How I'd improve the six-again rule

I definitely agree that the six-again rule needs work as the current application, doesn't always work. Particularly coming out of trouble, first tackle inside their own 10, you see a side get a six-again call and it would barely make a difference. The NRL though has gotten so much more technical in some rule interpretations and applications that then applying it only in certain situations or giving the team a choice just makes it harder to follow. It should be discretionary, something the refs just don't have anymore being overcoached. They should be able to identify more often than not what would be of greater advantage to the team with the football. That may sound a bit silly but the same way players have match sense the refs should. That will never happen though, that is the state of officiating so the rule does need to be changed if they are going to stay. I'm also not sure about the narrative of speeding the game up. We might have done so with this rule but the constant use of the Bunker, even more so this season with the captains challenge may very well negate that if it continues. There are always going to be stoppages in play. How often before, and do we continue to see the attacking team dithering about before taking the tap and going on the attack? This notion that it is a massive advantage when the players themselves waste time in attack needs some consideration too. If we truly want to speed the game up, it will come down to much more than the six-again call.

The theory makes sense and doesnt seem to move away from the core essence of the game. It seems a lot of rules are put in place to improve safety or improve entertainment. One way to improve entertainment on the 6-again would be to have an advangate applied to the first tackle after the infringement takes place - any error or turnover and you reset at tackle 1 where the original infringement takes place. This would allow for an attacking and expansive play which would increase potential for a try or line break. Any knock on, ball into touch or intercept pass has no consequence. I understand that this is probably a bit radical, but is for purely entertainment purpose.

Teams were not as eager to give away a penalty before the penalty was devalued. Changing tries to four points was done to create more tries by declining the time wasting penalty goals. But it was better that the penalty was converted so the team giving away the two points would stop giving away penalties. Slowing down the ruck is a result of making tries four points.

I agree it would be better to watch with a wider field of view, where you can see how far the defending teams get back in relation to the referee. I think it is always out of picture to encourage fans to rise above the "get em onside" rants.

Slowing down the ruck is always going to happen, the only thing to do about it is stop the clock and restart at the ball being played or penalise and sin bin the professional foul. This won’t satisfy those who want to see more tries as a result of an unset defence but it might result in more creative play to score a try which would be good. What’s the point of more tries if they come via the bomb. About 50 years ago I became frustrated by the use of the bomb as it is a lucky dip that rewards failure. They should only allow field goals on the last tackle as they do in US Football.

Slowing down the ruck to set your defensive line inside the 20m is frustrating to watch. If we wish to try and eliminate this and at the same time avoid slowing down the game via a penalty, I would suggest a simple change. Any 6 again restart coming off your line and within the 20 results in a 20m Tap restart and a 7 tackle set. The keeps the game flowing, removes incentive for the defensive team to slow the ruck and reset and provides an advantage to the attacking team against whom the intentional infringement occurred.

Couldn’t disagree with your points more Paul. Six again introduction was introduced to stop teams intentionally trying to slow down the ruck (Eliminate the wrestle).... the byproduct off which is a faster game. Offending teams usually commit to slowing down the first tackle inside the 20 to gain time to set their line after a kick chase. This is an intentional act, knowing they only have to defend one extra tackle with a set line. NRL teams have just moved this ploy from their try line (pre covid) to their opponents try line (post covid). Same with scrums now, player intentional offside knowing other team can’t take the 2 and you get a set line. Classic manipulation of the rules to your favour...... teams are always coached to be ahead of the game! You also argue the advantage rule..... for advantage to be applied a team has to advance the ball, presumably 10m to gain the advantage. This is not applied if dummy half knocks on or first receiver drops the ball. Therefore “six again“ (Which is essentially a penalty) in that play the ball and no advancement of the ball from the exact point of the six again incident is the evidence of no advantage being played. Your argument that a team knocks on after a tap is void because the advantage is that the team had a choice to kick to touch, tap or take the 2.

"If I infringe in the ruck, give away a reset, then you knock on in that play, I get the ball." That's not the way it works. If team two knocks on after team one has done so, the advantage rule has to be applied. As with a lot of rules in league, it might be applied inconsistently, but I don't think this can be avoided, unless we get rid of the rule altogether, which kills off the reason why it's brought in in the first place - to advantage sides and keep the game moving.

I think you have missed my point Paul. I get the advantage rule. If I knock-on, then you knock-on in that play, you still get the ball. If I infringe in the ruck, give away a reset, then you knock on in that play, I get the ball. It is inconsistent. In one case the first infringement matters, in the other case its the second infringement that matters. I'm not sure of the solution, but there is room for discussion on it surely.

No Dexter, we have an advantage rule now that refs apply. Sure it’s discretionary, but if a player with a reset knocks on during tackle one and the opposition picks it up and at some point in the ensuing play, before a tackle’s completed, knocks on too, the ref has to decide whether the second team gained an advantage or not. In most cases, the second knock on happens quite quickly and it’s pretty clear cut there’s no advantage to the second team, so they get the scrum feed. If however they make a break and further down field a player knocks on, then the ref may decide the second team DID gain an advantage, ie field position and award the scrum feed to team one. I see no issue with that and certainly no reason to change a rule because we already have a rule to cover this situation.

Bloke7, I tend to agree with your points. I think getting a penalty if you in your own 40m defensive area would be welcome by most teams, but as others have pointed out, that will slow the game. Does that matter? For whats its worth, my view on the set restart was it was designed to negate the defensive team giving penalties on their own line to slow play and set their line.

As for your other suggestion, if a player drops the ball after a set restart – tough. Knock-ons have been part of the game for over a century and I don’t see why a player should be rewarded for not managing ball security properly. Paul, I think Bloke7 has a point which you have glossed over a tad. If I knock-on, then you pick it up and knock-on, by your rationale, it would be tough luck, its my ball again. You might claim "where is my advantage", which is exactly what I would say if I was awarded a set restart and then drop it. I think there is merit here. Worth looking into.

Can we do away with the differential penalty? I have never been a fan of it (I remember as a kid thinking it was crazy). That may help somewhat as well as your suggestion.

I thought this rule was the reason for blow outs early in the season but have changed my mind. Yes, it's a factor, but the real reason is the disparity between the top few sides and most of the rest. I refuse to believe a set restart, which happens 4 or 5 times in game on average, makes sides consistently concede 40 or more points If defensive sides are taking too long to get set and they're happy to concede a 7 tackle set, I think that's a small price to pay. The alternative is to stop the game when the ref awards the penalty, perhaps allow the defensive captain a chance to argue with the ref, the let the team stuck in the corner take it's time over a kick into touch because their forwards are knackered ( and that kick often goes only 10 or 15 yards), then amble up to take the ensuing tap. That's up to a full minute wasted, which is why the rule was introduced in the first place.

I think you are glossing over the issues with the six again. Now with a kick into the corner the defensive side are always slow on tackle one and two . This let's them reset their line and makes it really tough to get off your own line. Sometimes they get the set restart but it's only one tackle or two at most. Teams are happy to give this away . I believe one reason we have for so many blowouts in the scores with the new rules is that a lack of penalties while in your own half make it really tough to change momentum. Even if it was changed to a penalty onlybinside your own 20m I think it woukd make a difference.

Sorry Bloke but I can't agree with either suggestion. The purpose of the rule is to speed up the game and to date, this change has had the desired effect. Offering a penalty inside your own half defeats this purpose. Just see how long it takes for teams to decide whether to take a kick, take a tap, perhaps even kick for goal, when they are awarded a penalty. In reality it can take the same amount of time to decide then take a kick for the sideline, then restart the game with a tap as it would to make 4 or 5 tackles. As for your other suggestion, if a player drops the ball after a set restart - tough. Knock-ons have been part of the game for over a century and I don't see why a player should be rewarded for not managing ball security properly. This is no different that a side being given a penalty 10 metres out, right in front, taking a tap instead of a kick for goal and the first ball carrier drops it cold on the first tackle. The side with the ball has to protect it. If they can't do that correctly, given the other side a chance to see what they can do.

God i thought I was the only ruck obsessive on the Roar. I count as well. I also replay all the six agains to see what they were for and see if I agree. FYI I almost always agree. I like what you propose for the six again. A penalty kick in your own half and six again in the opponents should work well. I like it so because of the way teams are gaming the current system and the fact that changing the momentum in a game can be virtually impossible if the opposition are allowed to hem you inside your 20. Bring it into the trials next year. See how it goes but I think Its a winner.

Some interesting ideas Bloke.Definitely needs tweaking. I've noticed the hold down is more prevalent in the early tackles of the count - as the risk is lesser when punished.Like to know the Stats on what part of the 6count they apply. Maybe differing penalties for 1-2 V 3-5. Also ,Officialdom seems to have a phobia about this Milkman guy .

I have the same issues. Inside your own half you should get a penalty, over the 50 “six again” is more beneficial. Also totally agree after a six again your dummy half can knock on at the play the ball and you lose the feed to the scrum. Doesn’t make sense cause the “six again” is basically a penalty right? No adavantage. The other issue of real concern is deliberately offside at scrums defending your line……. you know the team can’t kick for goal as it’s a differential penalty and you get the added bonus of getting a full line to defend your line. My suggestion, because the referee has to call “out” to release from scrum or move up in defence, that these penalties are professional fouls. They basically are the definition of a professional foul…… intentional act. With an audible action ref and touchies it should easily be policed. I also believe teams with a sin bin player should be made to pack 6 man scrum, that you should be made to attack/defend with one short. This obviously also flows into my point above at which a player is deliberately offside -he gets sent to the bin and attacking side get the option to kick for goal, tap it or can select to re-pack the scrum.