Dead Ball 7 Tackle rule

[Technical Coach]

As many of you and myself stated at the start of the season they need to change this rule somewhat to allow players to kick long with no fear of the 7 tackle rule.

I know it is a somewhat catch 22 position with negatives and positives on both sides but kicking inside your own half or 40 and going dead should not be penalised as harshly.

The increase in mid field bombs from half way and safe touch finders I fear will increase, might require two fullbacks on the interchange bench lol per game due to injuries as a result of the improved hang times.

 

[Eagles2nv]

Im not a fan of the new rule. Its double penalises the team that kicks it dead.

They have done it to supposedly stop teams deliberately kicking the ball dead (resulting in faster pace, more exciting game), but i thin kit has caused 2 issues:

1. Teams are not taking as many risks in the attacking 10 because there worried about it going dead
2. Significant increase in Bombs, and tries from bombs, which is something the NRL has been wanting to reduce. They want less tries from kicks but all i see is more bombs and tries from bombs.

 

[sheridanstand78]

I am all for this rule if it means that we get more trys through putting the ball through [/quote] hands rather than the predictable bombs and grubbers. I still hate it when someone kicks when there is a clear overlap.

 

[susan]

Absolutely disagree with TC on this.

I really like the new rule. It has always peeved me that there is such a reward for being able to put a ball into a generally huge in - goal area and getting a repeat set.

Repeat sets in the modern game generally means points and with the pinkies blowing the pea out of the whistle each week for penalties the last thing the game needs is repeat sets from a play that doesn't demand that much skill and even if it does require skill it is hardly the game the punters want to watch.

The vast majority of the kicks are solely designed for a repeat set rather than scoring anyway so anything that penalizes a badly place grubber is good in my opinion and it will result in more run plays on the sixth tackle which must be good.

As for safe touch finders from around half way the only way they can be safe with the wingers back is if they go 20 metres and you do not want teams in modern footy starting sets on their own quarter line as invariably they will be hammering your line at the end of the set. As a team gets closer to the line there is very little incentive to be gained from a touchfinder as it means zero scoring chance. The 6th tackle run option allows try scoring potential plus if tackled the opposition is pinned close to the line for the change over and play will commence where the safe touchfinder would have ended up anyway.

It will increase the number of bombs from a fair way out but I find these kicks are the ones that create some real variety in our game which we desperately need now. Plenty of second phase stuff come from the high ball landing around the quarter line with wingers and fullbacks letting the ball bounce. Put simply,the rule will produce more 6th tackle run plays(you can clearly see that already) and fewer non attacking grubbers and that is great for the game.

 

[Technical Coach]

Susan read my post again, i'm only against the dead ball 7 tackle rule off long clearing kicks, kicking inside the oppositions half and going dead i have no problem with the 7 tackle rule.

The touch finders i'm talking about is more a response to not risking a dead ball play, it never is easy with wingers going back but improved kicking games with sharper accuracy will see a more conservative response in some areas such as touch finders but also more mid field bombs--- also more cross field kicks from around halfway to wingers.(which can be exciting to watch)

Short side hard grubbers into touch will increase also as it is a low risk potentially high reward play.

I don't have a problem with this area all i am saying is that kicking will in general be more conservative with more emphasis on minimizing dead ball situations but i also enjoy more running on the last tackle---i'm just pointing out the negatives and think clearance kicks inside your own half if they go dead should be exempt from the rule.

 

[StuBoot]

I understand why they brought this rule in but I'd tweak it a bit to be that you only get the extra tackle if the ball is kicked from outside the 20.
It penalises the attacking team, if you're inside their red zone and put in a kick that isn't quite grounded properly or knocked on in goal it's an extra tackle even though you've gone close to scoring.
So the risk v reward is skewed in my opinion.
The extra tackle is making a huge difference in getting upfield practically ensuring that a team will be in a postion to put in an attacking kick.
More and more we'll see teams just take the tackle on the last if they're inside the 20 or bomb it just short of the goal line so they diminish the chance of giving away their advantage of field position.

 

[mosto]

I hated seeing kickers intentionally kick dead from a long way out to negate a fullback with a strong return (Soward in particular).

I'd go further and use the Rugby interpretation, where if you kick it dead, you turn it over where you kicked it from (in Rugby it's a scrum, but I'd go with turn over in League). The exception being inside the attacking 20, then it's a 20m tap, as it always was (no 7 tackles).

The intentionally kicking dead was from long kicks, and should discouraged. Once you get inside the 20, you're usually looking for points or a repeat set, regardless of the score, therefore shouldn't be punished as heavily IMO.

 

[susan]

Even if it is the clearing kicks only that you are referring to TC the same objections apply.

There is nothing more boring than clearing kicks that go dead so why worry about their demise. For a clearing kick to clear the fullback from the kickers own territory or half way in the first place it will in almost all cases be designed to do just that, go dead. A team should not be rewarded for wasting game time or attempting to take class fullbacks out of the game. The punters don't want to watch that, or at least the ones who I know don't. If they do then they can turn over the channel and watch GWS play Melbourne to their hearts content.

The clear alternative now is the high bomb to the quarter line or just beyond- a play that is often exciting and unpredictable and believe me there is virtually nothing in our game that is unpredictable in regard to who gets posession these days so that's a good thing. It is totally different to a bomb on the goal line as it still requires attacking skill to score after regathering, rather than just falling on a ball over the line.

The safe grubber to the quarter line is sheer folly and have not seen one this year. A sixth tackle run play is a much better option. Even if it fails field position won't be that much different anyway.In both cases the opposition will be attacking your line with a good return set. So I cant see how the game loses out at all with this new rule.

 

[Technical Coach]

I'm talking short side grubber kicks for touch like Jamie Lyon is renowned for will increase, sometimes off the back of a 6 tackle spread which i don't mind or a hooker just darting out the short side and playing it safe.

I don't have an issue with touch finders i was just saying certain types of kicks will increase, the mid field bombs or cross kicks are boring as hell i hate this type of Rugby League we get enough in the red zone as it is now we will get even more further back.

Most of those deliberate dead ball kicks are usually kicked from at least halfway and a little past not the 40m line inside your own half.

Those long field kicks aiming as close to or hopefully into the in-goal generate fatigue on chases and retreating forwards which is good for the game. Getting the ball dead from inside you own 40 is rare, most players still struggle for 40/20's so applying an inside your own half exemption in my eyes is fine.

 

[Brissie Kid]

But the NRL have already changed the 20m tap rule even more.

They said initially it was to discourage those teams who intentionally kick dead from a long way out to negate a fullback with a strong return.

But then made the 7 tackles bonus apply to all 20m restarts. Even that Jennings dead ball line try in the grand final is now discouraged.

And then they have now made the 7 tackles apply to all 20m restarts, no matter what they are. So when a winger reaches out in the corner but drops the ball in goal or goes touch in goal he is punished by the same rule that they claimed was brought in to stop negative long kicks.

There is no disadvantage to taking the long kick if every other 20m tap is 7 tackles as well.

The NRL are full of it. They say one thing and then do another.

 

[susan]

Every single new rule in the game in the last few years seems to favour the attacking side. The bull**** benefit of the doubt, the downward pressure rather than control garbage, touch football play the balls, players playing the ball moving off the mark, players not using their foot to play the ball(an attempt is good enough ffs), markers being penalised whenever a dummy half is caught unawares...the list is neverending.

We finally get a rule which aids a defensive side when the attacking side f..cks up a grubber or kicks deep to avoid the fullback and people scream blue murder.I don't get it.If the attack cant execute a simple play then bad luck boys.

Repeat sets caused by pinkies blowing penalties ad nauseum to one side on a whim and goal line drop kicks achieved by rolling a ball into a huge in goal with often no thought of scoring are the greatest blight on the game by far. They determine each and every game.As a poster on here continually reminds us the 4 nil roosters game last year is the best in memory. Defense is 50% of the game so lets give them a break.

 

[StuBoot]

Every single new rule in the game in the last few years seems to favour the attacking side. The bull**** benefit of the doubt, the downward pressure rather than control garbage, touch football play the balls, players playing the ball moving off the mark, players not using their foot to play the ball(an attempt is good enough ffs), markers being penalised whenever a dummy half is caught unawares...the list is neverending.

We finally get a rule which aids a defensive side when the attacking side f..cks up a grubber or kicks deep to avoid the fullback and people scream blue murder.I don't get it.If the attack cant execute a simple play then bad luck boys.

Repeat sets caused by pinkies blowing penalties ad nauseum to one side on a whim and goal line drop kicks achieved by rolling a ball into a huge in goal with often no thought of scoring are the greatest blight on the game by far. They determine each and every game.As a poster on here continually reminds us the 4 nil roosters game last year is the best in memory. Defense is 50% of the game so lets give them a break.

I know where you're coming from susan but I can't agree that a defensive side gets "rewarded" with an extra tackle when the attacking side spills/drops the ball when going for a try whether they kick it or not - they're better off losing it short of the line.
Part of the game is trying to keep the ball and wear your opposition down, we've seen before that playing smart and getting repeat sets should reap rewards later in the game, this rule nullifies that.
As I said before, if you're inside the 20m there should be no extra tackle for the defensive side, completely agree with the stopping of long range kicks though.

 

[simon64]

I was under the impression that the rule was for the long negative kick.

But regardless, I agree that too many of the new rules favour the attacking team. If we're not careful, we're going to end up with NYC scores in first grade.

The game needs to be an even contest between attack and defence and if it keeps going the way it is, that won't be the case. We had the 4-0 match last year but that was an exception.

They keep tinkering with the rules. I didn't realise the game needed changing this much.

It they want the 7 tackle rule, it should be for kicks from within your own half.

 

[Brissie Kid]

I was under the impression that the rule was for the long negative kick.

That is what the NRL said. But from the 9s onwards the referees have been giving 7 tackle sets to all 20m restarts no matter what the reason.

 

[susan]

Still cant understand why rolling a ball from short range into the into a huge in goal area and messing it up deserves special consideration. A vast majority of the kicks are meant solely to get another 6 tackles anyway so bad luck.

We have enough repeat sets and possession domination by one team from ****house refs without giving more concessions to ordinary execution from the attacking team.

 

[Brissie Kid]

They aren't just punishing kicks though are they. This new 7 tackle rule also works against a winger trying to ground the ball near the corner.

If the winger drops the ball in the in goal or goes into touch in goal it is now punished with 7 tackles.

So one year the NRL gets rid of the corner post to encourage wingers and then two years later discourages it by making it 7 tackles.

 

[susan]

Defence kept the winger out. No problem with them being rewarded for their efforts. If the attacking teams these days can't get across the stripe with every new rule in the last 10 years helping them then no sympathy from me.