Six Again Calls

Waynesaurus

NRL Player
1,635
1,452
Springfield
Its really sad, the whole game overtime is just being narrowed down into this one play style and ultimately if your squad doesn't suit what is now 'touch football style' you are screwed.

They need to farkin can all these black and white, nit picky rules and let the game flow, the game has grey areas, let the referees use their common sense and 'feel' for the game rather than sticking to rules so friggin rigidly.

Clubs should be able to play their own 'style' of game and still have a chance, we've all but lost that individuality to each club now.

The clubs are all the same just with different levels of rosters, all are trying to play the same style just with different degrees of success.
 

Dexter

State of Origin Rep
5,715
2,978
So much this. The way the rule is implemented means that the advantage and disadvantage for the exact same infringement is wildly variable. It boggles the mind how anyone ever thought this was a fair rule to introduce.

Someone posited earlier in the thread it should just be one additional tackle, which would ensure parity across all decisions. That would have been the rational and sensible thing to have done, so of course it wouldn't have ever been considered.
The rule was intended to replace penalties. If you had a penalty in tackles 1 to 5 you get the same result just no kick.
 

Broncapz

QCup Player
855
1,367
The rule was intended to replace penalties. If you had a penalty in tackles 1 to 5 you get the same result just no kick.
A lot of the 6 again calls should just be one additional tackle. This would allow the refs to enforce the rules consistantly without blowing the game wide open. Sometimes 6 again/penalty is far too harsh of a punishment for a team.
 

Dexter

State of Origin Rep
5,715
2,978
A lot of the 6 again calls should just be one additional tackle. This would allow the refs to enforce the rules consistantly without blowing the game wide open. Sometimes 6 again/penalty is far too harsh of a punishment for a team.
Agree but what I thought the rule was supposed to do was replace penalties where possible and reduce stoppages, not go berserk like when we played parra.
 

Broncapz

QCup Player
855
1,367
Agree but what I thought the rule was supposed to do was replace penalties where possible and reduce stoppages, not go berserk like when we played parra.
In theory the rule was fine, but in practice it's exhausting teams and feels like games are decided much earlier then they used to be. Reffing is probably deciding the game more than it ever has.
 
Last edited:

Dexter

State of Origin Rep
5,715
2,978
In theory the rule was fine, but in practice it's exhausting teams and feels like games are decided much earlier then they used to be. Reffing is probably deciding the game more than it ever has.
Probably we just need to adjust better and get fitter.
I dont know how Parra can get their big Islander boys so fit and we can't.
They punch out big minutes every week and the whole team is still rushing up in D in the 80th minute. Strange how we are so far off the pace fitness wise..
Just another area we seem to be deficient in.
 

Culhwch

NRL Player
1,094
1,258
The rule was intended to replace penalties. If you had a penalty in tackles 1 to 5 you get the same result just no kick.
Fair call. But it doesn't really seem to have replaced penalties, but rather just it made it easier for referees to make trifling calls that would otherwise be negatively scrutinised if the play stopped for a kick for touch.

If you want to introduce varying degrees of penalty -- that is a kick for touch or goal is weighted more heavily than simply restarting the set -- I don't think this is how you do it. In fact I think the repeat restarts are giving more advantage than a stop in play, kick for touch, and a restart against a set line is, particularly once a team is past the halfway line. That's where a six again call on the fourth or fifth tackle for a negligible ruck infringement is giving the attacking team an unbalanced advantage.
 
Last edited:

TimWhatley

U18 Player
25
27
The rule was intended to replace penalties. If you had a penalty in tackles 1 to 5 you get the same result just no kick.
Except that the defending players don't get a breather. If you know you're getting 12 tackles at least it's consistent and you can train for it easier.
 

Dexter

State of Origin Rep
5,715
2,978
Fair call. But it doesn't really seem to have replaced penalties, but rather just it made it easier for referees to make trifling calls that would otherwise be negatively scrutinised if the play stopped for a kick for touch.

If you want to introduce varying degrees of penalty -- that is a kick for touch or goal is weighted more heavily than simply restarting the set -- I don't think this is how you do it. In fact I think the repeat restarts are giving more advantage than a stop in play, kick for touch, and a restart against a set line is, particularly once a team is past the halfway line. That's where a six again call on the fourth or fifth tackle for a negligible ruck infringement is giving the attacking team an unbalanced advantage.
I agree. I'm not defending it just clarifying.
I was against it from the start .
 

Old Mate

NRL Player
2,103
1,213
So lets bring in a rule if the attacking side walks off the mark it's automatic last tackle.

These idiots just keep trying to fix things with changes instead of enforcing the rules they already had. In 5 years the game will look nothing like it used to.
This is 100% it, it’s already getting rubbish to watch. They’re really fucking a good product.
 

Waynesaurus

NRL Player
1,635
1,452
Springfield
OMG.............I'm agreeing with Phil Gould again, all these rule changes are heading us down the rugby path and the game is becoming way too technical, it will drive the fans away.

Its hard enough to know what these set restarts are for just watching on tv, in the stands it will be almost impossible.

The NRL are trying to be 'clever' but they are officiating the game into oblivion.
 
Last edited:

Organix

NRL Player
1,274
636
Hmmmmmm cant agree .
That makes no sense to me.
He meant if there is an actually stoppage (like it was previously) the players can reset their formation, catch their breath and defend far better than if they're facing 12 tackles in a row due to the new rule.
 

Dexter

State of Origin Rep
5,715
2,978
He meant if there is an actually stoppage (like it was previously) the players can reset their formation, catch their breath and defend far better than if they're facing 12 tackles in a row due to the new rule.
Yeah but the rule was also to introduce fatigue so from that POV it's working.
 

Organix

NRL Player
1,274
636
Yeah but the rule was also to introduce fatigue so from that POV it's working.
Well, if it were more evenly enacted I would be a lot more inclined to accept that as a fair rule. But, as I said here much earlier, the NRL either had no foresight as to the flaws in their system (as has previously been the case) or as Huge Huge's stats show (without showing the when and where) there is an unfair dosage of calls against the Broncos that, with ill intent, could easily be being abused.
 
Last edited:

kooly87

NRL Player
1,562
2,320
For those interested in seeing the stats for themselves re: penalty counts, the below link has you covered.

It doesn't support the argument that we've always been the referees' whipping boy.

How do you figure that? I already pulled the numbers and as I said above, we've been in the bottom 4 teams for penalties awarded to us going back to 2016, and in the bottom 5 teams since 2013.

We've finished up and down the ladder with all sorts of win/loss records since 2013, yet in 8 years have we never once managed to get out of the bottom 5 for penalties awarded to us.

In fact, going back to 2010 we've only made it out of the bottom 5 teams for penalties awarded to us twice in ten years!

It simply isn't possible that going back 8 years now every single team that comes up against Brisbane has magically turned up on their best behaviour. It's absolute nonsense and it sticks out statistically like a sore thumb.
 
Last edited:

Slippin Jimmy

QCup Player
325
454
Penalty counts won/lost seems a better indicator of how we're faring with the refs than penalties for. From 2010 through to 2016 we were in the top 8 performing sides on that metric.
How do you figure that? I already pulled the numbers and as I said above, we've been in the bottom 4 teams for penalties awarded to us going back to 2016, and in the bottom 5 teams since 2013.
 
Last edited:

Huge

State of Origin Captain
8,105
5,119
Ipswich
Penalty counts won/lost seems a better indicator of how we're faring with the refs than penalties for. From 2010 through to 2016 we were in the top 8 performing sides on that metric.
No, it is not a better metric. Penalties for should be the focus as we cannot control them and it is at the heart of my claims. All the other teams(from memory nz doesn't fair well too) over 25 odd years rise and fall yet the Broncos stay way down the table generally. I could be wrong I suppose but I don't remember all the details. Big Pete usually does stats ,he may know.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create free account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Top