I GUESS it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Yet here we are, barely a year after ARL Commission chairman Peter V'landys was hailed as a modern-day Messiah for introducing the "six-again" strategy to deter players from deliberate infringements, and already there are growing fears that the new rule might have reached its use-by date.
Coaches being as cunning as sewer rats, they soon sussed out that conceding six more tackles is not the end of the world on the first play in any set, in particular when the opposition are trying to cart the ball out from their own end of the field.
So defending players put in extra work on the fullback or winger after a kick-return, knowing that the first two tackles in any set are crucial for the attacking team to start rolling downfield.
If they can delay that first play-the-ball, it might cost them an extra tackle, but it's a small price to pay if it then hinders their opponents for an entire set.
The point being that rugby league has a remarkable capacity for making changes that don't necessarily improve anything, and quite often create more issues than they resolve.
Even V'landys' "set restart" innovation, which received almost unanimous support when it was first introduced, is now under scrutiny.
And that brings me to the point of this column - a few suggestions Mr V'landys might like to consider, from one ideas man to another.
Let's start with the "conference system" proposal that surfaced this week, whereby the Sydney clubs would feature in one pool, the out-of-town clubs in another pool, with a Super Bowl-style grand final each season between the winners of each conference.
There's a real stink of change for the sake of change about this one. Just because it works in the US doesn't mean it suits the NRL's needs.
If the NRL are going to split the competition in two, my advice would be to make it a promotion-relegation system, so it serves some purpose.
How would it work? Easy. The top eight teams each year compete in "Champions League", the bottom eight form a second-division "Premier League".
Champions League teams would play each other home and away, as well as playing the Premier League teams once (and vice versa) for a 22-round season.
The top four teams in Champions League would play off for the title. First would play second, with the winner straight through to the grand final, and the loser to meet whoever survives the third-versus-fourth eliminator, for the other berth in the decider.
Meanwhile, the top two teams in the second tier would have a Premier League grand final, and would then play off with the teams who finish seventh and eighth in Champions League for promotion to the top flight. It could be set up so that either one or two teams are potentially promoted/relegated each season.
This system would theoretically ensure more closely contested games and fewer of the blown-out mismatches that have been so prevalent this season.
Each team would still play every other side, but there would be a new cut-throat edge to most matches, and fewer dead rubbers.
The best teams would play each other more often, as would the strugglers. Surely that makes sense?
That problem solved, I will effortlessly segue into another issue that appears to be causing NRL officials to tie themselves into knots - concussion and the interchange.
The NRL recently introduced a new safety net that allow coaches to use an 18th man if they (a) lose a player to foul play, or (b) have three players ruled out after failing head-injury assessments.
The parameters are stringent because head office is concerned that coaches will try to exploit the rule to gain an extra interchange.
Well, what if there was no interchange? What if there were just fresh reserves?
The interchange was "borrowed" from American sports and introduced into rugby league in 1991.
Before that, over a period of decades, the 13-man code had evolved from initially having no replacements, to allowing two substitutes (who had played earlier in reserve grade), to four (two fresh replacements and two from reserve grade) in the Knights' foundation seasons.
Once a player was replaced, that was his game over. Why can't the NRL go back to that?
You could have eight players on the bench, maybe a couple of whom are backing up after reserve grade, all eligible to enter the game at any point.
If a player gets injured, concussed or knackered, he gets replaced. You'd still have eight potential personnel changes - as is the case now - but players would no longer be able to play in two 20-minute stints.
It would bring fatigue into the game, because middle forwards would need to play longer minutes.
It would also provide an insurance policy, given that no team is likely to lose eight players to injury or concussion in a single game.
Problem solved. What's next on this reform agenda?
Ah yes ... the send-off. The refs are pretty much damned if they do, damned if they don't.
What if, after an incident like Jordan Pereira's hit on James Tedesco last week, he was sin-binned and sent off? In other words, the Dragons are reduced to 12 men for 10 minutes, but Pereira can play no further part in the game?
Consider it having a bet each way, Peter.