The NRL will resume its season on 28 May with just one referee on the field and a new rule in place that is designed to bring an end to wrestling in the tackle and timewasting at the ruck.

The ARL Commission, at a meeting on Wednesday night, confirmed the decision to abandon two referees on the field, but instead has decided that the two touch judges for the games remaining this season will be fully qualified referees.

But perhaps the most crucial decision is the one to introduce a “six-again” rule, which will allow an attacking team another full set of six tackles rather than stopping play for a penalty.

That rule was used in the 2012 NRL-Indigenous All Stars game on a trial basis.

“It’s clear the current system hasn’t effectively addressed the issue of wrestling in the game. Reverting to one referee together with the new six again rule gives us a chance to speed up the ruck and create more free flowing rugby league,” said ARLC Commission Chairman Peter V’landys.

“Giving the attacking team six more tackles for a ruck infringement will be a significant deterrent to slowing the ruck.

“No team is going to want to defend multiple sets of tackles without a stoppage in play. This is the greatest disincentive for what has become habitual ruck infringements.”

It seems that infringement at the tackle will result in a fresh set of six tackles instead of a penalty. I’m not sure if this would work over here. It doesn’t say how many consecutive six tackle resets will be allowed before the referee awards a penalty kick. Trinity’s attack in the opposition 20, does leave a lot to be desired, some SL teams could afford to give a few six tackle resets without us being able to score.

I'd leave it as it is.
Some of the decisions are difficult enough for refs (cough) so this might make it worse!
As you also alluded to DS, with us in the 20, sometimes a shot at goal would be more beneficial!

I'm not entirely sure why it's better?

If infringing, isn't a penalty more of a penalty, as it were? Unless the refs will have a lower tolerance for messing around.

My worries is that it gives the cheaters and fakers more opportunity to cheat and fake. Chris Hill is a big strong bloke, until someone lightly brushes his shoulder when he's getting up.

My suspicion is that as it will go back to one ref, who'll be further away, the players might be tempted to try it on a little more. This is just a shot across the bow.

I'd like to a rule to counterbalance it: if the ref suspects that a player has exaggerated the effects of an infringement, no penalty, as the player has put doubt in the minds of the ref.

More unnecessary rule changes for us to get used to before they change them again. Keep the rules as they are and instruct referees to be a lot more strict when dealing with ruck infringements. Are there any original rules remaining from the days when the game was conceived?

There are too many Super League players capable of conning the ref. If this rule is introduced, teams will just have a couple of specialist con men to milk another set of six from the ref.

As Slugger says, there are some big, strong lads in the game who are easily knocked back down with a brush of their shoulder.

Recipe for disaster if you ask me. I'd expect it to yield more controversial results.

Those of you with Sky sports will see how the new rule works down under in a couple of weeks time.

The NRL is set to restart in less than two weeks and Sky Sports will televise every game live throughout rounds three and four.

Hallelujah

So with a minute to go and 1pt in front you just keep holding down as long as you can because you can't have a penalty given against you ?

I don't think it replaces the penalty. I just think it is for messing around, as opposed to deliberate gamesmanship.

Going back to the Hull KR and Salford Million Pound Game, I still can't believe that the Rovers players just didn't lie on for ever at that last burst through. They were four points ahead at the time. Had they done so, they would have stayed up.