After two full rounds of the 2021 NRL season, I have increasing concerns about the six-again rule.
I can totally acknowledge the merits behind introducing this particular rule change and last year it made for a more attractive product.
But the whole idea it was such a runaway success that we needed to have even more of it is a bit of a worry, particularly give the way the rule was brought in – Peter V’landys seemingly just snapping his fingers and making it so.
I’m in favour of a more straightforward approach, rather than the committee method of the past that took so long to achieve so little, but the chairman appeared to go a little mad with rule-change power over the off-season (see: the patently unnecessary two-point field-goal rule).
While the sacred and undefined ‘fabric of the game’ remains intact, if the rate of rule change we saw over the past 12 months continues, we’ll be watching a completely different sport by season 2023, with six-again awarded for any and all infringements committed by the defending team.
Which brings me to the most glaringly obvious issue with the rule.
Awarding six again should give the attacking team an advantage, yet there are situations where it gives the defending side the leg up.
Time and again, we have seen defending teams lie all over the tackled player early in the set. Because why wouldn’t you? When it’s the first tackle and the only disincentive against illegally slowing the play and giving your own team a breather is that six more tackles will be awarded, it just makes sense to stay on the man as long as you can.
Because it’s not six more. It’s one more.
I suspect the best way to fix this issue – and I’m not claiming I came up with this idea – is that the six-again call is only made when you’re in the opposition’s half.
The point of the rule was that an attacking team that was on a roll could press their advantage. But if you’re pinned in your own half and have no advantage to press, it would definitely be preferable to kick for touch, gain an extra 20 or so metres, and start your set again in a more dangerous position.
Again, the aim should be to discourage the defensive team from artificially slowing the play and the most effective way to do so is to disadvantage them with the call. But awarding six more in the attacking team’s half is generally helping out the team doing the tackling.
I know the ref has the discretion to award a penalty for repeated infringements but this just doesn’t happen when a team is working their way out of their end – honestly, it barely occurs when they’re hammering the defence’s tryline.
A straightforward rule that penalties are still blown in the attacking team’s own 50 would act as a disincentive against artificial slowing of the game.
My other issue with the six-again rule came to the fore on Friday night, as I watched the Warriors receive six refreshed sets to the Knights’ zero at the Gosford game.
(On an unrelated matter, we were warned of train lines being closed due to the awful weather, but instead were treated to scenes such as this while enjoying the game at one of Australia’s most gorgeous sporting venues:)
As referee Grant Atkins waved his hand above his head, a call-and-response began to develop: that ear-rattling “ding ding!” would ring out over Central Coast Stadium and fans wearing red and blue would cry out: “What for?!”
Now, I’m not above the fact that outraged fans love to scream this rhetorical question any time a referee gives a ruling against their team.
But in this instance, it’s a fair question.
Because from the stands, the average punter has no idea why the set has been restarted. We see a waving hand, hear a brain-rattling artificial bell, then start the tackle count in our heads again (everyone else does that, right?).
There’s no gesture indicating the specific indiscretion that caused the set to be restarted.
And I want to know.
Setting aside a fan’s desire to complain that their team has been hard done by, it’s hard to get an idea of what’s going on in the middle of the game when a team receives an advantage and all you know is what they got but not why.
I’d imagine players standing too far from the ref to hear them would have similar questions – if you’re out on the wing and just see a hand in the air, surely you want to know what your teammates have done?
This would be especially the case in a game like Friday’s, where Newcastle’s six issues were the result of one ruck infringement and five acts of breaching the ten metres. It paints a picture: this ref is keen on maintaining the ten, so we better stick to it.
My suggestion is not to change the rules, simply the way they are communicated.
I’m obviously not suggesting the ref stop the play to explain the call, which would defeat the purpose of the rule in the first place. Instead, that when the ref waves his hand in the air to signal six again, they immediately follow that with a non-verbal indication of the infringement being punished, as is the case with penalties.
A set is only restarted for ruck or ten-metre infringements (I’m not sure what a marker not standing square is considered, but NRL stats for negative stats only give those two), so we only need two new signals. But it would markedly improve communication with both players and the fans.
The great thing about both these suggestions is that they could be easily and quickly introduced. If they don’t work – although how the second could be anything but an improvement is beyond me – the tweaks can continue, which appears to be the V’landys way, the chairman having previously declared “all rules have to be flexible”.
Well a bit of flexibility is necessary at the moment, because a good rule change is at risk of turning bad.
Jeremy
Guest
Just get refs to call a penalty if a team is deliberately giving away 6–agains early in sets. Teams will stop doing it pretty quick if every time they do they give away a kick into touch or a 2 point attempt. Far simpler than introducing even more rules.
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
But the first run is often a hit up which takes them back to 5m from the line. !!!! Its more about getting that first play the ball in the right lateral position. They may move it from right to left then sweep back to the right on tackle 3 or4. They may work it to centre field and put on a play on tackle 3. Generally you have more options close to the line from centre field.
Simmo85
Roar Rookie
They kick back so they start 10m out as its actually easier to attempt something, the defence have to travel 10m to get to them not 5.
Tom G
Roar Rookie
That would depend too much on them knowing
Tom G
Roar Rookie
Spot on... this was introduced to provide referees with far less scrutiny... a six again is rarely if ever replayed ir even questioned. Whereas a penalty is accountable. I’d much prefer that refs are held to account for their inconsistent policing rather than given the soft option
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
The reason the value of a try increased by one was to appease fans who wanted to see more tries and were annoyed when a team kicked for goal after a penalty. They wanted a team to play on and go for a try and saw that devaluing the penalty would encourage teams to go for a try. Now the Six Again Restart does away with penalty goals and rewards the team with a good defence who can lay on the player and handle a restart and not be penalised. The restart isn’t consistently applied and PVL should remove it from the game. He should change the try to three points and return the try and goal to it's proper ratio, 3/2.
Papa Joe
Roar Rookie
I agree completely John - I went to one BBL game this year and nearly 400 runs were scored, but I left during a small rain delay and didn't regret missing the end of the match. Too hyped up for me, but plenty there were enjoying it. Yes, big Carl was in tears after that game. Similiar to Seccombe's drop, I recall John Maguire dropped a return catch off Clifford in '85 which would have iced the game. Such is cricket. Unfortunately, they don't seem to value the shield these days - the Blues batting lineup on the weekend looked like their 2nd eleven batting (in a crunch match).
Tony
Roar Guru
Perfect!
farkurnell
Roar Rookie
Maybe the Refs can then send it to the Reviewer ,who can then send it in to the Committee ,who can then engage a consultant,who can then report back to the Committee by the time next season starts
Mango Jack
Roar Guru
Agree. In many ways 6-again and captain’s challenge are contradictory. The former is designed to speed up play while the latter slows it down.
farkurnell
Roar Rookie
Tony your not suggesting a 2nd Ref I hope .Maybe they could call him the Flag Controller
Mango Jack
Roar Guru
If the ref signals the reason it could be displayed on the board for those at the game and on TV for home viewers
JOHN ALLAN
Guest
Good afternoon Papa. My dinosaur memory is in fact inaccurate. I do however recall Carl Rackemann almost winning the game for his side with a marathon bowling effort & I think taking something like 5-50 from about 30 overs. The game bore an eerie similarity to the 2005 final when the ninth NSW wicket fell & about 20 still required after a flurry of wickets fell. Then with 2 runs required & in gloomy conditions with the floodlights on, Wade Seccombe, normally a reliable keeper, put down a difficult chance. I also saw every ball of the Queensland v Tasmania final at the Gabba which was another great game with fluctuating fortunes throughout before Hartley & Magoffin steered the Queenslanders home. These games surely beat anything the BBL has ever offered. Thoughts?
PGNEWC
Roar Rookie
I miss kicking duels! .... (no I don't)
Papa Joe
Roar Rookie
John - Clifford scored those runs in '85, not '95. I was on the SCG Hill for the whole match and sledged him because he batted 7 (in that 1st innings dig anyway), didn't bowl and was fielding at 3rd man - I reckoned he must have been the first player selected and they picked the other ten around him. Bugger then went and scored 83 and won the game for the Blues. Great match though.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
When this rule was brought in I said it would encourage good defences to lay on the player more than ever. A team that is confidant they can hold out can no longer be penalised. I find it difficult to see why there is a tackle restart as it isn't consistently applied. Get rid of it and let the referee penalise the wrestlers and those who are slow in getting up.
Boz
Guest
I would propose that the referee goes back to awarding a penalty as they used to which means the crowd has some idea what the infringement was. However, the team who has been awarded the penalty can either take a quick tap, which gives 6 more tackles, or kick for the line - without the tackle count restarting. This would help to balance out the trend of teams willing to give away 6 again on the first tackle of a set. They would be less likely to do so if a team could get a kick for touch and 6 more tackles. It would also give the teams awarded the penalty a chance to kick for goal if they are in range.
The Barry
Roar Guru
I don’t know there’s much benefit from hearing about six again calls but I reckon it would excellent to see referees going over key decisions in games and why they made the calls they did Even if it was pre-recorded rather than throwing them to the wolves of the media I think it would be really insightful and give the refs a public face and maybe in turn a bit of empathy
matth
Roar Guru
This is exactly correct
Rossi
Roar Rookie
Well said Joe, I agree. There were some where even when my team got 6 again I asked aloud "what was that for?". The 6 agains only being awarded when in your opponents half is an excellent suggestion