have the right to sign as much TP’s as you can...... sounds pretty even to me. Just cause a club doesn’t perform on the field or off the field doesn’t mean there’s really inequality in the competition. Just inequality in how those clubs operate on and off the field. So I do slightly agree it exists but opportunity to be equal is Well and truly there. One thing we can agree on is that we should raise the level up to meet optimal standards not lower levels to underperformers.
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
I understand we are looking at things from two different perspectives. I also understand and agree decisions can change games . Exactly how they do this though is rarely forecastable , except if the decision happens in the last moments of a game. My concern is that once 'getting every decision correct 'becomes the primary goal of the game we get a slow insidious creep of technological intervention into the game and we turn it into something unrecognizable from the game I have loved for 55 plus years. Next , you will keep your challenge if the tech is inconclusive, then people will agitate for one challenge a half. After all if a challenge was a genuine 50/ 50 and goes against you, why should you not be able to challenge the next one which is a total howler.? Every change will stop the game longer , bore the crepe out of everyone and 70 percent of the time will change nothing. I don't like the phrase at all but technology is changing the fabric of the game one thread at a time.
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
‘Club resources are not an indicator of success. ‘ Thats a good story but inequality is just a given. One club spends 800 k in TP agreements another 80k. Some clubs have coaches on 1m plus, others on less than half that. Some clubs football departments spend 3x what other clubs do. It’s the reason AFL now includes the football department spending in determing grants to clubs and have created an equalization fund to spread the wealth around . They not only spruke eguality but they practice it, and it works. Me I believe that bringing everyone down to the same level is counterproductive. Let’s make smart people dumber so we are all more equal.? I accept that inequality exists and just live with it. Just don’t tell me it’s not really there. The bonus is when your highly disadvantaged team ( like say the Tigers in 05) finally cracks the big one it is all that much sweeter.
Opposed Session
Roar Rookie
Thanks Jimmy, I forgot they changed that after the 2015 GP Grand Final. I still not a fan of GP in rounds, mainly because you can still have a draw at the end of it therefore making teams play extra 10mins becomes a welfare issue. This is enhanced this year teams have to fly in and out in the same day. I get the entertainment value for fans but feel if you took the situation out of the equation, mostly the quality of football played isn’t the greatest. 5 up, mistake free for a pot shot at field goal. So while I think we need some form of golden point period for finals.... personally it still needs further thinking. Maybe golden try is the only immediate end of the period, field goals/goals count but you still have to play out the period time or until try is scored. Field goals/ goals still secure you a win if at end of time that’s the difference between the sides. The game is meant to be a fair competition, same salary cap etc etc..... the way this is managed at club level is the downfall that creates inequality. At the pointy end of the season top teams should by rights have equal chance of a result. Depending on who turns up better on the day. Tribalism and the perception of inequality is storied folklore...... but even a club with a $27m centre of excellence can run last or second last...... while they won 6 premierships out of a tin shed. Club resources are not an indicator of success. It’s what’s done with the salary cap and how you get that cap to perform. Each club gets the same, provided they haven’t stuffed up the previous years.
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
I accept your view on the issue and how you would like the game to run without the stoppages Jimmy but I'm not saying that one bad call only changes a game. Everything changes a game and that's why coaches blow up about players making mistakes and do all they can to minimize them. A player taking a tackle when he should have passed can determine the winner of a game. Whether we like it or not the world of sport isn't heading in a direction where we shrug off mistakes by refs and co and just cop everything on the chin. If the public don't care about getting decisions as correct as possible then they can get rid of all the stoppages in tennis , cricket and other sports. I'm not declaring the CC essential at all but as one who called for it's introduction and would like to see it's use improved and refined it's all about getting closer to the goal of getting a fair result. Some games are clearly decided by the refs and co. If that's not the case why bother putting so much effort in to the issue? It's either one or the other. Refs mistakes are influencing the score and therefore the result of games or they aren't. I expect a few punters who follow teams who have made the finals reverse their opinion on the CC.
Andrew01
Roar Rookie
The 6 again rule doesn't work for various reasons the obvious one being the inconsistency with which it is applied. In recent years we have all become familiar with hearing a ref call out "milking", but now with the 6 again rule we have ref's (often guessing) if the tackler is having his arm wedged in by the ball carrier, or if he is genuinely trying to slow the PTB down. Penrith are the best at getting away with it, it is why they receive the most set restarts. It isn't the fault of the referee, he is trying to asses various things and trying to look through a crowd of players 10m away to determine if the attacker is in fact milking. The solution is simple. An official whose sole job is monitoring the ruck for infringements. We had it, but PVL took it away to save a couple of grand a year in salaries, forging the integrity of the actual game.
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
FT there are multiple 50 / 50 calls and wrong calls every single game. You can't pick one decision where a challenge is made and succeeds and go 'well that changed the game' so the captains challenge is essential , while ignoring all the others which also change the game. Refs make mistakes . Happening since 1908. Live with it or follow chess. Now the bunker is a whole other story. It's alive with inconsistency, incompetence and lack of logic. It's abominable. Your answer may be ' more technology'. Mine is blow it up.
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
Golden point in finals only applies after 10 mins extra time. At some point before a game goes into the 3rd hour you must have a next team to score wins. They have this right. Now I like Golden point for regular season games because I hate draws with a passion and some of the best games of footy I have ever seen hqve been golden point games. I accept this just a matter of personal taste and I concede its possible to lose a GP game without touching the ball. One thing I know about RL is , it has Never been based on equality or egality ( fraternity for sure) . It's one of the reasons I love it.
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.!
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
Exactly TB. It squeezes the enjoyment out of the game on the pretext of 'getting it right. 10 replays , then called inconclusive , 'OK let's go with the original call. ' They are sucking the life out of a great game . Please Mr V , kill this crepe dead.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Great...we can give refs a “footage was inconclusive” out and fit a few extra captains challenges in...just what the game needs
The Barry
Roar Guru
7 tackle set drives me bonkers... it’s so fundamentally flawed and inconsistent
The Barry
Roar Guru
Agree jimmmy The argument is always “what about the howler?” How many captains challenges do you reckon have been made to overturn a howler? I’d guess 5% if I was feeling generous The rest are teams wrangling over 50/50s or manipulating the challenge to get a break at a critical part of the game Captains challenge would be fine if it was howlers. One look and game on. But instead we have these interminable breaks while a video ref looks 20 times charged with the impossible task of determining of something is a strip or a loose carry...it’s infuriating
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
I'll be interested to see during the finals series if the idea that the Captains Challenge makes no difference to the result in games stacks up. Not agreeing with the concept because it slows the game down is understandable but the idea that it doesn't alter the final score is devoid of logic.
Opposed Session
Roar Rookie
Six again should change to only in attacking 50m on exit sets you should get penalty. The anomaly with the six again is the offending side can give one away in a tackle, on that play the attacking side can knock on at dummy half and lose feed to the scrum. There is no advantage played as six again essentially constitutes a penalty right? Intentional Scrum offside penalties defending your line should be sin bin offence, because the ref has to call “Out” to allow players to move up or break from scrum it should easily be policed. This is basically the definition of a professional foul..... Offending side knows teams can’t kick for goal because of the differential penalty, they then get the benefit of a set defensive line from the tap. Any sin bins should require you to pack a full complement in the scrum. You should be made to attack/defend with one less out of the scrum. My point above this then feeds into this one. If you have captains challenge you should be able to challenge any call. Currently you can only challenge a stoppage. So it should just be abandoned. As you said, it contradicts the six again and minimising stoppages. Any Kick that goes dead should just be 6 tackle set. Makes no sense that you make a mistake and have to defend 7 tackles but a penalty means you only have to defend 6. Golden point should be scrapped for round play. A draw is a fair result for a fair game. Finals should be played with 5 mins each way before going to golden point. Even then golden point needs tweaking...... reason being you can lose a final in golden point without touching the ball in the extra period of play. Cruel way to lose a game without the right of reply. Sadly we might need to see a team lose a grand final for them to realise it’s not what our game is set up to be...... A fair contest.
farkurnell
Roar Rookie
Jack a noble ambition , however whatever you tweak the Bunker will Retweak to suit there interpretation .You see the Bunker works on the Denis Denutto Principle “its the vibe”
Jack Aubrey
Roar Guru
The six again doesn't necessary fit the crime. If it is tackle one, with the ball in hand ten out the old piggy back out was a big advantage where now to restart just doesn't help all the much. Similarly if you are down by 2. What I would advocate for is giving more discretion to the ref to blow a full penalty, although that has proven to be a hard thing to do with the League seemingly wanting blanket definitions and rules for everything. I don't have a problem with Gutherson appealing for the change in decision as he was indeed correct, I just think it is telling that he was so desperate not to have the Panthers take the 2, and maybe we have created a contentious issue down the track.