The new Ruck rule - The final verdict

[POPEYE]

I'm against anything that gives referees an opportunity to cover up mistakes. In a perfect world it is a good idea to have less stoppages but not at the expense of clarity.

Referees will be able to indicate a penalty without fear of scrutiny . . . especially disastrous when there are two competing for the limelight.

Seems like a chookyard when half the team receiving the penalty doesn't realise what's happening and therefore throwing practiced plays out the window.

If the referee did make a mistake at least play was stopped enough to give the defending team time to regroup.

 

[innsaneink]

Found it very frustrating with the NRL AS's attacking in the indig's 20 but not know what tackle it was as 9's producers had lost track

They should at least wait until all players are onside like the 20 re-start....6 more tackles is a big enough adv without the D backpedalling

 

[Wilson1]

What is the incentive not to concede a penalty on tackle 1?

 

[PaddyBoy]

Found it very frustrating with the NRL AS's attacking in the indig's 20 but not know what tackle it was as 9's producers had lost track

They should at least wait until all players are onside like the 20 re-start....6 more tackles is a big enough adv without the D backpedalling

Winner. Everyone knows it's happened, speeds it up but not ridiculously.

 

[Fordy20]

no way... the captains should be given an opportunity to question why a decision has been made... this would leave the game open up to some serious issues.

Most of the time, this is abused so players can get more of a rest.

What if the players didnt hear 6 again?

It's the same problem players have at the moment if they don't know the tackle count. Non issue

What if i want a penalty so i can kick for goal?

Good point, however people want to see games decided by tries, that's why the stupid concept of golden try keeps raising it's ugly head. Most of the time though, if you have the defending team on the back foot, I reckon you'd prefer the momentum wasn't disrupted so you have the chance to score a try.

This rule also stops the problem of teams leading by six or more, defending their goal line with repeated infringements, knowing that they get a rest and to reset their defensive line, safe in the knowledge that the attacking team won't kick for goal.

The refs need to justify the decisions they make. I hope they never ever introduce this rule.

This is probably going to be an unpopular statement, but I reckon people need to accept the decisions of referees more than the referees need to justify their decisions. Besides, they can do that in the post match conference.

It also seemed (but maybe it was Ch9) that every "six again" turned into "zero tackle plus six again" - which is obviously 7 tackles.

This is precisely what the rule was:

From NRL.com: For infringements in the ruck area by the defending team (holding down, leg pull, hand on ball etc.) which does not result in the breakdown of play (i.e. drop ball), the referee will indicate the infringement followed by immediately restarting the tackle count at the point of the infringement with a zero tackle.

It also seemed the refs were more inclined to give a "six again" penalty when in 2011 they would have let it go. The "six again" should've simply replaced what was a penalty given in 2011, not see it as an opportunity to give more penalties due to the lesser punishment scale.

Infringements need to be punished to enforce compliance with the rules. If players can get away with infringements, there are more likely to commit them to give advantage to their team. If a lesser punishment encourages an infringement being punished, then this is a good thing.

Seems they need hand/arm signals for the referee that can inform the players, fans & commentators what the "six again" was for. Some of the penalties arguably aren't worth "six again" - some maybe should graded like NFL....But all of that is probably unworkable as RL is non-stop, whereas NFL has a natural break between each play.

We already have graded penalties. Some penalties require a player to be sent off or sent to the bin or placed on report. This is simply slotting in a softer penalty for an infringement. If something isn't worth being penalised with a tackle count restart, then it isn't worth being penalised at all, but these are decisions that should be up to the discretion of referees.

Asking for the refs to give a reason for giving a tackle count restart penalty is pretty soft. We know it's for a defensive ruck infringement that doesn't stop play or instead foul play. How important is it to know at the moment of infringement whether it's hand on ball or holding down too long? What's next? Asking refs to give us an explanation for why a penalty isn't given when a breakdown in play doesn't occur?

I think the ruck rule is a good one. It gives refs more discretion to punish infringements that would otherwise go unpenalised or would have been punished too harshly with a kick for touch. It creates a more open free flowing game that rewards attacking football and it resulted in a better spectacle.

Personally, I was more concerned with Rabs repeated use of the word facilitate, Andrew Johns interviewing players on the field while play was in progress and Nine's repeated refusal to implement the much needed Gould Filter as an option for viewers.

 

[joshie]

I love it but it needs to be tweaked as previously stated.

I think it should fall under a more advantage rule so if they call six more, then it is an advantage until the first tackle is complete, and the captains can then control weather or not a kick for two is adequate or not.

Also the Refs need to ease up on it a little bit and be smart, we dont want a team having 80+ tackles in a set.

 

[Slackboy72]

Last night at times it just seemed like we'd gone back to unlimited tackles. Whose to say this won't be abused by a Hollywood Harrigan type ref?
Need to get one side back in the game to make a contest?
Give em 18 tackles in a row.
Noone can look at or question your calls so it's all sweet.

 

[jbl31649]

Shit can it.

When I first heard of the rule I thought it might be good, but after watching last night, I was confused about 100 times. Imagine being a player in the same position.

Plus the ruck play was terrible at times, players walking of the mark and trying to milk penalties from the markers. Also do we really want to go back to unlimited interchange and 6-8 bench players.

To much like touch, we've taken so much of the Rugby of Rugby League already. Don't play with the fundementals of the sport.

Also I thought Gus was busy with Penrith, Damn! I should have listen the Continous Call Team.

The stripping rule needs a review.

 

[RL1908]

From NRL.com: For infringements in the ruck area by the defending team (holding down, leg pull, hand on ball etc.) which does not result in the breakdown of play (i.e. drop ball), the referee will indicate the infringement followed by immediately restarting the tackle count at the point of the infringement with a zero tackle.
.

They seemingly weren't doing that. They were giving the "zero tackle" to the next tackle, not the one in which the offence occurred i.e. "at the point of the infringement".

The "six again" idea came from the proposition that penalties/punishments were too severe, and that getting rid of the kick to touch was worth looking at. They should have stopped there - in other words, only allow a tap from a penalty (or more likely, certain penalties). That is what the rule reform should ultimately be.

The "six again" reform, if adopted, will come horribly undone late in a game (or in golden point) when a team would've preferred a penalty kick at goal than "six again".

The "six again" rule put into the run of play just made the game as giddy as touch footy.

As for fans not wanting to know what the "six again" was for - of course, they do. That's the reason RL introduced signals for referees. That's the reason RL has a play-the-ball - so that the fans can see and understand everything that is going on. If you just see "six again" on the screen it means nothing.

The "six again" RL game will be like watching a tv show or movie with a confused plot - plenty of people give up & turn it off.

 

[babyg]

I much prefer a free flowing game of football than a stop start ine with the ref seemingly the centre of attention. Scrutunity of the ruck and slow plays the ball shit me, but penalties ruin the flow of the game too much. Fair point about teams losing a chance to go for goal at the end of a game but does anyone really enjoy a game being decided on a ruck infringement. A blatant or professional foul should still be penalized the normal way, hence the new rule should only be for minor things.

 

[Dogs Of War]

They seemingly weren't doing that. They were giving the "zero tackle" to the next tackle, not the one in which the offence occurred i.e. "at the point of the infringement".

The "six again" idea came from the proposition that penalties/punishments were too severe, and that getting rid of the kick to touch was worth looking at. They should have stopped there - in other words, only allow a tap from a penalty (or more likely, certain penalties). That is what the rule reform should ultimately be.

The "six again" reform, if adopted, will come horribly undone late in a game (or in golden point) when a team would've preferred a penalty kick at goal than "six again".

The "six again" rule put into the run of play just made the game as giddy as touch footy.

As for fans not wanting to know what the "six again" was for - of course, they do. That's the reason RL introduced signals for referees. That's the reason RL has a play-the-ball - so that the fans can see and understand everything that is going on. If you just see "six again" on the screen it means nothing.

The "six again" RL game will be like watching a tv show or movie with a confused plot - plenty of people give up & turn it off.

I challenge this. I think referees could apply it like in Union, where repeated offenses do result in a full penalty (ie option for shot at goal, kick for touch), and 10 mins in the bin for the offender. Or another option of only one repeat set of six tackles (kind a like a warning), before it becomes a full penalty (so the next infringement in that series of tackles).

It's definitely a rule which is worth a full season trial in the U20's or NSW/QLD Cup comps so they can find the right balance on when a full penalty is deserved etc.

 

[babyg]

I challenge this. I think referees could apply it like in Union, where repeated offenses do result in a full penalty (ie option for shot at goal, kick for touch), and 10 mins in the bin for the offender. Or another option of only one repeat set of six tackles (kind a like a warning), before it becomes a full penalty (so the next infringement in that series of tackles).

It's definitely a rule which is worth a full season trial in the U20's or NSW/QLD Cup comps so they can find the right balance on when a full penalty is deserved etc.

Agreed

 

[StormHi]

I loved it. Wasnt confused i nthe least. If you are watching the game and remotely know anything about it you should know what the penalty is for needs some tweeking but I think it is something that will improve the game for sure... Powerplay was stupid.

Hated the onfield interveiws so so so pathetic and not even remotely coherent (Liked being able to hear the refs and Sailor was good paticulary the live update on inglis.

Rabs used the word Facilitate about 200 times I did think it was funny when talis was going on about the natives getting restless haha the look on whats his names face was pricless

 

[RL1908]

I challenge this.

There's nothing to challenge - we agree the idea has some merit, but it needs a lot more work/thought before being adopted. And, for once, I hope that the impact of such a rule change on the game at all levels is part of that. The 10m rule came in for the pro game, and has nearly stuffed up RL as a social game for everyone else.

 

[Dogs Of War]

And, for once, I hope that the impact of such a rule change on the game at all levels is part of that. The 10m rule came in for the pro game, and has nearly stuffed up RL as a social game for everyone else.

I think League is going the way of the NFL, in that really if you don't make the grade, weekend comps with people over 25 will be rare just due to it being an impact sport. People just can't afford to get injured and take time off work.

So it comes back to League really getting that Oztag version of the sport out there, and owning that brand. This will allow people to play and be connected to the top tier spot as a whole and remove the issue that most older people (and possibly some younger ones) are concerned about, which is the big hits.

 

[innsaneink]

I loved it. Wasnt confused i nthe least. If you are watching the game and remotely know anything about it you should know what the penalty is for needs some tweeking but I think it is something that will improve the game for sure... Powerplay was stupid.

If the commentators are waffling on over the voice of the ''miked'' ref...(could barely hear them last night, and if the ref is not in the camera view then the viewer has no idea bar the onscreen tackle count display...and last night they too couldnt keep up, see or hear

 

[Frances the Mute]

What is the incentive not to concede a penalty on tackle 1?

A) This.
B) Reminded me of Touch football.
C) And people wanting a captains challenge? Your too simple to worry about, particularly ausguy giving skeepe a challenge for simplest poster on here!

 

[mokn]

Felt more like 7's, touch and a bit of rugby with the amount of penalties for every little thing.
The score also reflected it, i don't like high scoring games like that as it's normally associated with 2 crap teams that can't defend and starts to feel more like afl where kicks at goals are anti-climatic.

The only way this new rule could work like it was shown last night is to remove the 10 metre rule and bring back the 5 metre rule and also major offenses like high shots should be kick for touch.

If they do add this rule i'd suggest super league come back and have another go as i would much prefer to support the real game and this rule change would be sure to split the game.

 

[Big Tim]

Nice concept, though I think the same can be achieved by making ruck penalties give the option to the attacking team.

If the whistle blows for a penalty in the ruck, the attacking team can immediately tap the ball and continue play. Or they can opt for a traditional kick for touch or shot at goal.

This would mean that the way a penalty is awarded does not change, but the ability to give the attacking team a continued advantage of not stopping the game is available.

Oh, and none of this "the mark is 4cm to your left" BS. It is a simple tap of the ball...... possibly the old place the ball on the ground, release, tap with foot style that was drilled into me when I play Mod league.

 

[DC_fan]

Its less then 10 seconds to go in the game. Team A who is two points behind is attacking Team B line, just 5 metres out.

Team B know they can't give away a penalty kick for goal. So all they do is is slow down the play the ball. Making it impossible for TEam A to score and chewing up the clock in the process.