Six Agains

[Big Pete]

I called for set restarts over fifteen years ago.

I thought it was ridiculous that players could give up 40m and a fresh set because they hung around the ruck for a fraction of a second. The punishment didn't fit the crime and it was beginning to look like soccer. The players spent more time appealing for penalties than playing footy.

They brought it in for an All-Stars game and...it was awful. Maybe it could have been tinkered with but there was no time for either team to adjust and it didn't make for great viewing. I thought they could go back to the drawing board and try to iron out some kinks but it never happened.

Then V'landys came into the job and immediately started making changes.

Look I give 2020 a pass. Everyone was just trying their best and if there was one year where you experiment with the rules it's that.

I didn't think it could get much worse, but then 2021 happened. Players were struggling with the lack of stoppages and there were a lot of players suffering injuries and making poor attempts at tackle due to fatigue. Instead it adjusting things, the NRL just started punishing bad tackles until that absolute farce of a Magic Round.

That was the lowest point I've had as a fan. One of those if you don't laugh, you'll cry.

I never liked them, but enough quality players emerged to promote the game in spite of the rules.

Yet instead of taking the hint and easing back on the penalties and encouraging teams to put together well constructed tries, the game has extended the set restart and it just turns the game into a slog. Teams are virtually punished for defending their line, as the opposition can just make them work it out of a corner, bash them and at worse they might give away a set restart inside the opposition's half.

I think it extends beyond the set restart and just to the way the officials are trained and how they police things in general.

RE: Two referees. It could work but the previous incarnation was not good. Two refs at odds with one another, inconsistent rulings in the same game and square ups were out of control. The game doesn't have the depth for a single referee, where are they going to find eight other officials from?

 

[Morkel]

I called for set restarts over fifteen years ago.

I thought it was ridiculous that players could give up 40m and a fresh set because they hung around the ruck for a fraction of a second. The punishment didn't fit the crime and it was beginning to look like soccer. The players spent more time appealing for penalties than playing footy.

They brought it in for an All-Stars game and...it was awful. Maybe it could have been tinkered with but there was no time for either team to adjust and it didn't make for great viewing. I thought they could go back to the drawing board and try to iron out some kinks but it never happened.

Then V'landys came into the job and immediately started making changes.

Look I give 2020 a pass. Everyone was just trying their best and if there was one year where you experiment with the rules it's that.

I didn't think it could get much worse, but then 2021 happened. Players were struggling with the lack of stoppages and there were a lot of players suffering injuries and making poor attempts at tackle due to fatigue. Instead it adjusting things, the NRL just started punishing bad tackles until that absolute farce of a Magic Round.

That was the lowest point I've had as a fan. One of those if you don't laugh, you'll cry.

I never liked them, but enough quality players emerged to promote the game in spite of the rules.

Yet instead of taking the hint and easing back on the penalties and encouraging teams to put together well constructed tries, the game has extended the set restart and it just turns the game into a slog. Teams are virtually punished for defending their line, as the opposition can just make them work it out of a corner, bash them and at worse they might give away a set restart inside the opposition's half.

I think it extends beyond the set restart and just to the way the officials are trained and how they police things in general.

RE: Two referees. It could work but the previous incarnation was not good. Two refs at odds with one another, inconsistent rulings in the same game and square ups were out of control. The game doesn't have the depth for a single referee, where are they going to find eight other officials from?

On that last part, I even thought about that. Instead of the refs swapping duties (I can't remember if the refs stayed with one team for a certain time, watching the ruck when they attacked, and watching the 10 when defending?), why not dumb them down even further? Have half the refs specialise in the ruck (staying with the attack), and one marking the 10 (staying with the defence)? Sure they can practice both during the week, but on game day they get appointed to one or the other, and eventually you'll get some that are better at certain roles.

 

[Santa]

Maybe instead of restarting the set, they should just add 2 more tackles to the set? That way you're not slowed down with penalties, but you're not completly gassing the defence when you get one on the 4th or 5th tackle, and it doesn't completly mean nothing when you get it on the 1st tackle.

And if you keep infringing, it just builds up (to a certain point lol).

I'm a genius.

 

[I bleed Maroon]

It is without doubt THE worst rule change in the history of the game, and that is a feat and a half considering the 7 tackle set is a thing.....Still.....Somehow.

Once a team gets a few six agains in a row, the game is essentially over. The other team is gassed to **** and they aren't coming back from it without an equally crucial swing in the momentum thanks again to a few six agains then maybe you might get a result like Brisbane vs Parra on Thursday night, where the concept of defence was told to have the night off.

Vlandal surely has to have some sort of hard on for AFL and their constant scoring opportunities.

 

[BroncsFan]

RE: Two referees. It could work but the previous incarnation was not good. Two refs at odds with one another, inconsistent rulings in the same game and square ups were out of control. The game doesn't have the depth for a single referee, where are they going to find eight other officials from?

I think the 2nd ref has basically been replaced by the bunker... I don't care what the NRL says and however they want to spin it, you cannot tell me that the bunker isn't making calls on plays.

We already know they've been talking to the ref since the "how's Trent?" code was deciphered, and there's no way they're not monitoring and feeding information to the onfield since then.

And that brings it back to your later point about who is in charge... and to me it seems the bunker ref is the one able to overcall the onfield ref... and the onfield doesn't really have a say in it.

If the bunker wants to send someone to the bin 3 tackles after something happened... they'll tell the ref to stop play and make it happen.

However the NRL will never release audio of what the bunker is constantly saying to the onfield ref.

To me the officiating group need to be acting as a team more... excluding the ****ing bunker that is making all these silent calls and copping none of the blame.

In a proper league the touchies and a second ref should be involved in the officiating to take pressure off the main ref.

The biggest sport in the world allowed their touchline officials to make calls on offsides for its entire existence until VAR was brought in a couple years ago.

NFL use a squad of refs per game and each of them have a specific role in the game and are allowed to call penalties based on those roles.

However this comes back to your last point of ... where do they find the quality when they can't even find 8 refs for each weekend.

How can you put a touchie in charge of offsides when they can't even see a ball go out on the full or get 40/20's wrong, etc.

 

[BroncsFan]

And whilst I'm at it, because this thread may as well be ... how shit is reffing across NRL

One big issue that I think with officiating in NRL, is that they make too many rulings and calls based on "optics" and also allow themselves to be dictated to by the players.

They/NRL are scared shitless of the media criticising a ref or the officiating.

"I'm not blowing a penalty in golden point, because I don't want to be on the back page"
"I'm going to give the team I've been reaming a ton of penalties to even up the count"
"I can't keep penalising this team because the penalty count will look bad"
"I'm not calling anything for either team, because the media criticise games with too many penalties, etc."
"This is heading towards a blow out I need to give the team playing like shit some penalties so they can even up the score" (dolphins on the weekend at 14-0 and parra when it got out to 20-4... just about any game where the lead gets beyond 14)
"I'm not overturning that call because it looks like the onfield ref is making mistakes"
"I have to blow a penalty because all the players have their hands in the air and are refusing to play"
"I have to blow a penalty because the players have upped stumps to push and shove and refuse to restart play" (i.e. start a fight to get a penalty)
"I have to blow a penalty for a crusher/hip drop/high shot, because the player is lying down and refusing to play the ball"
"I have to blow a penalty because the dummy half is pretending like they can't get to the ball" (Harry positioning himself behind a player in the ruck and just standing there... Wayde Egan on the weekend literally sitting on a player in the ruck)

 

[BroncsFan]

Maybe instead of restarting the set, they should just add 2 more tackles to the set? That way you're not slowed down with penalties, but you're not completly gassing the defence when you get one on the 4th or 5th tackle, and it doesn't completly mean nothing when you get it on the 1st tackle.

And if you keep infringing, it just builds up (to a certain point lol).

I'm a genius.

I think this is not a bad option at all... in theory.... but I think it would be super hard for a ref to keep track of the tackle count and then also the players to keep track of where they're at in a set.

 

[Foordy]

Similar to what @Big Pete said above, but I recall last year Gus Could saying that the six again rule would work if it was simply to replace the kick for touch for some instances ... but then the refs started applying the rule willy nilly to very minor infractions that wouldn't have even warranted a penalty under the old system.

He has reiterated his stance again after what we have seen so far this year.

Phil Gould said:

"Statistically, there were a few more six-agains than is normally the case," Gould said on Wide World Of Sports' Six Tackles With Gus.

"I'm just concerned that the six-again penalty is an addition to our game. Originally when they brought the six-again penalty in, it was to take away stopping the game for a kick for touch and slowing the game down and teams deliberately giving away penalties.

"The six-again was to be a deterrent and we've learned that it's not.

"It appears to me that these six-agains are at most for very minor indirections, that under the old system, I don't think would have warranted a penalty.

"I find it very troublesome that if you give away three in the one set, it's an automatic sin bin. They can be very minor indiscretions and all of a sudden you do get a legitimate penalty and someone's gotta go to the sin bin for it.

"I hope it settles down and I hope the referees rein it in a little bit."


Fans are also often left confused about why a referee has awarded a set restart.

"My issue with the six-agains is that it's a little bit too pedantic at times and both players and fans don't understand why they are being given, there's a lot of confusion," he said.

"There are teams that deliberately give them away in the first couple of tackles to try and get control of the defensive rhythm.

"There was a time where sides were deliberately giving them away on tackle one or two … but there are far too many in the game where coaches, players and fans are asking 'what was that for?' ... you only need two of those to change the course of the game."

"Hopefully it settles down."

 

[Berry Barrigan]

Six-agains also take the scrutiny away from the referee’s call. If a penalty is blown the offending team’s captain can ask what the deal is, maybe even challenge it. If it’s a six-again it’s just play on, and there’s never a moment where anyone can ask whether it was warranted (or what the f**k it was for).

Incompetence is one thing, but the bigger risk of fuzzy, hard-to-critique refereeing is that it’s great if you need to fix a match. I don’t think it’s happened, but sports betting is bigger money every season, and I’d prefer not to leave any gates open.

 

[Santa]

I think this is not a bad option at all... in theory.... but I think it would be super hard for a ref to keep track of the tackle count and then also the players to keep track of where they're at in a set.

I mean its just adding 2 - maybe the bunker can keep track of that and just update the onfeild ref when needed (better that they keep track of the tackle count and allow the on feild ref to ref the game themselves).

My genius growing.

 

[BroncsFan]

I mean its just adding 2 - maybe the bunker can keep track of that and just update the onfeild ref when needed (better that they keep track of the tackle count and allow the on feild ref to ref the game themselves).

My genius growing.

Until it's "2 again" on tackle 3 and then a player knocks down the ball on tackle 4 and it's recovered to reset the tackle count to tackle 0... and then they give away another "2 again" to deliberately slow the ruck down

 

[Brocko]

Ive just seen that the argument was thrown up tonight that they cant be the reason for blow-outs because Penrith and Storm have conceded the most over 2 rounds.

Again, this goes back to my earlier point. These 2 in a shock to nobody concede the most because they INTENTIONALLY give them away at set times and set points of the field. Early tackles only. Coming out of yardage only.

You cannot count all set restarts as equal. They just aren't. Arguments like oh look these 2 concede the most and are still winning are so misleading.

When you look at it too, Penrith game vs us, sure set restarts were 5-5, but Penalties were 8-2 in their favour. How can you take a stat like that and make it sound like oh they're doing well despite getting heaps of set restarts against them? Then vs Sharks, they gave away 10 set restarts (to 5) but still won the penalty count.

Anyways.. you'd get a lot more people on board if we could actually see what they were for, at what tackle they were given. But that would give people proof to complain about them.

 

[BroncsFan]

Ive just seen that the argument was thrown up tonight that they cant be the reason for blow-outs because Penrith and Storm have conceded the most over 2 rounds.

Again, this goes back to my earlier point. These 2 in a shock to nobody concede the most because they INTENTIONALLY give them away at set times and set points of the field. Early tackles only. Coming out of yardage only.

You cannot count all set restarts as equal. They just aren't. Arguments like oh look these 2 concede the most and are still winning are so misleading.

When you look at it too, Penrith game vs us, sure set restarts were 5-5, but Penalties were 8-2 in their favour. How can you take a stat like that and make it sound like oh they're doing well despite getting heaps of set restarts against them?

It's just the rorters tactic of a decade ago, where they will give away a tactical six again if it looks like their defence is even remotely in trouble... except rorters used to be penalised harsher a decade ago (you couldn't do it in yardage, because you'd concede 30m of field position)... nowadays give away a six again on the 21m and you're 'punished' by having to make a couple extra tackles from the same spot you conceded the penalty.

It does go hand in hand with elite fitness and ability to wrestle though.

You can't be losing the ruck every tackle and keep giving away deliberate tactical six agains, because you will eventually be binned or just completely gassed... and you need fitness so you are resilient when you give away six agains.... but ultimately six agains can be utilised by fit elite wrestling teams to completely control the game, because they can dictate where and when they give them away.

The whole modern game is built around quick ptb's... on offence you have to manufacture them... in defence you have to prevent them. On both sides of the ball the best wrestling teams will do both.

 

[Dexter]

As has been discussed before the Riffs 3 man in D is elite but it's certainly not perfect.
They get it wrong a bit during games and the third man isn't actually involved in the tackle.
He's only there to lay on top or push down and doesn't always arrive on time to be legal but NEVER get penalised for it.

They've pulled off the greatest con in NRL history. Those tackles look similar but they're not and the refs just won't ping it.

It's got me stuffed why other teams don't/can't replicate it.
The 6 again rule suits them best, they slow you down , conserve energy and have a defensive line moving forward. It's a massive advantage and I don't think anyone will get close to them this year if Cleary stays fit.

 

[Renegade]

Kinda agnostic towards 6 agains - I dont mind the concept so much - its more of its implementation that annoys me. Too many stopages is annoying to watch, but there is no consistency on how it is officiated.

But I think the game was fine last year (maybe im biased because we won), and dont know why they needed to change the rules yet again. It's like the stupid crackdowns they have from time to time.

Love the NRL though - and watch as much as I can (has actually probably increased over time - especially as ive got into the fantasy leagues).

me in a nutshell. would just like more transparency on how they are given. they should release a match report available to the public which details why they were given in any situation during a match.

6 agains are better than stop start penalties.

 

[Cavalo]

The rules were there already to stop the wrestle. Rules to play the ball with your feet, rules to stay on the mark, rules to get back 10. It was the application of the rules that was failing. Would Panthers have given an early 6-again on the 20 if the penalty was a kick and restart on halfway - repetadly. No, but they will give up an extra tackle or 2 in the opposition half. Would Storm have perfected the ruck slow-down if calls were made (pre 6-again era as well).
What has never been explained or justified is the fact you can't get a penalty if you are even, or down 2, with 5-10 mins to go. This is a huge anomaly and is why 6-again will always be flawed.
I wonder if the captain had a choice how many times they would take 6-again over a penalty? 10%, 20% at most?

 

[Ondi]

I need some clarity as to what it's for. It moves so fast that I can't figure it out. The commentary provides no information and the next thing you know another 6 again has been given.

That's when I get frustrated at the game and that's the reason why I only watch Broncos games and nothing else.

 

[Midean]

I ****ing hate the 6 again with venomous rage. Never been a worse rule implemented into the game.
I agree with others though that the rule has the potential to be less shit with some changes.

The biggest gripe for me is the lack of accountability which will permanently cloud every game with the potential for game fixing, corruption and manufactured outcomes instead of the better team winning.

You simply cannot have a rule like this in a game being run by a gambling kingpin.

Also as Elbows said. They have the unique ability to completely **** a game in a 10 minute window.
The only other thing that can do that is Ashley Klein but thats for another thread.

Who the **** wants to watch a "disciplined" team like Penrith steamroll a bottom 4 "undisciplined" team for 80 minutes with a lopsided 6 again count.

****ing ridiculous.
**** it off already.