Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

6 again stats

silvertail

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
813
I only watch Manly games these days and get the feeling we always lose the “6 again” count and most often in the first half when early dominance is measured and rewarded. Am I right? It‘s such an advantage to get 6 again and I’m often left wondering why we are penalised. Am I one-eyed?
 

40 years an eagle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
3,343
Your concerns are in line with what I have seen mate. Are you and I one-eyed...yeah for sure, but I think we are still correct in this case. The six-again rule is certainly influencing who wins almost every game and refereeing more influential on outcomes than it ever has been before...and that cannot be good for MWSE.
 

The better Robbo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
1,800
I only watch Manly games these days and get the feeling we always lose the “6 again” count and most often in the first half when early dominance is measured and rewarded. Am I right? It‘s such an advantage to get 6 again and I’m often left wondering why we are penalised. Am I one-eyed?
100% we only ever get ours early in the set where other teams are getting their 6 again on 4th tackles attacking our line. It's near impossible to defend.
 

manlyfan76

Parra Trolls are the best.
Premium Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
15,167
I cannot understand how they apply this rule. There is zero consistency and it appears that there is always worse infringements let go.
I also think six tackles is too much. I'd rather the offending tackle be nulled something like "still the third" when the offence occurs on the third.
 

globaleagle

SGF0IHJ1bGVzIGFsbCE=
Staff member
Premium Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
24,491
I cannot understand how they apply this rule. There is zero consistency and it appears that there is always worse infringements let go.
I also think six tackles is too much. I'd rather the offending tackle be nulled something like "still the third" when the offence occurs on the third.
It was supposed to be "instead of a penalty...just 6 again"

But it's obvious the refs have changed it to "well...it's not really penalty worthy...so I'll rule 6 again instead."

Totally what I was concerned about the refs doing months ago. That and of course the inconsistency and ability to massage teams back into games.


edit: It'd be interesting to know the amount of penalties for ruck infringements (before) compared to the amount of penalties for ruck infringements + 6 again restarts (now).
 
Last edited:

Mark from Brisbane

“ Triggered Boomer”
Premium Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
31,599
The numbers always seem to even up by games end ( anyone surprised at that ???) BUT stats don’t tell the complete story.

What I’ve noticed ( and recorded for 2-3 games ) is the following.

**We get caned early , and often strings of them, when our opposition is attacking us.

**We always get evened up but more than often it’s not when we are attacking an oppositions line.

**We almost always get our penalties at the start of a set , 1st tackle or second , whereas our opposition gets them late in tackle counts.

In my opinion , whilst liking the idea of the penalty to stop sides from slowing down the game , it’s just another way for a ref to stamp his authority on a game and with little to no accountability for doing so.
 

frank stokes

I discriminate indiscriminately
Joined
Apr 27, 2018
Messages
1,026
To be fair, it's not the refs fault that Jake decides to have a snooze on the 5th tackle rather than the first...
 

frank stokes

I discriminate indiscriminately
Joined
Apr 27, 2018
Messages
1,026
To be fair-er there are players in every other team that do it.
Not as bad as Jake lately... when a 1-eyed supporter like me is calling 6 again on Jake b4 it even comes out of the refs mouth... we have a problem...

In fact, we are lucky I wasn't reffing against Warriors because I called him for 2 or 3 more lol
 

Little Grubber Kick

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
874
Even though it does seem obvious can I please have a clarification of this rule.

Does the practical application read like this.....

If you receive a six again on the 1st tackle it means you end up with a set of 7 tackles all up (1 + 6)?

If you receive a six again on the 4th tackle it means you end up with a set of 10 tackles all up (4 + 6)?

and

If you receive a six again on the 5th tackle and then another six again on the following 4th tackle you end up with a set of 15 tackles (5 + 4 + 6)?

I ask because

1) in case there are those under what I believe is the wrong impression that you finish your first set before the six again applies. (which actually may be a much fairer application of such a rule).

and

2) I got flamed for suggesting a more useful stat was total number of tackles received from six agains rather than just the total number of six agains.

Thanks.
 

SeaEagleRock8

Sea Eagle Lach
Staff member
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
19,223
) I got flamed for suggesting a more useful stat was total number of tackles received from six agains rather than just the total number of six agains.
Now that would be an interesting stat.
Everyone knows how significant the 7 tackles set is when the ball is kicked dead etc. And that's just one extra tackle!
But nowadays teams are regularly getting an extra 2, 3, 4 or even 8, 9, or 10!
The plan to wipe out the wrestle is fantastic but definitely need some tweaking to this rule in future.
 

SeaEagle21

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Joined
May 14, 2013
Messages
2,239
Even though it does seem obvious can I please have a clarification of this rule.

Does the practical application read like this.....

If you receive a six again on the 1st tackle it means you end up with a set of 7 tackles all up (1 + 6)?

If you receive a six again on the 4th tackle it means you end up with a set of 10 tackles all up (4 + 6)?

and

If you receive a six again on the 5th tackle and then another six again on the following 4th tackle you end up with a set of 15 tackles (5 + 4 + 6)?

I ask because

1) in case there are those under what I believe is the wrong impression that you finish your first set before the six again applies. (which actually may be a much fairer application of such a rule).

and

2) I got flamed for suggesting a more useful stat was total number of tackles received from six agains rather than just the total number of six agains.

Thanks.
The fox lab can pick up any BS stat i.e Blake Green beat the same team in back to back games (warriors v tigs and newy v tigs) but what you have just put up is very telling.

Doesn't get a mention and all that gets recorded is the six again for both teams but not how many more tackles resulted from those six again calls
 

Waz13

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
1,530
Not as bad as Jake lately... when a 1-eyed supporter like me is calling 6 again on Jake b4 it even comes out of the refs mouth... we have a problem...

In fact, we are lucky I wasn't reffing against Warriors because I called him for 2 or 3 more lol
Yeah I’ve picked this up on occasion. But we ain’t playing touch football. Play the balls shouldn’t be instant. There needs to be a level of dominance in the tackle when good ones are made. And Jake makes a lot of good ones.
 

Little Grubber Kick

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2011
Messages
874
Everyone knows how significant the 7 tackles set is when the ball is kicked dead etc. And that's just one extra tackle!
We should all remember the media's wolf at the moon howling when teams have mistakenly been given a 7th tackle, good gawd a 7th tackle that changed the outcome of a game.

I guess 15 or 18 or 22 or whatever tackles don't really have as much impact /sarc off
 

manlyfan76

Parra Trolls are the best.
Premium Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
15,167
We should all remember the media's wolf at the moon howling when teams have mistakenly been given a 7th tackle, good gawd a 7th tackle that changed the outcome of a game.

I guess 15 or 18 or 22 or whatever tackles don't really have as much impact /sarc off
The bulldogs in that grand final got 7 and it hurt Manly no doubt.
 

frank stokes

I discriminate indiscriminately
Joined
Apr 27, 2018
Messages
1,026
Yeah I’ve picked this up on occasion. But we ain’t playing touch football. Play the balls shouldn’t be instant. There needs to be a level of dominance in the tackle when good ones are made. And Jake makes a lot of good ones.
agreed... and i think the 'tempo' of the game is a totally subjective concept based on how the ref is feeling at the time - e.g. there is a lot more laying in the tackle allowed in the 2nd half generally because of tiredness but how much and at what times totally depends on the ref's 'feel' for the game...

however, Jake (and I don't want to sound like I'm picking on him because he is awesome) has dead-set had bouts of narcolepsy at times lately... come to think of it, maybe i AM picking on Jake because I expect more of him BECAUSE he is generally awesome...

I don't like the 6-again concept at all because I think it has reduced the amount of accountability that the refs face for blowing penalties indiscriminately and leads to frustration (and $20,000 fines) for coaches, players and fans...
 

jbb/james

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
3,118
The 6 again stat or "mini penalty " was intended to not give teams such a leg up for smaller infringements because the penalty had become such a decisive stat in the game. Tries conceded on the back on penalties was an amazingly high stat and this indicated the penalty or ref had more power over the game than it wanted

So the mini penalty was born. A wrist slap. But just as the penalty decided momentum in every game the mini penalty is outperforming his bigger brother in the caning stakes because its quicker, comes in multiples and is hidden as a mini ref outcome.
Nothing to see here stat currently

But the refs have done what the refs were doing but with more discretion
The new rule should come under the heading
Death by 1000 cuts

The good teams though can still hold the **** teams because they cant really attack, thats why they are ****.
The rule has exposed the class differences in the franchises and unless the NRL has a plan to strengthen the weaker sides it seems a rule to win them friends but cost them fans. The clubs need to be able to carry 50 players of quality and this bitch tournament is not sustainable because they stil donr build footballers and a game thats aligned.

When players or young potentials mould there games the styles become ingrained in youth culture and then tv doesn't like it they reinvent the player and the next gen , are ill prepared. Its soooooo stupid

Player demand is too high because good players are too rare. More competition means cheaper players and better product plus more income. The nrl needs to vest in its future. Not just developemnt projects but with body types based on the skills you want to showcase.
Its a world unique product that needs to grow up and cash in, because if every team had a cronk, keary, turbo, and serious depth every bugger would watch it

Its one of those tightly held wanky industries like fashion, art and wine but for boofheads.
 

Woodsie

Feast yer eyes ..
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
11,861
Totally what I was concerned about the refs doing months ago. That and of course the inconsistency and ability to massage teams back into games.
Yep ... and if you go back to the original thread when the rule was announced .... some wise old heads predicted it .....
 

Latest posts

2020 Ladder

Team P W D L PD Pts
1 Panthers 20 18 1 1 299 37
2 Storm 20 16 0 4 258 32
3 Eels 20 15 0 5 104 30
4 Roosters 20 14 0 6 230 28
5 Raiders 20 14 0 6 128 28
6 Rabbitohs 20 12 0 8 169 24
7 Knights 20 11 1 8 47 23
8 Sharks 20 10 0 10 0 20
9 Titans 20 9 0 11 -117 18
10 Warriors 20 8 0 12 -115 16
11 Tigers 20 7 0 13 -65 14
12 Dragons 20 7 0 13 -74 14
13 Sea Eagles 20 7 0 13 -134 14
14 Cowboys 20 5 0 15 -152 10
15 Bulldogs 20 3 0 17 -222 6
16 Broncos 20 3 0 17 -356 6
Top Bottom