Re the 6 again on the run, although it did speed up play, it was a significant advantage to the team who got the benefit first in last nights game.
I also think it was a message rather than an actual ‘just cause’ call. Additionally (and this is a biased comment) I thought Siebold was right in his comments that other facets like the 10 were not being ruled on.
It was 16-6, (21 mins to go) the Broncs get a 7 tackle set from the 20 and 2 players are 2 mtrs in front of the ref before the tap and one of them makes the tackle on Asaako……should have been a penalty, kick down field Broncs now attacking in Parra half, instead they stripped (don’t get me started) the ball and regained the advantage just outside the qtr. MASSIVE turning point for mine. The Broncos were gallant given their shit performance with ball in hand, and that play broke their backs.
Anyway, I just hope the same doesn’t happen to penrith, I will be up for a new TV………
‘6 again on the run’, don’t like it.
You wanna speed up the game,clean up the wrestling tactics or ping ‘em.
Better still, bin them.
A defending side can deliberately infringe to stop the attacking side scoring where they are ahead by 1 or two points with a few minutes to go in the knowledge that the attacking side won’t get a kick at goal…
Gotta say, after watching most games, the 6 again rule is an opinion of the ref and is usually around someone touching the ball in the ruck after held is called…if he is watching
Note: With 10 to go in our game, we hadn’t received a six again at all. You cannot tell me that the knights with all their effort didn’t slow the play the ball down at certain stages.
I noticed in the storm game, when the 6 again call was made, within 2 tackles the ball was “stripped” and the penalty given. It that a tactic to avoid the extra defense on the run, the kick for touch is a breather…….we will see !
Something I noticed last night was our deliberate infringement on the first (zero) tackle of a six tackle set, knowing a six again call would have no impact.
Not sure the NRL foresaw this, know doubt coaches will exploit until someone is binned for a professional foul.
Some of the news match summary’s got the game wrong. We didn’t benefit from the six again rule, warriors did.
Last nights game between Storm n Roosters was one of the best I’ve seen in a long time. Although the new rules are still a concern for me as they are purely ref preference, the new rules certainly paved the way for an entertaining game.
It also highlighted that unless Penrith continue to play with 100% commitment for the entire 80, we are worlds away from the Roosters.
There was a penalty given early for a ‘cannonball’ being dangerous, there were another half dozen similar tackles let go, so the ref in his determination said that the one he penalised the storm for was more aggressive than the others………This style of reffing is what has me worried. They are now determining what is aggressive in tackles and what isn’t when it comes to cannonballs. Just penalise 3rd man in below the waste EVERY TIME !
I agree, based on the matches since the resumption, that we needed to play with full commitment for the full game to match the roosters (& others) & be real contenders. However I don’t think that last nights game performance by roosters was one their best & I don’t fear them on that display at all. They ended up losing on the back of many errors. What they do have in their favour is their ability to score pretty much every time they get an opportunity, so really taking their chances.
Match was very enjoyable to watch, but neither of those 2 teams are unbeatable. Just kicking myself for not backing $torm and $3.20. When I saw that price in a two horse race, I was tempted to put some cash on, even though I thought roosters were a good chance & I hate $torm.
Agree with most of what you said mrwalker (I took Storm in tipping comp) but it was the speed of the game that created the errors, fatigue does that to you.
I referenced being worlds away from the Roosters because that performance was on the back of what would have been a very tough week for them, they were essentially depleted and they were still able to manage to be super competitive in a very fast brutal game.
What are peoples thoughts on the new proposed changes?
Scrums - They are a blight on the game at present.
I am not a fan of getting rid of them, but we cannot go back to the 80’s were winning the loose head was the be all and end all with head butts, pushing early etc etc.
All we need is for the locks to remain in the scrum, thus packing properly. I say we take the rule of the lock picking the ball up out and stipulate that the nominated half must receive the ball at the back of the scrum, i.e. he who feeds it receives it. AND if by chance their is a contest and it is won against the head, the opposing half is the only player who can receive the ball from the scrum.
This does a number of things
- Either lock is not allowed to break from the scrum early
- Second rowers are not allowed to break early, if a 2nd rower is out before the half has the ball in hand, penalty to the opposition. No-one will want to give that away so your dependant on the ref to shout OUT
- The halves will not break early as they are required to receive the ball, even the opposing half needs to be diligent just in case.
- This will also bring back the scrum contest to a point. The ref can officiate aggression, but a normal push is not out of the question.
- Returns the scrum to be part of the contest and doesn’t look like a complete farce.
I agree that the scrums have become a blight & agree as you suggest that making the feeder of the scrum & his direct opponent at the time of feeding the ball being the only ones able to gather the ball would alleviate this issue.
On other rules/interpretations I suggest:
- as the refs have a lot of problem in determining a knock-on vs knock back, perhaps any accidental loss of the ball, as distinct from deliberate action (eg tap back), is counted as a knock-on, and that there can also be no accidental kicks nullifying a knock-on ala Billy Slater in SOO
- once there are two in the tackle, there cannot be a strip unless the tackled player breaks free from a tackler, so no drop-off and strip the ball plays which have become a blight, which the refs often get wrong anyway
- other players than Gutherson can take a quick tap on a penalty
Agree 100% with point 2, it is one of the worst things I have seen in a contact sport where by 2 and 3 players can man handle the bloke with the ball to the point he goes into survival mode, then 2 drop off only to leave the bloke who has wrapped the ball up to kill the attacking momentum, only to strip the ball.
It’s an absolute joke and IMO the team that does that to strip the ball should be penalised for bringing the game into disrepute…….its ugly
And give yourself an uppercut for point 3, just saying that jokers name in this game is a blight on us as rugby league fans let alone mentioning the dooshbag on a panther forum