I wrote the undermentioned as a post in another blog. I would like people to stop for a second and think about why this rule was introduced. I also accept that some will not like this because it is a little rigid..... no apologies because we need a little rigiditity to give the game a little of its shape back!
i.e. it essentially was done to "speed up" the game and also stopping deliberate penalties to slow down the game.
I think the referees have a problem interpretating it with any consistency and this is because the "play on" syndrome makes the process very difficult to defend.
The rules are not the problem at this stage, the six again needs to be refined and communicated better, we all turn around and ask "what was that for" and miss the next play. Ref's need to be coached as much as players and they need to get together as a group and review every game to rule out inconsistencies so that things can be made clearer. I think the refs are more capable of panicing with the pace of the game than the players. Blow the whistle! (signal 6 again with the hand wringing) stop for 3 seconds, then play on. The roll on momentum is what is upsetting everyone IMO...... whilst the reason for the speed up is justified, how much faster is it than it used to be with the penalty alternative, the defensive side cannot do much in 3 seconds, other than to at least have a chance of defending the situation.
Just stop for a sec and do it yourself ...blow an imagininery whistle, count to 3 and play on..... don't get lost on the 3 seconds, it maybe 2 secs or 5 secs, it just the case of being able to reformat and not have the rule abused.
Replies
yea wave your arm like a pelican but Faark let us know what for...
Good blog mate.
The problem as I see it is that rules are brought into the game and there doesn't seem to be any real reaction to what the flow on effects have been until it gets to a critical point where the rule change has ended up changing the game for the worse. They seem to make a rule change then just sit on it and whatever happens, happens - rather than being proactive and tweaking things as issues arise.
For mine the 6 again has had a huge effect on the possession flow in the game. As you say, the bell goes off, we all go "what the feck was that for" but it's all over before anyone can react and we've moved on, albeit with a fresh set of six for the team in possession.
This is where posession flow comes in; you can only get the bell if you have the ball. It's a self perpetuating advantage that can only ever flow one way - and there's no chance for anyone (us/commentators/whoever) to audit or digest the decision. Possession starts to weigh heavily for one side while the other falls further into the fatigue zone. Let's not forget that fatigue for one side means rest for the other. The bell really is the gift that keeps on giving.
And if a team does get a huge chunk of possession thanks to a couple of consecutive ("what the fk was that for") bells it's usually try time. Guess what happens then? - well, the ball goes back to the same team that had it 2 minutes prior.
Essentially the game should be half defense and half attack - all things being equal you should get the ball about half of the time. The quality of that possession should be roughly even, but the bell can turn a 6 tackle set into an 11 tackle set, or even more if you jag a couple. Multiple tackle possession is all but unstoppable. The bell can (and does) completely disrupt possession, even when refs have the best intentions. It can hurt the quality and spectacle of the game.
One thing I reckon they should look at is scorer kicks off - at least possession would then change and the team previously defending might get a bell of thier own.
And slow it down when the bell goes off - like you said - pause it for a bit.
Wongy's clearly concerned about the rule changes and speed of the game - I reckon that's a good indicator that things may not be quite right.
There are parts I do not like at all but others a bareable. One thing for certain is that players will need to have better fitness and stamina levels to cover the increased speed of the game. I also believe that there needs to seriously look at having an extra player on the bench, that covers a game ending injury, in many cases the interchange worked ok under the previous rules but with the new rules a team reduced by one is seriously hindered.
In last Saturdays trials, watching online I never heard a bell ring to herald repeat set. On that area there needs to be something louder for both those at the game so they hear properly also, do the players hear the bell as they concentrate on playing?
I find both yours and Kram's as well thought out responses...... I have verbalised this discussion with others and it was pretty negative with the general thought that the "3" seconds gives the defensive side time after maybe making it a slow down process..... I can't quiet accept that and Kram puts it very succinctly about evening it up somewhat.
The reality is if they brought this thing in it would not be a change in rules as much and an instruction of interpretation.
I am pleased the discussion is being thought through!
Not sure the six again will open up midfield play. Over time coaches will coach no risk footy, playing for a 6 again instead of yardage. It will be about catching opposition off side, not exploiting gaps and throwing the ball around. It will be like touch footy, as soon as a player is grabbed they will drop to the ground for a quick play the ball hopping to catch players of side. Will be interesting to see if post mates gained drops.
Don't disagree with your philosophy Graham, just don't think the rules are sophisticated enough yet to address those issues, like you said but, you can bet the coaches are working the SWOT exercises on every aspect, including how to exploit the 3 second rule if it happened to happen.
This is becoming more like a think tank! constructive options and thoughts.
I am sure we will get someone that will come in and say its a shit rule and should be squashed, but that is not going to happen, I hope we can conceptionally make it work better in our minds.....God knows what sort of process would be required to get the mainstream looking at it......maybe through journo's that go through these type of sites or even facebook talking about the game in general.
I would like to see the refs have the discretion to either blow a penalty or call 6 again depending on what they feel is the most appropriate given the offence.
One unanticipated issue with the 6 again call was that teams, ie the Roosters, would give them away early in the set. I would like to see the ref have the discretion when to award the 6 again.
I agree Brett. One of my biggest gripes is where a team gives a six again on the first tackle when the team with the ball is 10 out from their own line. There is not much of an advantage to get one more tackle when you are 90m away from the other tryline. Taking a kick for touch and getting 20 or 30+ metres is a better result in that scenario. Plus, it's quite possible the team with the ball has just come off 3 or 4 sets of defending their own line, so getting a chance to kick for touch gives them a quick breather to reset.
Brett & Milky, I sort of thought they had that penalty descretion Brett, just didn't seem to use it..... I could imagine a team saying I would have preferred the 6 again and then the reverse of I would have preffered the penalty, is a choice an option? say dummy half call?
Coming ouy of your own line is a very good point i.e. after defending the penalty is a much better advantage than 6 again.
All good points guys.
Good post Brett, your example with the chooks says it all, the refs should be good enough to pick the deliberate holding down and in that case give a penalty and the team gets a kick for touch, and they get the 6 again in better positions,
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 7 Next