The option for a penalty to be awarded by the referee is there, but the choice does not lie with the attacking team. You can't ask for a penalty, but the referee can decide to award one if the context of the game suggests it's the right thing to do. I.e in front of the posts with a minute to go and the game level etc. If awarded, the attacking team can then play on anyway with a tap as normal if they wanted to.

In the new rules a referee can award a penalty for repeated ruck offences but otherwise there is no penalty option after a ruck offence,

I prefer this to a penalty. It feels like less of a sanction than blowing up for a penalty so refs are more likely to be willing to use it, it keeps the game moving quicker and it will discipline defensive teams because they don't get the breather that a penalty offers them.



Problems may crop up over time and the game will have to try to manage it but I think we should be trying some innovations like this to see how they affect the quality of the action. The game is much less watchable than it used to be and unless something is done, interest in the sport will fade away.

30 seconds to go ,ruck offence ,attacking team can't attempt winning penalty goal but have start another set of six,controversial to say the least.

Indeed, also it penalises certain teams, hull with Sneyd and wakey with brough, their touch finding penalties are now negated, also them kicking penalties.

Any ruck offence that constitutes a professional foul is a full penalty. They discussed that on Aussie TV. They can award a penalty in that instance as they can class it as a professional foul as it's an attempt to stop play with so little time remaining. It's a point the NRL should probably clarify properly before it happens in a game. There were apparently two full penalties given in the last round.

this is league not union



Thats an interesting point though if the referee has discretion about whether to blow for a penalty or reset the 6. If a ref thinks that a team is deliberately messing about in the ruck, taking advantage of the ref's inclination to reset the 6 rather than allow a team with a strong kicking game to gain yards, then surely the ref should start blowing for penalties. The ref's goal should be to make the game flow and use what tools he has available to discipline disruptors.

This rule would suit us perfectly. Teams know that DC will jump out of DH given a quick PTB and would prefer to conceded a penalty and have a breather, concede metres and set their defence up than have Clark run at them. Same goes for Ratchford.

I get the impression that this type of game was what Tony Smith was expecting when he signed Clark and (dare I say it) Matty Russell. I remember talk about 6/7 years ago about the RFL looking at ways to speed the game up. Just that we are normally a few years behind the NRL.

I agree with You Sally in that I think the referees at the moment are sometimes reluctant to give penalties for fear of interrupting the game and you often hear the ref talking to the players telling them that they need to clear the PTB area quicker. Now they can just give another 6.

If we delay implementing we will fall further behind Australia.

The only down side is that you could see some blow out scorelines. The NRL are worried about this but I think it would be worse over here.

"Another 6" as stated previously will crucify the likes of Wigan with their 3 men taking an eternity to clear the ruck and we are better suited to a fast PTB with the likes of DC However, I am still a bit nervous about teams learning how to deliberately "giving away" another 6 when a penalty and potentially a kick at goal would be a better option. We will have to judge I suppose as time and games pass and see how the refs manage it. Typically, after 4 or 5 weeks the refs will forget about a new rule / directive anyway if history is anything to go by.

They will be nervous of doing that to a good side.



Imagine if this was the Warrington team of 8 or 9 years ago and teams were deliberately conceding repeat sets in their own half to stop Hodgson having a shot at goal. Giving away another 6 on the scoreboard more like

That fabulous attacking side you refer to would, no doubt, be so far ahead anyway the two points wouldn't be needed. What a great side to watch that was. Glory days.

Unfortunately, since then we have had, on occasion, seen a lot of witless, inept , clueless attacking displays where the 2 points would be the best option if the kick to the corner and hope for the best wasn't working.

Did you watch the Rabbitohs v Roosters game last week? They managed to get three and four men into the tackle, and turn the attacking player on his back without conceding the six again. It requires excellent technique and top level fitness to be able to do that for the full game though.