Prior to the 2022 NRL season, the only major change to the rules was a six-and-a-half tweak, restoring penalties for violations within 40 meters of the ball-handling team’s own triline and bringing NRL rules closer to the UK Super. League
The rules were adjusted because of the coaches’ ingenuity to address the shortcomings of the six-re-rules introduced two years ago.
I had predicted a six-re-introduction of the penalty replacement from within ten meters for some time before I was introduced to the NRL and that is when it should have been written about.
Instead, I stuck to more data, which was important in my analysis but probably prevented me from gaining the status of a Rugby League contender.
If I had published then, I would probably have been called a reader of the mind, as was the case when coworkers approached me after years of listening to the old rules governing mutual violations, the spectacular, avoidable mistake we saw on the roster. ‘Win against Canberra in the 2019 Grand Final.
But with the decision to wait, I am satisfied to provide the source and analysis.
Looking back, the purpose of the sixes was to reduce the obstacles in the game and increase the speed of the game.
Although I reserve the right to be pedentic and say that it does not actually literally speed up the game, since no one runs fast or the game is out of control time, it certainly maintains a greater amount of uninterrupted movement and fluidity of the moving ball within 80 minutes.
I referred to both Rugby League and Touch Rugby League (TRL) and there I was introduced to the concept of six-re-duplicate rules within eight meters. Here, a player must retreat in an eight-meter line when coming from touch but can do so in any straight line.
If the player wants to do it diagonally, that’s fine as long as they hold their line and / or are out of the game.
If the player does not, a zero tackle is given on the fly without stopping the game, in the same way we now reward six again, if you want ‘seven again’.
But I wondered where this strange rule came from.
I asked Roy Masters what he thought of the first version of it in the NRL, and he quoted Wayne Bennett’s comments before the 2012 Indigenous All-Star match, which were widely circulated at the time, suggesting that they be accepted into the NRL. Not too distant future.
(Photo by Mark Evans / Getty Images)
It’s been almost a decade, but this time TRL accepted the rule and kept it alive.
I emailed Tom Longworth, managing director of TRL, and the person who wrote the rules in that code and he replied, “We’ve come up with the same time / year as NRL.”
Unfortunately, the rule book record from that era is no longer available but the answer is final that it was not TRL that invented the six-re-concept, but it was TRL that adopted and maintained it for eight years where NRL allowed. Stay asleep
In my research for Tom Brock Bequest on the Americanization of sports in Australia, I was reminded that it is not uncommon for a code to preserve an idea from another.
An 1800 version of Play-the-Ball was part of the pre-split rugby but was abandoned in 1878 until it was reintroduced by the Northern Union (Rugby League) in 1906, yet the way Canada played rugby was still used.
To put it bluntly, Canada continues to call its competition ‘rugby’ much later when it not only maintains play-by-ball, but also invents flat-line scramble. Aka ‘Beating ‘
Moreover, it led to the development of US and Canadian Gridiron Snap, which was like playing ball with the feet before it was done by hand, as we see in today’s Super League, where players roll the ball without any effort. Heel it back.
Finally, it has gone through one more change in the Gridiron games in North America and we have remained relatively consistent as we snap today.
Now, with regard to the latest NRL tweaks to the rules, the question is whether it would be possible for the teams to succeed in blowing up penalties as a compromise to ‘speed up the game’ by ensuring that the system does not play when the six take over again. Early in the count the ball is backed up against their triline.
Unknowingly, the decision on the 40-meter line as cut-off seems to be consistent with other NRL rules – for example 40-20 – where this part of the field is still seen as no-man’s land where the ball-handling side does not have a significant advantage.
This is similar to being outside the field known as yards, an area where the ball-handling side is more conservative in running more hit-ups with less passing out wide when the opponent attacks particularly aggressively for the ball.
Factoring in the average meter of carrying above the set of six, one could argue that a penalty is aligned with the aforesaid position / rights values described above and why the penalty should be paid exclusively from the yardage area of the field.
Inevitably, penalties within 40 meters will affect other areas of the game. The 20-40 rule is already largely ineffective because it offers the same rewards as, at best, 40-20 but with significantly more risk due to the more uncertain field location.
This is not only due to the extra depth of 20 meters from which one has to kick but also more likely to be before the tackle count. If the risk is more than 40-20, then why would anyone try to kick if the reward is the same?
Now that a more valuable penalty within 40 meters will be called, does 20-40 have any future in the game at all? Unless an even greater incentive and / or risk mitigation is provided to do so; This should exceed both a 40-20 price and a fine.
TRL’s solution is solved differently. In this fast-paced game there is less time to retreat from the proverb, if the player who touched (or left the rack to return the tackler) maintains their trailing line and / or is out of the game, no problem because the ball-handling side is clear. Notice has been given.
If the defender changes the retreat line, which ‘shadows’ the ball carrier, there will be a zero tackle (as their six is called again) and the game will continue. However, if the ball-handling side runs to the defender and tries to get a penalty, the ball will go to the opponent.
There is no right answer to the gameships employed by coaches and players.
One thing we must always evaluate, however, is time. Waiting and seeing is very important and hasty decisions cannot be replaced because there will never be enough play-by-ball and data to analyze, should we just decide that a quick result that we believe is right Beyond good data-driven research.
For now, the blunt puzzle of the 40-meter line seems to be working, but the day may come when NRL will have to find a surgeon’s scalpel to make the right intersection in the game.
I see an opportunity where the explanation from TRL can be successfully applied to NRL, as it also achieves the goal of ‘speeding up the game’. But, to end a question, will we ever be in a place where the game is fast enough?