Should the 7 tackle rule be abolished?

[Frank Facer]

I believe that the 7 tackle rule for when a ball is kicked dead in goal, or goes into touch in goal, or if the defending team catches the ball in goal, or if the attacking team drops the ball in goal or goes into touch in goal, is the worst rule that has been introduced to the game. I have always hated this rule. It has changed the balance of the game. It gives team field position that they have not earned. I have wanted the rule to be changed back, since it was introduced. The reason that the rule was introduced was because some teams were kicking the ball dead on purpose, so that the likes of Billly Slater or Hayne were not given the opportunity to run the ball back from broken play. I heard Soward say that we were one of the clubs doing this (we may have been the only club doing it). I also remember Sterling (who I usually agree with and usually respect his views on the game) suggesting giving the ball back to the opposition 30m line if the ball was kicked dead from further than 30 or 40 m out and I think that is where the NRL got the idea to introduce the 7 tackle rule. I don't even agree with Sterling's idea. The goal of the kicker should be to put the ball in the in goal and either keep the fullback or winger in goal or as close to their try line as possible. There can be a matter of inches between a kick going dead or staying in goal.

There is now an article on Foxsports with Gould saying that the outrageous 7 tackle rule should be abolished. I obviously agree. I am having trouble copying and pasting the article, if someone else could do so, I would appreciate it.

People's thoughts on this rule?

I will even have a poll of should the rule be abolishied or not. Vote yes to abolish the rule and vote no for keep the 7 tackle rule as it is.

 

[ST Tangles 01]

Should only apply for kicks from outside the 30m line.

 

[SGMax]

20m tap is enough of an advantage.
Not sure why it applies to every error in the in goal.
If it is to stay, restricting it to longer range kicks outside the 20 or 30 would be better.
Grubbers and bombs should not be punished as the attacking team is disadvantaged after making so much ground to get near the try line

 

[SBD82]

Should only apply for kicks from outside the 30m line.

I'd say 40. But yes, this very simple change would mean that teams are not rewarded by kicking it dead and taking out the fullback, while taking away the massive advantage that the defending team gains for a grubber that goes dead by centimetres.

 

[T-Boon]

All it does is tack one hit up on to the front of the set when it is the back end of a set that is interesting to watch because that is when they will do something other than a hit up.
You don't want an extra first tackle what you want is an extra 4th or 5th tackle. You do that by making the restart/tap a free play or something or the defense needs to defend the set with 3 men in their own half.
The last thing they should have done was make it even easier to get to the other end of the field without taking any risks.

 

[2010]

Why should the attacking team be penalised. That is what I object to

 

[HenryTatana]

The thing that grinds my gears is 7 tackles after an unsuccessful field goal attempt. Teams that are even up by 6 with less than 10 minutes are reluctant to kick a field goal unless in front of the posts because of fear it will cost them if they miss.

 

[Frank Facer]

I'd say 40. But yes, this very simple change would mean that teams are not rewarded by kicking it dead and taking out the fullback, while taking away the massive advantage that the defending team gains for a grubber that goes dead by centimetres.

If a kicker can kick the ball dead from inside his own half. The defending team should not receive a 7 tackle set. I think that it is a pretty good kick if they can kick it dead from inside their own half.

If anything, it should only apply to kicks that are kicked dead from between 30m out to the halfway.

I think coaching a team to kick the ball dead, with the old rules was a very negative tactic and would only be done if the kicking team was well in front.

 

[Frank Facer]

Jamie Soward was actually talking about this on Saturday, during our ISP game. He said that we used to do it so that Hayne couldn't run the ball back. He said that he did not agree with the 7 tackle rule either.

 

[possm]

I believe that the 7 tackle rule for when a ball is kicked dead in goal, or goes into touch in goal, or if the defending team catches the ball in goal, or if the attacking team drops the ball in goal or goes into touch in goal, is the worst rule that has been introduced to the game. I have always hated this rule. It has changed the balance of the game. It gives team field position that they have not earned. I have wanted the rule to be changed back, since it was introduced. The reason that the rule was introduced was because some teams were kicking the ball dead on purpose, so that the likes of Billly Slater or Hayne were not given the opportunity to run the ball back from broken play. I heard Soward say that we were one of the clubs doing this (we may have been the only club doing it). I also remember Sterling (who I usually agree with and usually respect his views on the game) suggesting giving the ball back to the opposition 30m line if the ball was kicked dead from further than 30 or 40 m out and I think that is where the NRL got the idea to introduce the 7 tackle rule. I don't even agree with Sterling's idea. The goal of the kicker should be to put the ball in the in goal and either keep the fullback or winger in goal or as close to their try line as possible. There can be a matter of inches between a kick going dead or staying in goal.

There is now an article on Foxsports with Gould saying that the outrageous 7 tackle rule should be abolished. I obviously agree. I am having trouble copying and pasting the article, if someone else could do so, I would appreciate it.

People's thoughts on this rule?

I will even have a poll of should the rule be abolishied or not. Vote yes to abolish the rule and vote no for keep the 7 tackle rule as it is.

I'd like to see another instanced added to the 7 tackle rule:

If a defending player catches the ball on the full while in goal from a kick off. This would make the kicker think a little more about high and long kick offs.

 

[Objective View]

Great thread.

And YES.

Straight Shooter

 

[The Friz]

It's totally rubbish and needs to be scrapped ASAP

 

[Frank Facer]

I'd like to see another instanced added to the 7 tackle rule:

If a defending player catches the ball on the full while in goal from a kick off. This would make the kicker think a little more about high and long kick offs.

No.

 

[Old Timer]

If you want to kick the ball in general play then so be it but to say the defending team gets an advantage out of your willingness to try and score is ridiculous.
Defending team runs it / batts it dead or they get caught in goal (even if they catch it on the full) then a goal line drop out everything else is a 20m restart with 6 tackles only.
Interesting that in the old days if the defending team batted it dead from within the field of play or they were forced in goal from the field of play it was a 5m scrum with the attacking team getting the loose and feed.
That is a rule I would like to see reintroduced.

 

[gitano]

I like the 7 tackle rule now, but it took a while for it to grow on me.

I was bored watching sides only aiming to complete before kicking high to a corner on the last. It was boring and unimaginative footy.

Seeing a risk/reward element introduced has been a positive in my opinion

 

[ouryears]

It was a terrible look and boring when teams purposely kicked it dead so there could be no broken play.

Then there is the genuine attempt of a great kick that might go dead by inches.

We don't want the let's kick it dead mentality to come back, so there has to be some penalty to stop teams dishing up boring 5th tackle plays.

Until someone comes up with a way to stop the let's kick it dead on purpose strategy then I am happy with 7 tackles.

However, It's not great to the teams who are genuine about their 5th tackle kick and the ball goes dead by inches.

Ideas instead of 7 tackles could be the following.

A. 30 mt tap with 6 tackles.

B. Tap from where the ball was kicked from, which would cease penalizing teams who are close to the line and put in a great kick only to see it roll dead by inches.
(Tap kick still taken from the 20 my line as a minimum)

The above scenario in 'B' would stop teams purposely kicking it dead from 40 mts out.

Or just leave the 7 tackle as it is unless there is a way to stop the boring let's kick it dead ploy.

 

[Saint or sinner]

Yes too much of an advantage..espically for short kicks like grabbers and bombs..I hate the rule

 

[Saint_JimmyG]

In terms of the "worst rule ever implemented", the creation of golden point leaves 'seven tackles' for dead.

Also, a tackler penalised for a stray pass resulting in 'six again' (as what happened with Lafai on Anzac Day) is a close second.

I'll go even further; any tackler penalised with 'six again' simply because he is in the act of tackling absurd. Discretion should be made between the above and deliberately playing at the ball BEFORE an attempt to make a defensive move is made.

 

[Dragonscales]

I'd keep the rule for only when the ball was kicked from 40+ metres out.

 

[RedVDave]

get rid of it and golden point asap!!!

the 7 tackle rule should only apply if kicking outside the 20m and should not exist at all during golden point which should also not exist!