There once was a time when referees reigned supreme in the rugby league world.
Strutting confidently onto the hallowed turf in their ceremonial robes with the starched upturned collars, these demigods controlled the destiny of games and even premierships with their divine instrument, the whistle.
The ceremonial garb featuring the starched collar
Their omnipotence was found in one simple commandment: “Thou shalt scrummage without infringement.”
Being above mere mortals, the blowers of the divine whistle did not have to answer to questions about their arbitrary calls. Any one of a number of sins could earn their wrath.
The list of potential indiscretions was vast – incorrect feed, loose arm, striking early, feet across, collapsing, second row not binding properly, half not retiring, breaking early, hands in the scrum, picking the ball up before it’s out, screwing the scrum, pushing too early, offside defenders – that’s without considering contact illegalities.
But, with most footballers being simple, sinful humans, in any one scrum there were multiple infringements occurring simultaneously, and only our almighty demigods could determine for whom the bell would toll.
Pack the scrum fellas.
Over the passage of time a combination of the differential scrum penalty, uncontested scrums, multiple cameras, microphones and the “blind eye” affliction reduced the power of the whistle. The once deific men in the middle were subjected to scrutiny and criticism. Game determining decisions based on other rugby league commandments could have personal consequences such as time in the purgatory of local parks.
Until….
…..Peter Almighty
He of the immaculate decision has empowered match officials with the most potent rule possible – one that cannot be questioned. And the power is supercharged because there is no need to call on the divine instrument of the whistle. A simple utterance of “six again” is made and players, broadcasters and spectators have no time to reflect upon the sin committed.
It’s play on. Praise be to the set re-start!
Just like the old scrum penalty, there’s a plethora of infringements that can be punished, with those mortal footballers seeming to sin in most tackles. And just like those glorious starched collar days, the new demigods alone can decide when they will apply the commandment.
Sins found committed in the early minutes of the game are inexplicably ignored as the match unfolds, only to randomly and miraculously reappear when the tackles or marker defence looks no different to how it has been for previous minutes.
And as the “offending” team apparently starts to commit repeated offences in the same passage of play, momentum is doubled when they scramble to extricate themselves faster from the ruck or retreat in defence so as not to reoffend.
On a serious note and despite some evidence to the contrary, the intent of this post is not to criticise the match officials. They aren’t blessed with superhuman powers so they will make mistakes in what is a challenging job.
Furthermore, the six again rule is near impossible to apply consistently and equitably throughout a game. Time and again spectators are left thinking “how is that not six again?” or “what was that for?”. And it isn’t merely a case of punters not understanding the rule, it’s also a scenario of punters not understanding when the rule will be applied.
We are already seeing evidence that some teams will infringe on early tackles, with the suggestion that this is tactical. Often this will involve slowing the play-the-ball and it can be easier for punters to detect, hence the assumption that it may be deliberate. However, on occasions when the call is made later in the tackle count, the offence is less obvious and the decision more discretionary. All teams are conscious of not infringing late in a count and are usually better disciplined when 6th and last is about to be called. Fans are often left frustrated and angry when sets are restarted on the last or second last tackle.
From an Eels perspective, the team has worked overtime on its ruck discipline. In order to minimise infringements, defenders peel off the tackle relatively quickly. As evidence of this, the Eels have allowed the opposition a quicker play the ball speed in every single match. The averages read as Parra 3.31 seconds and opposition 3.66 seconds.
Though six-again can be called for a range of infringements, its major aim was to eliminate wrestling and to speed up the ruck. Therefore it might be expected that being consistently faster off the tackled player could result in conceding fewer infringements than their opposition. Not so – the Eels are effectively neutral in the new rule, receiving a total of just one extra call going their way after ten rounds.
Eels vs Knights
The Eels’ greatest statistical anomaly around the new rule occurred in the Newcastle match. The Blue and Golds allowed the Knights a stunning average play the ball speed of 2.88 seconds. Here’s the kicker – despite being slowed to an average speed of 3.6 seconds themselves, the Eels actually conceded eight set restarts to the Knights four!
What’s the solution? Well perhaps the answer is a pineapple.
If the rule is applied consistently throughout any match we would probably increase the calls fourfold. Nobody would want to see games played out like that.
Those in favour of the rule will probably suggest that we have a faster game, no matter the application, and that matches are being determined by the players, not by a penalty call.
Should we reintroduce a second referee? It’s a certainty that the whistle blowers are struggling to keep their eyes on ruck infringements and the defence line at the same time. The pressure has increased as they are expected to determine what infringement is penalised, what deserves six again or when an indiscretion can be ignored.
Is the rule necessary?
This post began with a look back on scrum penalties. Grand finals were decided by penalty goals which resulted from scrum infringements. Much like the ruck, the referee could find fault in any scrum but he didn’t. The rule was applied at the referee’s discretion and while the call could be justified, questions relating to when it was applied could not be asked without implying a level of bias.
My greatest concern is the same scrutiny, if applied to six again, would return a similar result – fault could be found more often in and around the ruck, and questioning the application only brings about unfair implication of referee bias.
There’s no doubt that the six-again rule was flawed from the moment Peter V’landys introduced it without trial. I wrote on the topic back in May and my opinion has not changed.
Looking ahead to 2021, I’m hoping that a thorough review of the rule is conducted. Match officials, players and coaches should all be a part of the process. If the six again call has provided no significant benefit to the game, then it should go the same way as scrum penalties – consigned to the past.
Eels forever!
Sixties
For me, I cannot stand the so called 6 again as it applies to matches these days, I don’t understand or see how they are adjudicated and applied, what we/me is seeing is just more game time as against penalties being given that allows the non penalised side some degree of play making following the line kick and ground gained as a result.
I am also noticing the differences with some of the old favorites in the whistle brigade awarding the 6 again when its to the advantage of one side more than the other, that creates a problem when the ref is now more a distance back with the defending side and often blocked in view as to what is happening, unless there is communication from his touch judges.
I would much prefer to see the penalty given in an infringement, even with slowing down the opposition with the lying over the tackled player too long, if it is consistently awarded fairly to both teams.
I am finding little enjoyment in the way the game is played this year under these new rules. Rather than just the Head of the NRL making decisions for going forward would rather see more input from Coaches, club captains and supporters at end of this season as to what changes they would like to see.
I’m with you Colin. I think that the same can be achieved with a penalty, and not being as pedantic about taking a quick tap on the exact spot.
G’day Sixties, once again your subject matter regarding scrums of old is full of wonderful reasoning when it came to the white knights with whistles and their unquestioned authority in the conduct of the game.
I believe personally that I enjoyed the decisions being made and the game moving into the consequences usually with little conjecture from captains and players. We fans could always argue about the impact any of those decisions might or might not have had on the game result. I have a completely different view to your own when it comes to the “six again” which I do see puts control back in the hands of the refs once again. But I see it as a positive, the game has all-but eliminated the wrestle, it is quicker, more enjoyable to watch, the little men are back in the game. Captains are thwarted in their efforts to slow the game by questioning every decision. It also completely justifies the decision to get rid of the 2nd ref. All we need to do now is tidy up the scrums, and radically reduce the Bunker interference.
Rowdy, Parra are doing ok this year because there is minimal wrestle so I am actually critical of a rule which has potentially been of benefit to us. However, many people that I have spoken to about the rule are left bewildered about decisions as they are made. To me there are many occasions in a game that could have six again called if it’s based on deliberately slowing the play the ball. It’s as if the ref suddenly decides he’ll have an impact and make the calls.
I’m actually interested in finding out if there are more soft tissue injuries this year than in previous years. If so, is it related to the different speed of the game. That’s if the rule has made it a faster game. It is an impact game where we have reduced interchanges and taken away small rest periods that used to occur around penalties. I’m not necessarily saying that removing those moments is a bad thing. Rather, I’m wondering if it is impacting the players.
I think there just needs more rigour on how the rule is applied. Do we really want to see penalty after penalty for the same offences? That is the option, and what we have seen for the past many seasons. If Parra feel that they are being hard done by when in fact they are peeling off the tackle early as they are meant to do, this is up to the club to raise with the NRL and referees. There are forums for that, and we should use it. Doesn’t have to be in public.
To remove a rule just because it is not being adjudicated evenly is crazy, and sets a bad precedent. Every decision referees make can and should be based on reason and on guidelines (ie we’ll put up with more “x” but penalise “y” at the first instant). If teams are then trying to get around these rulings by taking the thin line, then that is when the NRL needs to step in and adjust the way the rule is interpreted. I do believe the six again rule has been good for the game, but the way it is adjudicated needs to be constantly adjusted and evolved.
Thanks for your reply Longfin. Firstly, this is my opinion and not that of the club. The club always goes through appropriate channels, which is why you never see BA launch into refs at pressers. You use the word “evenly”. I think that the word is consistently. Therefore, if a rule cannot be applied consistently there is either something inherently wrong with the rule or the officials.
How should “we’ll put up with more x but penalise y at the first instant” apply to rules of a game? That suggests that a team will always be encouraged to push certain bounds.
I like the the six again rule. I just dont know why some calls are made and than another incident that seems the same is allowed to go.
If you hold onto the attacker on the ground it will be a definite call of six again.
Jake Trbojevic was pinged three times last week against Penrith for holding when the attacker was on his knees. I think it was Nathan Brown who also gave away a six again call for the same offence.
That’s my point too. How can you have a rule when there is no clarity for spectators? Wasn’t it created for us?
For me its just a opportunity for referees to even up uneven contests.
Last week the ref pinged Reedy for having his hands on the ball “6 again”. But failed twice to ping the dogs for the same thing. Tolman even changed hands in one of them.
Against the Cowboys they laid all over us and walked back through the ruck all night but the ref did nothing about it. Even called a Parra player for milking as a Cowboy climbed all over him from behind. That was a dominant performance by Parra and they would have put another 4 tries on them if it was refereed consistently and correctly.
The referees will call a player two times to get up and not call one and then next set say nothing and then call one.
I like the rule but it is all over the place. The rule needs to have some parameters
Yeah Parrathruenthru. I would also like to see some basic “conditions” for want of a better word, placed around what constitutes a 6 again call and what does not. This is an area where I believe an “unnecessary review” of this new rule might have some substance which I had not considered previously because, like most people following the game believe it is a very progressive and popular rule.
Give the coaches, referees and players specific instruction regarding what will constitute a 6 again call. A simple list of “don’ts that are then published to the fans for the elimination of conjecture. Sack the refs who breach or interpret the rule. End of argument!
A big part of my anti stance has been the lack of trialling it Rowdy. Trial, review, tweak, introduce. It’s flawed at the moment because too many of us are saying “what was that for” too often.
This is really my point. We have a rule which is applied without consistency and by virtue of that puts an unfair focus back on the ref – why are some pinged but not others. They could literally apply it to dozens more instances, so if one team gets a lopsided count, why is that?
I dont know how it can happen, but properly applied this rule has merit. It would be interesting to gather an extensive range of recommended improvements, just to get a feel if there is a better world for it. ‘Look inside the eye of your mind, you know you might find, a better place to play’(trivia for Sixties). Referee interpretation will never be removed, maybe Annesley needs to offer more on the rule and it’s interpretation with input from clubs and public analysis each week. Involve the community(not selectively)mostly you get a better outcome. Or we just continue to accept our great game is one of the more difficult to mold perfectly, and debating it is a normal pastime.
BDon, I’m always searching for my Oasis, and refs of the past are a source of looking back in anger. I ask this, is it common for all of us to say multiple times during a game “what was that for?” And is it mostly around 6 again?
I am confused by the 6 again, it absolves ref’s of explanation. I like the more fluid game but I struggle why some six again’s are given. To be beaten in a major game by a mystery call is quite possible.Some way it has to be more transparent.
Prometheus, you have nailed it with a single line – “to be beaten by a mystery call is quite possible”. Boom.
Common sense tells you this rule cannot work properly with 1 ref , theres just to much to watch and police at the pace of todays game ,
When I wrote about this back in May, I suggested that it was counterintuitive to bring the rule in at the same time as reducing refs back to one. I’ve had a shot about lack of consistency but they can’t possibly watch both the ruck and the defence line at the same time.
Anyone remember they were going to introduce the red line to police offside , that disappeared when they realised no side would ever complete 6 tackles and most trys would be disallowed .
Imagine teams being anything near onside!!! They wouldn’t be game to use it.
How about , 2 feet behind tryline , then changed to 1 to save penaltys , seems to me now its none behind line and still no penaltys and totally overlooked in bunker adjudications ,
So much ignored. It seems rules are merely suggestions or guidelines.
Vlandys has created a raffertys rule nightmare just to save money on 2 referee system , read his mantra and you will get the picture .
“If you can’t win change the rules”
Vlandys has really over stepped his mark and knowledge , he was brought in to fix the money and organisational mess not destroy the fundamentals of football , yep he fixed racing but the horses didnt get a say ,so far neither are the players , coaches or fans , its all what PETER SAYS GOES .