I hold my hands up and admit it: I was wrong. I’ve had to say it quite a bit recently, particularly in light of England’s thus far abject performances at Euro 2020.
But having witnessed South Sydney’s dismemberment of Brisbane, amusing as it was for this Bunnies fan, I can no longer support the six-again rule.
This is an all-the-more pertinent point in the aftermath of a thrilling French Championship final. The game was played without the set restart rules, and Lezignan pipped Carcassonne 16-12 in a gripping, nip-and-tuck fixture.
I was reminded of what the game could be without the 2021 officialdom update.
I was a very early fan of the six-again rule.
Beforehand, penalties would be rewarded for ruck infringements at the play-the-ball, and failure to retreat ten metres. Now, we see continuous sets, with attacking sides afforded greater advantages positionally and athletically.
Coming out of lockdown 1.0, I was simply thrilled with the prospect of live sport.
Maybe it was the intervening dearth of action, but with the six-again, the game seemed more appealing. It was higher octane, and more rewarding of skill over brute force and gamesmanship.
The 28-point margin of victory by Parramatta over Brisbane, while hardly unknown, perhaps should have set early warning lights off, but alas.
Even up to the start of this season, I was defending its place in the game. With the rule having graduated to ‘permanency’ over tis 2020 ‘trial’ status, I brushed over some of the opening round blowouts.
I believed that, with time, sides would adjust to play ‘properly’ and reduce the number of advantages afforded to the offensive side. They would simply relearn and get used to it.
How wrong I was.
If anything, the inverse has occurred.
Smarter sides (cough, Melbourne, cough) have learnt how to utilise the rulebook to their advantage to win greater possession and refereeing decisions.
Storm coach Craig Bellamy, as always, has been quick to adapt to the rule change (Photo by Robert Prezioso/Getty Images)
As the season progresses, we are seeing sides not only failing to learn, but being excessively punished.
Extra fatigue compared to the victorious sides compounds their predicament, resulting in blowout score lines and tiredness rolling over week on week.
The idea of a move to fewer penalty calls and more in-play action seemed logically appealing.
Penalties disjoint the flow of play, breaking the fluidity of action. But maybe that break in action is what’s needed.
Rugby league is already one of the toughest and most demanding sports to play. These rules effectively push the athletes further, beyond what they have spent years adjusting their bodies to.
Pushing players beyond their cardiovascular output over 80 minutes results in complete fatigue, allowing dominant sides to run up greater score lines and blowouts that please no one.
You don’t need to be a statistician to observe the quantity of high-margin victories.
Of course, we still have low-scoring, tight games. Just this weekend we had a narrow 10-6 Newcastle victory over New Zealand. But the decimation of Queensland in Origin 1, while not attributable entirely to the six-again rule, certainly was a factor in the scale of the Maroons’ loss.
If Origin players, the gold-standard in rugby league ability, are struggling to maintain the pace, then what hope for lesser mortals?
Maybe in time the new rule will yield the desired changes in teams.
But for the moment, it would be the height of misplaced ignorance to carry these rules to the World Cup.
If NRL sides are being trounced on a weekly basis, then what hope do minnows and tournament debutants have against seasoned accustomed Antipodean opposition?
These are the current de facto international laws, but it is not too late to change.
The game from France demonstrates that rules don’t have to be universally applied globally to the letter.
Australia is the only country with two-point drop goals, and it’s a rule that won’t be introduced internationally.
Surely, it would make sense to likewise omit this other Australian addition to the rules.
Not only to avoid further exacerbating differences in abilities between nations, but also out of fairness to those players around the world who have not become accustomed to the new laws.
Ad-O
Guest
I hate the new 6 again law. That is all.
GregM
Roar Rookie
am still amazed how they cannot get a camera that shows down the try line or sideline, she's always from a skew-whiff angle that provides inconclusive evidence if a try was scored or a foot into touch
Tom G
Roar Rookie
Just like the two referees the 20+ cameras added nothing to the officiating of the game. Mistakes are more glaring than ever. They have allowed microscopic analysis at super slo-mo a level which is totally unnecessary.
GregM
Roar Rookie
everyone is going on and on about fatigue – so how is it that forwards in the 80’s etc played the entire match, or like Blocker etc once subbed that was it for the game. Is it now because of the 10 meter rule instead of 5 back in the day so there is more “up & back” running to get onside? Or is it because players of today spend more time in the weights room working on their bench press & bicep curls instead or racking up the kays on the running track? Don’t forget – not long ago RL was part time, 2 trainings a night after work, yet players like Junior Pearce were known for their fitness
GregM
Roar Rookie
" Once again the lowest common denominator appears to be the goal." - mate Jim Jefferies says it best (from 3:10) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4
GregM
Roar Rookie
& it will possibly get worse with the watering down of talent when another side is added. Only so many skillful players to go around
GregM
Roar Rookie
we've gone back to 1 ref, maybe they should go back to 2 cameras like in the 80's, then the refs wont cop a bollocking for a call that only 1 out of 20 camera angles shows it was a bad call.
Aiden
Guest
Or March then as you say, but after 3 in a row, then six again.
Aiden
Guest
Love the idea, can’t stand the execution. Perhaps the answer is, reduce the number of circumstances where it can be awarded. Or, give it after a certain number of infringements. I don’t know. It just feels like a complete lottery some times.
matth
Roar Guru
That’s right in part. I’m also saying the better sides, including NSW have the players to exploit and push the rules better than the less able teams. This has always been the case.
Paul
Roar Guru
I genuinely wonder why he's gone backwards so quickly? I don't doubt the rule changes have probably had an impact but still....
Paul
Roar Guru
So, in terms of the premise of this article that the 6 again rule change is a factor, you'd probably agree other factors are more telling, such as better game plans (legal or otherwise), better execution, perhaps fitter players, maybe more quality across all positions, etc. I'm not saying the rule changes aren't A factor, but far too many people are suggesting they are THE factor for what ails the game and I don't think that's right.
Adam
Roar Guru
Very true, why are we allowing the attacking team to have the advantage the entire time...(the non existent offside line aside)
matth
Roar Guru
Look at the season for Josh Papali, previously the dominant forward in he game.
matth
Roar Guru
"A perfect example was the first State Of Origin. In total, the Maroons received 8 tackle count restarts. In return, the Maroons gave up 1 ruck infringement, but what was the final scoreline?" I have an issue with this. The 8-1 count was not in itself an issue and it did not give QLD a particular advantage. NSW were playing a 'line speed' game. they were going early, offside and fast and accepted a few 6 against because they were successfully eliminating any go forward QLD may have got. I might sound bitter, but far from it. They executed the strategy very well, they knew the refs wouldn't blow six again multiple times during a set and not late in a set ad they trust their fitness to keep pushing up even if their defensive sets were longer. QLD had no answer and were too passive in defense themselves, because they didn't have the lateral movement to handle the more mobile NSW go forward play.
elvis
Roar Rookie
2 Nelsons and 15 Billys per team! :-)
Paul
Roar Guru
Completely agree, There's still a place for the big boppers, it's just that the game no longer needs 12 or more in a team.
Sam Drew
Roar Guru
Agreed we can't just bin out w/out thinking. Maybe reserving its use for very limited occasions? But I can't see it going forward in its current guise
elvis
Roar Rookie
It's weak because there are only a certain number of players who can play the game at the elite level to the new rules. You need ball players with excellent fitness Yardage forwards are just not as important anymore.
IGOR11
Roar Rookie
There you go...don’t forget all the others with respect to the scrum ie feeding the ball and the game has become a dogs breakfast...