NRL General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm curious with the 6 again rule, in some cases if you make a mistake immediately they give a penalty but sometimes they don't. Does anyone know what the actual rule is? If you needed the two points in a match like in the Newcastle vs Raiders match, wouldn't you be best off dropping the ball after the ref calls for 6 again?

Seems a bit weird but I don't understand a lot of why the rules are the way they are and clearly the refs often don't know what is going on either. It amazes me that they still haven't fixed up 7-tackle sets being given for any error made over the try-line.
 
Finbar said:
I'm curious with the 6 again rule, in some cases if you make a mistake immediately they give a penalty but sometimes they don't. Does anyone know what the actual rule is? If you needed the two points in a match like in the Newcastle vs Raiders match, wouldn't you be best off dropping the ball after the ref calls for 6 again?

Seems a bit weird but I don't understand a lot of why the rules are the way they are and clearly the refs often don't know what is going on either. It amazes me that they still haven't fixed up 7-tackle sets being given for any error made over the try-line.
Click to expand...
Has to happen in the same play.

For instance it became a full blown penalty because Ponga knocked on in the tackle of Wighton.

Had Dane Gagai knocked on at dummy half, it would have been Raiders ball.

Unless you're the Raiders then they'll make up some infringement like they did with Riki.
 
Finbar said:
I'm curious with the 6 again rule, in some cases if you make a mistake immediately they give a penalty but sometimes they don't. Does anyone know what the actual rule is? If you needed the two points in a match like in the Newcastle vs Raiders match, wouldn't you be best off dropping the ball after the ref calls for 6 again?

Seems a bit weird but I don't understand a lot of why the rules are the way they are and clearly the refs often don't know what is going on either. It amazes me that they still haven't fixed up 7-tackle sets being given for any error made over the try-line.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that when it's a 6 again from offside or markers not square I think you basically get the whole tackle.. because the infringement has impacted that specific play/tackle that you're in.

If it's a 6 again from a ruck infringement then you could drop it at the ptb and it's all over, because the infringement impacted on the previous ptb.
 
Big Pete said:
Has to happen in the same play.

For instance it became a full blown penalty because Ponga knocked on in the tackle of Wighton.
Click to expand...
Cheers. It just seems so silly to me. If Ponga doesn't knock on, they have to get into position for a field goal to win the match. But because he knocks on, they get to take the easy 2. That makes absolutely no sense and I wish the sport would go over some of their rules and fix up stuff like this.
 
Finbar said:
Cheers. It just seems so silly to me. If Ponga doesn't knock on, they have to get into position for a field goal to win the match. But because he knocks on, they get to take the easy 2. That makes absolutely no sense and I wish the sport would go over some of their rules and fix up stuff like this.
Click to expand...
They have discretion to call a penalty instead of a six again, pending the situation, which Klown absolutely should've done.

They just stupidly think that whenever they blow a penalty instead of a six again then it has to be a professional foul and sin binning, which it doesn't have to be.
 
Finbar said:
Cheers. It just seems so silly to me. If Ponga doesn't knock on, they have to get into position for a field goal to win the match. But because he knocks on, they get to take the easy 2. That makes absolutely no sense and I wish the sport would go over some of their rules and fix up stuff like this.
Click to expand...
Just get rid of the 6 again. Problem solved.
 
BroncsFan said:
They have discretion to call a penalty instead of a six again, pending the situation, which Klown absolutely should've done.

They just stupidly think that whenever they blow a penalty instead of a six again then it has to be a professional foul and sin binning, which it doesn't have to be.
Click to expand...
Offside like that one should always be a penalty. It's a sucky way to lose a game, but it's so fucking dumb to be 5m offside in front of the ref trying to charge down a drop goal. On the other side of that, the ref should 100% also penalise for any blockers stopping the markers having a fair crack at the kicker.
 
Organix said:
Offside like that one should always be a penalty. It's a sucky way to lose a game, but it's so fucking dumb to be 5m offside in front of the ref trying to charge down a drop goal. On the other side of that, the ref should 100% also penalise for any blockers stopping the markers having a fair crack at the kicker.
Click to expand...

What about the non-penalty on Gamble for being offside though?
 
Organix said:
Offside like that one should always be a penalty. It's a sucky way to lose a game, but it's so fucking dumb to be 5m offside in front of the ref trying to charge down a drop goal. On the other side of that, the ref should 100% also penalise for any blockers stopping the markers having a fair crack at the kicker.
Click to expand...
What if there's blockers and offside at the same time?
 
Kimlo said:
What if there's blockers and offside at the same time?
Click to expand...
Depends on the situation. For example, if the blockers prevent the marker making a play at charge down, and subsequently this results in the offside player being the one who can impact the kick, then I would penalise for blockers, actually. The offside player wouldn't typically make it faster than the markers, so it's the secondary infringement and only impacts the play after the first infringement (blockers).
 
I'm okay with a penalty deciding these matches, but if to get the penalty you have to knock the ball on because you can't depend on the ref to use his discretion correctly, well that's ridiculous.

If you can knock on the ball to force the ref to five you a penalty, why can't you just say "sir we'll have a penalty thanks". Or as mentioned above, just get rid of the stupid 6-agains so I don't lose my mind trying to understand what is going on.

This is what I think of watching the NRL sometimes:

Blernsball futurama
 
Finbar said:
I'm okay with a penalty deciding these matches, but if to get the penalty you have to knock the ball on because you can't depend on the ref to use his discretion correctly, well that's ridiculous.

If you can knock on the ball to force the ref to five you a penalty, why can't you just say "sir we'll have a penalty thanks". Or as mentioned above, just get rid of the stupid 6-agains so I don't lose my mind trying to understand what is going on.

This is what I think of watching the NRL sometimes:

View attachment 24034
Click to expand...
BLURRRRRN
 
Jack Wighton is apparently reconsidering his retirement from rep footy.

Funny how he's reconsidering when he's due to be suspended for several games.. Unless Mal says he won't be a part of the Australia side even if available.

I wonder if Souths got in his ear about taking that course so he doesn't miss club games next year.
 
Man this Face to Face on Fox with Carl Webb is amazing.
 
Saw this earlier, posted under a conversation on 360 tonight about Cleary being talked about with the best 7s of all time. This was posted in the comments by a panthers fan and I have not been able to stop laughing.

Didn't know where else to post it so here ya go.

20230911 201548
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 859
1:34:36
NRL Round 17, 2007 - Brisbane Broncos vs Gold Coast Titans
View full media list »

Active Now

No members online now.
Total: 88 (members: 0, guests: 88)
Robots: 310
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.