'Tackled-in-the-air' rule

[SharkShocked]

The rule was intended to stop players getting cut in half and getting up ended when jumping up to defuse a bomb, particularly if they tackle the legs while the player is mid air sending the top half of the player body toward the ground similar to a spear tackle.

Now you get penalised giving a player a cuddle that a weak grandmother would be ashamed of as they compete for the ball in the air.

With some of the attempted tackles on players diving for the corner (think Nathan Ross) / attacking players competing for the ball on high kicks, the same risks exist if the defender doesn't compete for the ball and decides just to smash the attacker, it's just seen less likely

Previously most defenders would compete for the ball. This has changed slightly as defenders will often now opt to just tackle the player the moment they get the ball if the kick is not pinpoint. Increasing the likelihood it may happen to some small degree.

It's another example of a NRL reaction to a small set of circumstances that now makes the game ridiculous to watch. Penalties for brushing a players shoulder with their hand after they've jumped and competed for the bomb and missed it, reactionary place of a hand across someones shoulder with no force or impact......penalty.

Laughable.

 

[cooko]

I'm happy with the way the rule is currently enforced although there seems to be cases where an attacking player is tackled mid air but then taken through the horizontal which should be a penalty.

I think Blake Ferguson v Storm was a prime example of where a penalty could have been awarded.

 

[Cherry_poppins]

I'm happy with the way the rule is currently enforced although there seems to be cases where an attacking player is tackled mid air but then taken through the horizontal which should be a penalty.

I think Blake Ferguson v Storm was a prime example of where a penalty could have been awarded.

So jumping kneeing Fijian should've been given a penalty in his favor? That's absurd

 

[cooko]

So jumping kneeing Fijian should've been given a penalty in his favor? That's absurd

I think you missed my point mate.

Ferguson caught an attacking kick and was tackled mid air which is ok but was propelled beyond the horizontal which is not ok.

Penalty to the Roosters this point in the contest.

Flying Fijian should have sat out a few weeks.

 

[Cherry_poppins]

I think you missed my point mate.

Ferguson caught an attacking kick and was tackled mid air which is ok but was propelled beyond the horizontal which is not ok.

Penalty to the Roosters this point in the contest.

Flying Fijian should have sat out a few weeks.

But if we're going to bastardise the rules to fit the kicking team too why not random high jumping merkins?

 

[kdalymc]

Can we just dead this thread...
Or change the title to "where the dumbest of dumb come"

 

[Cherry_poppins]

Can we just dead this thread...
Or change the title to "where the dumbest of dumb come"

No we can't change the thread name to suncorp stadium

 

[This Year?]

I think the one where the Storm player put Ferguson into a dangerous position was why the thread was created and is bait for all the Rooster fans.

 

[Canard]

I'm new here

Anyone believe this?

Yeah you definitely came to the wrong place if that's what you want. This is a place where everyone's got an opinion and if someone thinks otherwise then their an idiot. The majority of people don't know the rules but will still argue it. If you say something that someone doesn't agree with prepare to be insulted. Oh and any team that loses, it's always because the refs screwed them and clearly had no intention of letting the other team lose (no team loses because the other team was better). I think that pretty much sums up this forum

Have a cry.

 

[OldPanther]

Can we just dead this thread...
Or change the title to "where the dumbest of dumb come"

It's a fair talking point about the game. A lot of people think the rule should apply both ways and since it is suppose to be a rule to protect players who are in a vulnerable position it's weird only one side benifits.

No we can't change the thread name to suncorp stadium

HAHA!

 

[kdalymc]

So what the attacking team puts up a bomb and you just let the guy catch it and have .000003 secs to try to stop him scoring a try... yeahhhhhhh

It's a contact sport, technically walking onto that field puts you in danger.
Anyone saying you shouldn't be able to tackle the attacking team has either never played before, or just dumb

 

[Bgoodorgoodatit]

I'm happy with the way the rule is currently enforced although there seems to be cases where an attacking player is tackled mid air but then taken through the horizontal which should be a penalty.

I think Blake Ferguson v Storm was a prime example of where a penalty could have been awarded.

Definitely this... As soon as the defender puts the attacker in a dangerous position a penalty needs to be called.... have seen far too many examples of tunneling lately which is going to lead to someone being seriously hurt.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Yes but when a player is jumping to catch a bomb, the moment he catches it, is he not then the attacking player?

simple answer, no.

After he lands, he is then deemed to have gained possession and becomes the 'attacking player'. So if he then jumps in the air again, he is fair game. I don't know why he would do that? But that would be the ruling.

 

[OldPanther]

So what the attacking team puts up a bomb and you just let the guy catch it and have .000003 secs to try to stop him scoring a try... yeahhhhhhh

It's a contact sport, technically walking onto that field puts you in danger.
Anyone saying you shouldn't be able to tackle the attacking team has either never played before, or just dumb

That doesn't change the fact that the rule as it stands is suppose to be about player welfare. It's plain stupid to say the same risk doesn't apply to both attacker/defender in the air. Let's just remove the rules around high tackles and spear tackles in scoring situations while we're following your logic.

Definitely this... As soon as the defender puts the attacker in a dangerous position a penalty needs to be called.... have seen far too many examples of tunneling lately which is going to lead to someone being seriously hurt.

I'd be happy with this.

 

[rupertpupkin]

So what the attacking team puts up a bomb and you just let the guy catch it and have .000003 secs to try to stop him scoring a try... yeahhhhhhh

It's a contact sport, technically walking onto that field puts you in danger.
Anyone saying you shouldn't be able to tackle the attacking team has either never played before, or just dumb

The whole concept of the rule is soft. It's namby pamby stuff. You don't want to get "put into a dangerous position", or hurt? Here's an idea.. don't jump in the air like an AFL gimp for a "mark". You wanna jump? Go ahead and get ready to be smashed. Your choice. You're putting yourself in that position. S*** happens. Deal with it. Enough with the rules that molly coddle these big babies. In the old days, we planted our feet for a catch and braced for impact. Or, jumped and EXPECTED to get cut in half.

 

[langpark]

Not sure why so many people are saying it's a dumb question. It's a debate that is inevitably going to come up the day someone attempts this and ends up landing on his head.

I do agree though with the onus being on the player that has chosen to take the leap, being responsible for the risk he is taking in doing that.

 

[LineBall]

Why can't they just have one rule for all tackles - put the player in a dangerous position or past the horizontal and it's a penalty. Make it a mandatory 10 minutes in the bin and it should deter most.