This might just save Rugby League.

[bazza]

Has the set restart rule reduced the amount of wrestling in tackles?

 

[Jedhead]

There was only four in the whole game in Origin two.

Technically yes. But the penalty count which meant a restart of the count was 8-0 at one point.

 

[Jedhead]

Reg Reagen saying "the onus should be on teams to be better disciplined." This reductionist mindset does not account for teams who are disciplined but get canned by the opposition teams like Storm , Riff and Roosters who stretch the rules to the limit and get away with it. When other teams try to fight fire with fire they get hammered.

 

[BroncsFan]

I'll add they need to **** the Captain's Challenge off as well (its becoming very messy and another unwanted time waster) and a massive overhaul of the bunker, or just scrap the whole fucking thing and just leave it up to the refs and touchies.

The onfield refs would probably get about the same percentage right as the bunker is currently getting right. Or if it is to stay, get some fucking competent ***** in there that have some feel for the game. Stop making it so black and white. It's never going to be.

The bunker cant be scrapped... look what happened in the nines a few years back when they didnt have vid review to keep that game ticking over.

Dragons won a game (and maybe even the whole comp??) because the winning try in the last seconds of the game was awarded but he lost it about 1m above the ground and didnt get close to grounding it.

Could you imagine the blow up if that happened in the NRL... commentators complain about blatant forward passes that can be seen, but the ref has no power over.

Anytime any commentator talks about getting rid of the bunker (Joey, Gus, etc.)... they're the first one to complain about a wrong decision that can be seen in a replay.

 

[Morkel]

The bunker cant be scrapped... look what happened in the nines a few years back when they didnt have vid review to keep that game ticking over.

Dragons won a game (and maybe even the whole comp??) because the winning try in the last seconds of the game was awarded but he lost it about 1m above the ground and didnt get close to grounding it.

Could you imagine the blow up if that happened in the NRL... commentators complain about blatant forward passes that can be seen, but the ref has no power over.

Anytime any commentator talks about getting rid of the bunker (Joey, Gus, etc.)... they're the first one to complain about a wrong decision that can be seen in a replay.

Agree, and the Captains Challenge is the one avenue that teams have up their sleeve if they get a genuine dodgy call - it gets highly scritinised from all angles and in slow-mo for everyone to see. They still don't always get them right, but if it's a howler and the bunker goes along with it when it's clearly dodgy, it's up there for everyone to see.

 

[Midean]

There was only four in the whole game in Origin two.

There was four in the first 10 minutes, all to nsw. We got our first in the second half.

 

[Sproj]

The bunker would be totally fine if they did what they do in the ESL - simply make a ruling based on what the clear evidence shows, not start trying to interpret things and see things that aren't there.

The six again on the other hand is an absolute joke. I feel like they don't even record them all to make the stats look better than they actually are.

I can't stand the NRL, the current stupidity from the top down has pushed me more and more toward the ESL and especially, the AFL.

Even in the ESL, the six again has affected the quality of that game as well unfortunately.

 

[Midean]

So the news article I linked showed that a majority of the nrl teams and fans hate the 6 again and want it gone, or at the least refined for more clarity and accountability.

So you guys in the minority who want it kept, can I ask why?

They get the calls wrong as much as any other rule, but with no backlash for getting it wrong, and repeat 6 agains no doubt fatigue a team terribly and turn the contest on its head because of minor infringements.

Do you really think a team deserves to be that heavily affected because they were a fraction early off the line, or didn't clear the play the ball 1 second quick enough?

Also, is it a coincidence that injuries have sky-rocketed since the 6 again was introduced?

I would love to hear why you think it's a good rule vs the vast majority who hate it.

 

[McHunt]

see things that aren't there.

I can't stand the NRL,

LOL

 

[bazza]

I have never liked the set restart rule, because it is gimmicky and makes the matches feel a bit arcade like. It adds an extra layer of greyness to the refereeing if a match when they are trying to achieve black and white on everything else.

The sport looks extremely amateurish when there is inconsistency from match to match, and sometimes even within the same game.

Everything the set restart rule is trying to achieve, can be achieved by normal refereeing. They just needed to be stricter to cut out certain behaviours.

If they wanted to achieve a quick, free-flowing game, then instead of the set restart rule, all they had to do was let teams take the quick tap off a penalty, or let them kick for touch as quickly as they wanted to. Instead, whenever someone used to take the quick tap, the referees would call the players back and get them to redo it for no reason, giving the opposition enough time to reset their defensive line. Likewise when sometimes used to kick for touch, the referee would get them to retake the kick, or they'd first engage in a discussion with the opposition captain who was deliberately trying to further slow the game down.

 

[BroncsFan]

I have never liked the set restart rule, because it is gimmicky and makes the matches feel a bit arcade like. It adds an extra layer of greyness to the refereeing if a match when they are trying to achieve black and white on everything else.

The sport looks extremely amateurish when there is inconsistency from match to match, and sometimes even within the same game.

Everything the set restart rule is trying to achieve, can be achieved by normal refereeing. They just needed to be stricter to cut out certain behaviours.

If they wanted to achieve a quick, free-flowing game, then instead of the set restart rule, all they had to do was let teams take the quick tap off a penalty, or let them kick for touch as quickly as they wanted to. Instead, whenever someone used to take the quick tap, the referees would call the players back and get them to redo it for no reason, giving the opposition enough time to reset their defensive line. Likewise when sometimes used to kick for touch, the referee would get them to retake the kick, or they'd first engage in a discussion with the opposition captain who was deliberately trying to further slow the game down.

I dont disagree that the refs should be allowing quick taps if they wanted the game to flow quicker and I think the admin were trying to achieve a quicker game by bringing in the six again... but I think the other aspect they were trying to sort out under the old penalty rules was goal line defences deliberately giving away penalties to reset their line, because the punishment was not enough of a deterrent.

What they havent realised is back in the day teams didnt want to deliberately give away penalties when the team was even at the 30m... it was basically confined to being within the 10m, because you cant take a quick tap inside the 10m so you can reset your line.

What's happened now is the punishment for a penalty is no longer a deterrent for about 60m of the field.... so teams generally dont give a shit about giving away a deliberate six again from pretty much anywhere on the field if it stops a quick ptb or being offside on the edges if it stops an overlap.

They've basically removed the deterrent of penalties to the point that they will happily give away deliberate six agains anywhere at any time if the team needs it, instead of just on the goal line.

The times when a team is really impacted by six agains is when they're not actually trying to give one away, but the ref gives one anyway (ie. the phantom six again).

These ones dont allow the defence to reset and most of the time they dont stop a quick ptb... so it's a penalty for slowing down the play, that hasn't actually slowed down the play, and it doesnt make sense or add up... and because we see so many deliberate penalties now we're becoming conditioned to identifying the deliberate penalties that a phantom one doesnt actually look like a penalty anymore... and no one has any idea what its for because it has barely impacted the play.

And then we see refs not call the blatant penalties... that everyone now knows and sees... and it pisses people off... because how do they call phantoms that have no impact on the ruck, but miss deliberate penalties that have clearly impacted the ruck.

 

[Morkel]

So the news article I linked showed that a majority of the nrl teams and fans hate the 6 again and want it gone, or at the least refined for more clarity and accountability.

So you guys in the minority who want it kept, can I ask why?

They get the calls wrong as much as any other rule, but with no backlash for getting it wrong, and repeat 6 agains no doubt fatigue a team terribly and turn the contest on its head because of minor infringements.

Do you really think a team deserves to be that heavily affected because they were a fraction early off the line, or didn't clear the play the ball 1 second quick enough?

Also, is it a coincidence that injuries have sky-rocketed since the 6 again was introduced?

I would love to hear why you think it's a good rule vs the vast majority who hate it.

I'm not saying I want it kept. I'm just saying there was a legit reason to introduce them. And that removing them won't fix the problem(s).