What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Legs tackles to be rewarded

mave

Coach
Messages
12,936
Not so radical idea, but why oh why are 1 v 1 legs tackles not rewarded ?

It is topical, now Gallen cost his team.

Why do we not encourage this type of tackle, allowing extra time for the defender to get back to marker ? Instead of penalising the defender by allowing the attacker a super quick play of the ball because the attacker "won the ruck ".

It would take 1 generation of players to be coached to encourage the legs tackle, and hopefully get away from Wrestlmania if it was encouraged via referee interpretation.

Would this also encourage defenders to tackle low, and reduce head shots.

And yes, you will all say that there will be more offloads.....but is that a bad thing ?
 

Vee

First Grade
Messages
5,075
Yep agree.
With who?

For mine, I think legs/low tackles should only be rewarded from in front when the tackler drives the runner back or at least stops him. Gallen had no other option but to go low last night because Cordner had him beaten otherwise and shouldn't be hampered in playing the ball.
 

KeepingTheFaith

Referee
Messages
25,235
No matter how long you give the defender, the moment a 1 on 1 legs tackler lets go he's getting caught offside.

The only way to give them a little more time is to police the ruck properly by forcing proper play the balls.
 

Raiderdave

First Grade
Messages
7,990
Cordner milked that penalty
Gallen probably did hold on marginally longer then he should have but you see 100 tackles just as bad through a game not policed.
Cordner exagerated the attention he was getting from the tackler & Chechin even gave the leg pull signal after giving the penalty
that was crap
Gallen didn't leg pull anyone , & I think it was a tough penalty in the circumstances
 

rupertpupkin

Juniors
Messages
512
It has less to do with the tackler getting to marker and much more to do with allowing the rest of the defence to get back onside. With 10m... that's quite a long distance, especially after a break. Hence the "wrestle" etc. That's not the whole reason, but it plays a large part. Going back to 5m might help, but may not solve it alone. Agreed about encouraging legs/low... hell, even just 1-on-1 tackles of any kind. Offloads should be able to be dealt with, by and large, when you don't have 3 or more of your defenders tied up in a "wrestle" and if they can actually tackle properly themselves. One possibility is a new definition, they call dominant and surrender anyway. Give the tackler time to get the defence back 10m.
 

Nice Beaver

First Grade
Messages
5,920
Cordner milked that penalty
Gallen probably did hold on marginally longer then he should have but you see 100 tackles just as bad through a game not policed.
Cordner exagerated the attention he was getting from the tackler & Chechin even gave the leg pull signal after giving the penalty
that was crap
Gallen didn't leg pull anyone , & I think it was a tough penalty in the circumstances

Spot on. But I guess that is more an issue of the glaring inconsistency and incompetence of the referees than the leg tackle issue.

Was a very harsh penatly given the time and place when it happens all the time in a game.
 

Grapple

Bench
Messages
4,609
Captains challenge in the last 10 minutes to prevent further poor calls in the crucial stages of the game.
In this instance it would be known as "tackle completion challenge". Gallen asks for it to be taken upstairs and the bunker reviews it according to allowed time between completion of tackle and release.
If the bunker agrees with on field decision Gallen uses his challenge and has to join the other side as an extra player. Captains can use it as a free interchange and can sub off the player if they don't like him. If the bunker rules the on field decision was incorrect, Gallen and the sharks are rewarded not just an extra player, but also discounted peptides for future use.
 
Messages
2,857
Not so radical idea, but why oh why are 1 v 1 legs tackles not rewarded ?

It is topical, now Gallen cost his team.

Why do we not encourage this type of tackle, allowing extra time for the defender to get back to marker ? Instead of penalising the defender by allowing the attacker a super quick play of the ball because the attacker "won the ruck ".

It would take 1 generation of players to be coached to encourage the legs tackle, and hopefully get away from Wrestlmania if it was encouraged via referee interpretation.

Would this also encourage defenders to tackle low, and reduce head shots.

And yes, you will all say that there will be more offloads.....but is that a bad thing ?
This may happen when Jake Turbo retires

Do not expect any rule changes that will ever help manly
 

siv

First Grade
Messages
6,546
It has less to do with the tackler getting to marker and much more to do with allowing the rest of the defence to get back onside. With 10m... that's quite a long distance, especially after a break. Hence the "wrestle" etc. That's not the whole reason, but it plays a large part. Going back to 5m might help, but may not solve it alone. Agreed about encouraging legs/low... hell, even just 1-on-1 tackles of any kind. Offloads should be able to be dealt with, by and large, when you don't have 3 or more of your defenders tied up in a "wrestle" and if they can actually tackle properly themselves. One possibility is a new definition, they call dominant and surrender anyway. Give the tackler time to get the defence back 10m.

Maybe we should revert back to 5m
 

parraeel

Juniors
Messages
48
I have long thought that the 1v 1 tackle needs to be rewarded.
IMO
All 1v1tackle the player should be allowed to hold longer
More than 1 player in tackle they need to get off immediately

This will reward players that actually can tackle and reduce wrestling
 

Delboy

First Grade
Messages
6,810
Gallen got pinged last night for holding and pulling the shorts as Cordner was getting to his feet

That was the reason, not the legs tackle and a long hold , he tried to delay the quick play the ball , and rightly got penalised. Gallen gets away with that nearly every tackle. Got seen and no matter how Flanno whinges, it was a penalty all day
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vee

mave

Coach
Messages
12,936
Gallen got pinged last night for holding and pulling the shorts as Cordner was getting to his feet

That was the reason, not the legs tackle and a long hold , he tried to delay the quick play the ball , and rightly got penalised. Gallen gets away with that nearly every tackle. Got seen and no matter how Flanno whinges, it was a penalty all day

Whoosh !
 

TheFrog

Coach
Messages
14,300
Cordner milked that penalty
Gallen probably did hold on marginally longer then he should have but you see 100 tackles just as bad through a game not policed.
Cordner exagerated the attention he was getting from the tackler & Chechin even gave the leg pull signal after giving the penalty
that was crap
Gallen didn't leg pull anyone , & I think it was a tough penalty in the circumstances
The Roosters were setting for a field goal. Gallen tried to make it more difficult by holding the tackled player down so the defence could set itself. A fair pinch.
 

Raiderdave

First Grade
Messages
7,990
The Roosters were setting for a field goal. Gallen tried to make it more difficult by holding the tackled player down so the defence could set itself. A fair pinch.

It was milked
Cordner played for it & got it
The rule book doesn't say , apply a different interpretation if the attacking side is going for a field goal lol
If it's not a penalty dozens of other times during a game

It certainly isn't when it decides the game !!
 

rupertpupkin

Juniors
Messages
512
Maybe we should revert back to 5m


I'm all for it. But, it would be problematic for awhile and would draw lots of bitching about it until, or even IF sides adjusted to the old rule. One of the developments from 10m was the creeping forward of the attacking line. Now, the attack and defence would be pretty much almost on top of each other. Until teams adjusted and deepened their attacking line and used different tactics. Would they, though? I can see coaches bitching about the initial "chaos" and not budging from the usual tactics, expecting the NRL to cave on the matter. It might work, would be great if it did.
 
Last edited:

BrisbaneRhino

Juniors
Messages
172
I thought it was marginal but a penalty was justified. By comparison the sin binning of Keary vs the non-binning of Maloney for professional fouls in almost exactly the same position was a much bigger issue for me, and one that seems to have hardly rated a mention.
 

Latest posts

Top