The 6-Again: Flawed Logic & the Truth

[innsaneink]

You might hear a refs call occasioanlly, not all the time
Theres crowd noise and commentary over the top of it, its all happening quick and without replays more often than not its unclear why

Its not clear and obvious always, thats why theres such conjecture on the 6 to go

 

[gregjm87]

You might hear a refs call occasioanlly, not all the time
Theres crowd noise and commentary over the top of it, its all happening quick and without replays more often than not its unclear why

Its not clear and obvious always, thats why theres such conjecture on the 6 to go

I agree it is not always clear and obvious watching live. On replays it is, hence I very much dispute it not being auditable.
Not passing on the reasoning is a failing by the broadcasters.

 

[Joel Helmes]

I think the concept is reasonably sound, but 6 more tackles is too big a penalty, especially late in the tackle count. Maybe 3 again instead?

 

[FinestTigers]

I think the concept is reasonably sound, but 6 more tackles is too big a penalty, especially late in the tackle count. Maybe 3 again instead?

It’s an interesting thought, but reducing it to 3 tackles wouldn't halve the problem, it would actually make the officiating and welfare issues worse. Here's why.

The problem with the 6-again isn't just the number of extra tackles; it's the unreviewable, untraceable nature of the call. Whether a referee awards 3 extra tackles or 6, a silent wave of the arm still gives them total discretionary power.

Referees Will Just Call It Twice as Often.
If the penalty cost is reduced to just 3 tackles, referees will feel far less hesitant to wave their arm. Instead of one 6-again, you’ll just see two back-to-back 3-agains on consecutive tackles, giving the ref even more micro-control over the ruck.

It Keeps the Fatigue Engine Intact.
Sports science shows that fatigue compounds during unbroken ball-in-play time. A 3-again still eliminates the essential rest window (scrum, penalty kick, or kick to touch) that allows players heart rates to drop. As long as there is no stoppage to let players catch their breath, fatigue will continue to degrade tackle technique and drive up concussion risks.

I still think that the NRL"S stance about all this is hypocritical because You cannot claim to prioritize concussion safety while enforcing a rule that intentionally starves athletes of oxygen.

Just ask RLPA chief executive Clint Newton.
https://www.zerotackle.com/players-...ule-changes-in-latest-survey-234175/?hl=en-AU

 

[Chunk]

We Already Had Tools to Fix the Ruck, The Sin Bin.

The maximal deterrent to cynical wrestling and intentional slowing of the ruck isn't a silent wave of the arm, it’s a 10 minute spell in the bin.

If a team repeatedly flops, wrestles, or stays offside inside their own 20m, the referee has the authority to march a player to the sin bin. Teams would stop cynical wrestling overnight if doing it meant playing 12 on 13 for 10 minutes. The NRL introduced 6 again as a cheap shortcut instead of forcing refs to use the judiciary and sin bin properly.

Fair enough, I'd prefer the 6 again rule then sending people to the sin bin.

For me 13 vs 12 can drastically change the course of a match because the match becomes very lopsided and in turn would put far too much pressure on refs to make the right call, they wouldnt want to get that wrong.