Along with the new 20/40 rule, new scrum options and the captains challenge, NRL today announced that 'Six more tackles' will also be introduced rather than a penalty stoppage for ruck infringements. https://wwos.nine.com.au/nrl/nrl-approv ... 0922ca0460 Wouldn't mind seeing this SL to speed up our game.

Along with the new 20/40 rule, new scrum options and the captains challenge, NRL today announced that 'Six more tackles' will also be introduced rather than a penalty stoppage for ruck infringements. https://wwos.nine.com.au/nrl/nrl-approv ... 0922ca0460 Wouldn't mind seeing this SL to speed up our game.

Quote ="ArcticGorilla"Along with the new 20/40 rule, new scrum options and the captains challenge, NRL today announced that 'Six more tackles' will also be introduced rather than a penalty stoppage for ruck infringements. https://wwos.nine.com.au/nrl/nrl-approv ... 0922ca0460 Wouldn't mind seeing this SL to speed up our game.'" How fast do you want it to be at the expense of skill? The game is already a pale shadow of what of what it was in the past as a result of the constant rule changes, especially those from Australia which have a emphasis on speed rather than skill. No wonder, the rival code of Union has become more attractive and drawing bigger crowds than our game!

Quote ="ArcticGorilla"Along with the new 20/40 rule, new scrum options and the captains challenge, NRL today announced that 'Six more tackles' will also be introduced rather than a penalty stoppage for ruck infringements. https://wwos.nine.com.au/nrl/nrl-approv ... 0922ca0460 Wouldn't mind seeing this SL to speed up our game.'" How fast do you want it to be at the expense of skill? The game is already a pale shadow of what of what it was in the past as a result of the constant rule changes, especially those from Australia which have a emphasis on speed rather than skill. No wonder, the rival code of Union has become more attractive and drawing bigger crowds than our game!

yeah because SOO is played in a half empty stadium, doesnt draw bigger crowds in Aus, always has over here due to it being instilled at a young age and is played more in schools and has more clubs

I can see the reasoning behind the rule. Teams were giving strategic penalties away in their own 10m to allow themselves chance to reset their defence. I could see this having an impact there. Might be a bbit more tempting to hold down if you were defending a tired team coming off their own line to hold down. especially in early tackles. If you were winning by a point late in the game, why not interfere in the tackle if it looks like a team is setting up for a drop goal?

We'll have to see how it works out. Might be a game changer or coaches might see a way to get around it and negate any impact it might have. I'd be a bit more worried about going back to 1 ref, but again, lets see how it goes

As for 'the rival code of Union has become more attractive', I'm not too sure about that one

teams were holding down to hopefully give up 2 instead of 6 always done it

Sorry, I know it's all subjective, but

. What a ridiculous way to try to prove a point.

So your losing a game 15-14 with 10 seconds to go and you get awarded 6 more tackles after a ruck infringement right under the posts instead of a penalty. Not for me I’m afraid, but no doubt we will follow suit.

Seems that its at the refs discretion whether to award a penalty or 6 again. That's just more pressure on the ref if that's the case. Would counter the previous post though. Would be best to give the tackled players a choice.

I read it as the ref could only award a penalty for a repeat offence! Your right though it does put even more pressure on the referee

I don't see how it benefits anyone but the penalised side. Give a penalty away and fair enough they get another 6, but they lose the 20-30 yard advantage too

There’s now effectively 3 codes of RL - NRL, SL and International. It’s absolutely ridiculous and little wonder RU continues to embarrass us both in monetarily and popularity. It’s about time the international RFL took a stand. But they won’t. They’ll bottle it as always and the game will continue to grow in 3 separate ways, bringing little international attention and less and less crowds. I’m losing interest in it with the constant big rule changes, it’s ridiculous.

Of course they'll bottle it. Who pays their wages?

That’s a good point, I’d never even thought about that. It’s a crazy rule if it’s brought in and not something we should even consider over here. There are way too many grey areas.

Agree 100% with you.

The constant changing of the rules, especially in different countries and competitions are ruining our game and it is time that the game had the same set of rules for all competitions and for all countries which would benefit the players, match officials and most of all, we supporters.

So you have not noticed how Union has gone better since 1996!

Exactly. They’re letting the NRL and to an extent SL, do what they want with the rules. The longer it continues the less and less the sport will be taken seriously at international level which is an absolute travesty when you consider how the Pacific Island nations are [ipotentially[/i going to improve in the coming years and therefore add more credence to the international game which then adds more credence to the sport as a whole.

I've been calling out for something "Like This" for a couple of years

However

The penalty should be given, with the choice being either a new set of 6 or a kick at goal. (I'd even stretch to "Giving them 10 so the penalty is where the defensive line would have been).

Currently a team is almost penalised twice by the set of 6 restarting but 20/30/40/50 mtrs lost with the kick to touch.
I believe that's led to teams "Milking" for penalties too much in their own half as the reward for receiving it is massive.

That could then lead to sides giving away penalties deliberately knowing they only give up 10 yards.

And a new set of 6

Penalties dictate a game far too much than they should do currently, and when, where you get them influences the game far too much.
Bering in mind you could probably give a Penalty at 50% of the PTB's (Including Offside penalties) and only 10% of those occasions they are given the reward/penalty for receiving or giving one a way is far too great.

Nothing worse than defending 5 tackles in opposition 20 then last tackle a penalty is awarded often for no more than has gone on in 100 tackles before in the game and suddenly you defending 20mtrs from your own line.

It also leads to the player in possession pushing for penalties and in my opinion Milking of penalties far too much as the reward is so great.

I wasn't against the penalization more of players in possession over the last couple of years, but we seem to do it, then stop for 6 months before looking at it again. The ball carrier moving off the mark, throwing himself up and down on the floor, not rising to his feet before playing the ball, not playing the ball etc. are as much a reason why defenders try to slow it down as much as anything.

Agree with the reasoning definitely, and a penalty on the last tackle does my head in and we seem to cop it quite a bit.

There's just little bits I would want ironing out. Side makes a half break say, 1st or 2nd tackle (maybe from a kick) and you bring them down 60 out. Giving away a penalty under that system means a set of 6 which they have anyway 50 out. Under the current rules, that 60 out becomes 30 out. The only side that benefits there is the side you've penalised.

I agree, and don't think this proposal would achieve what it's intended to achieve.

But Jukes also makes a fair point; moving off the mark, and diving forward into the markers (or trapping their arms in the tackle

) is way too prevalent. But I'd rather counter that by the refs being stricter about 'milking' pens, as I believe they are in the NRL. warn them once, and make them go back and ptb properly, and if they do it again, penalise them

Fully agree. Getting very much like diving in football.

If the ref thinks a tackled player is milking for a penalty then we need a rule whereby he can increase the tackle count by one. They would soon stop doing it then.

Sure, but that's not what you said.

i've said this for a while, ball carriers can get away with murder also in the ruck, it takes something really REALLY obvious or blatant for a ref to penalise them.