Phil Gould Watch

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

Why is a kick to touch in-goal an 'error', as you say, and not a kick into touch?

Because the kick is misdirected and/or too long. Could ask the same question about a kick into touch on the full.

The zero-tackle rule was originally implemented as it was considered unfair for a tackle to be registered when a player dives on a loose-ball with limited opportunity to run.

That's right, but it's also designed to encourage the non-offending team to make full use of the loose ball without incurring any disadvantage.

Not only this, but allowing the quick tap rather than the old tap (on the ground, remove the hands) gives even more advantage to the defending team. Compounding the issue.

The 20m tap is a great counter-attacking opportunity. As we saw last night with Dylan Edwards.

The current rule strikes the right balance. A team should not be able to kick the ball dead with impunity. If they risk it, they need to be more alert than Souths were.

 

[PARRA_FAN]

He's bang on about the seven tackle rule. It's mind-numbingly stupid.

I remember how he called out the rule when he was in charge of Penrith, dont think he got fined then but maybe he never called it stupid.

I agree the seven tackle was supposed to prevent or reduce the number of kicks deliberately kicking into the dead in goal to prevent the fast fullbacks like Slater, Tedesco and co from getting a good kick return.

I initially thought back then if you kick it from outside the 20m its a 7 tackle set, then suddenly everything became a seven tackle set, knock on and strip over the line, a short kick that just narrowly goes over the in goal

To Gould's point, why should other team get an extra tackle when the player loses the ball over the line, supposedly what we saw in the Wests Tigers game.

 

[Perth Red]

I remember how he called out the rule when he was in charge of Penrith, dont think he got fined then but maybe he never called it stupid.

I agree the seven tackle was supposed to prevent or reduce the number of kicks deliberately kicking into the dead in goal to prevent the fast fullbacks like Slater, Tedesco and co from getting a good kick return.

I initially thought back then if you kick it from outside the 20m its a 7 tackle set, then suddenly everything became a seven tackle set, knock on and strip over the line, a short kick that just narrowly goes over the in goal

To Gould's point, why should other team get an extra tackle when the player loses the ball over the line, supposedly what we saw in the Wests Tigers game.

Hes been fined for calling the game and its administrators stupid, not for a calling a rule stupid. I sense NRL has been waiting for him to cross the line!

the 7 tackle rule has been shthouse for years and totally went away from why it was introduced. Though now with not wanting run backs maybe they should bin it all together to promote kicking it out the back?
Theyd be better off just having a 30m tap for any ball kicked out dead from more than 20m.

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

To Gould's point, why should other team get an extra tackle when the player loses the ball over the line, supposedly what we saw in the Wests Tigers game.

Because it's a knock-on i.e. an error. Hence, zero tackle.

If the same error were committed on the halfway line, would you class a counterattack off the loose ball as "an extra tackle" or the set as "7 Tackles"?

 

[Desert Qlder]

That's right, but it's also designed to encourage the non-offending team to make full use of the loose ball without incurring any disadvantage.

They don't get disadvantaged, they get a 20m restart. They don't then require an extra advantage.

The 20m tap is a great counter-attacking opportunity. As we saw last night with Dylan Edwards.

But it's not counter-attack. Counter-attack by it's nature is unstructured and a result of players playing. Not rule-makers interceding on a defending sides behalf, which is what you're describing.

The current rule strikes the right balance. A team should not be able to kick the ball dead with impunity. If they risk it, they need to be more alert than Souths were.

But it is not being applied to teams kicking it dead on purpose. That is only one of many scenarios resulting in seven tackle sets.

As a result the balance is wildly skewed.

If you want to stop negative kicking then apply it to kicks kicked dead from more than forty metres out.

 

[Desert Qlder]

Because it's a knock-on i.e. an error. Hence, zero tackle.

The in-goal is not the field of play. It is always treated differently. For example there is no offside in the in-goal.

Again, there is no logic here. Just expedience.

 

[Ride the Lion to Zion]

They don't get disadvantaged, they get a 20m restart. They don't then require an extra advantage.

The non-offending team could gain 90m off a loose ball in the field of play. Could argue this represents sufficient advantage. No grounds for the zero tackle. Point is, they might be less inclined to run such a speculative play if they expected it to register on the tackle count.

Zero tackle, applied in any area of the field, is designed to reward enterprise. As distinct from simply securing possession and a mindset of safety first, kill the play, return to the grind.

Again, there is no logic here. Just expedience.

RL lawmakers have always sought to incentivize creativity. Perfectly logical and consistent with our history.

The in-goal is not the field of play. It is always treated differently.

Hence the mark is moved to the middle of the 20m line.

But it is not being applied to teams kicking it dead on purpose. That is only one of many scenarios resulting in seven tackle sets.

Players don't deliberately kick the ball out on the full. Doesn't affect the sanction. Intent is irrelevant.

But it's not counter-attack. Counter-attack by it's nature is unstructured and a result of players playing. Not rule-makers interceding on a defending sides behalf, which is what you're describing.

A quick tap on the 20m line against a retreating scrambling defence is not counterattack?

 

[Wb1234]

First time I’ve watched 100 percent footy in ages this is good

Gus is such an expert

 

[sportsnut]

Has anyone met or know Gus in person? Me never.

Is he a good bloke or an absolute flog like he comes across as?