Has anyone heard of this idea for improving RL?

[taipan]

I'm against. It sounds like your rewarding the attacking team for not being able to complete their set. "Oh I stuffed up the last tackle and couldn't get a kick away. At least I get two more tackles!"
And it would create predictability rather than render it. As stated it would cause defense to rush up making attacking play rushed and scrappy. And not being able to kick would bring the fullback into the defense line.
When your about to score and it's 5th the probability of the attacking team of running would be increased and (predictable) if they were guanteed an extra two tackles.
An when a defending team is keeping the attacking team deep in their own half, they are getting punished for their efforts with having to make two more tackles.

And how would I make a ("7th and last") signal? :roll:

I stuffed up on the 6th tackle and couldnt get a kick away OK"and I am hemmed in my own qtr and my team cant kick on the next 2 tackles-the pressure is now on my team to gain distance by running the next 2 tackles,otherwise we have a handover deep in our half.
The back 3 defence would stand back up to tackle 6 waiting for the kick ,the signal 6 tackle is made,the attacker decides to run it so the(BTO-bonus tackle option comes in)on the 7th or 8th ,where is the defence ?caught napping being too far forward in defence.
I would agree that the defense could be tighter under this method,however the attack is getting in effect 3 running attacking shots the 6th(if they choose) 7th and 8th.The opportunity to beark a tired defence is therefore greater.
I cant see how the team defending team is getting punished by keeping the attacking team deep within the attacking team's half,if they do so after 6 tackles (and the attack chooses that option- i dont think they would necessarily) the defence knows the attackers cant kick on the 7th and 8th tackle,so have hemmed in the attack in their qtr.Surely thats a reward for the defence ,and they get the handover deep in attack in the previous attaclkers territory.
It works for both teams,except a team who has a bad case of the dropsies,then they will get hammered.Ball control will be rammed home more than ever.
Signals if the team goes for the BTO ? -the 7th tackle could be the ref showing a signal like a T,the 8th could be a circular hand move.Thats the least of the argument.

so the reward is that the defence gets a handover deep in the opponents territory.... they would be deeper if the handover was on the 6th instead of the 8th.
It gives the game too much advantage to the attacking team. There is still no reward for good defence.

So if the attacking team kicks for distance down to the defenders tryline on the 6th ,there is a reward for good defence ?.The defence has held them up to the 5th tackle deep in the attackers qtr,the attackers have made little ground,and all of a sudden a ball is reefed 60 metres down the other end on the 6th.Where is the reward for the defence ?They get possession deep in their own territory after throwing everything at the attackers. If the attack cant kick on 7 and 8, the defence can also reap the benefit,by the restriction of the attack to only ball in hand.
It works both ways for both teams IMO.
I guess it is the eyes of the beholder,more attacking possession opportunities to both sides if they choose.and more defensive work for both sides as a result.More a "war of attrition of the fittest" maybe.
If we keep the current rules as is,then what about a reduction in the value of a try from a kick to 3 points and or a smaller in goal ?

 

[***MH***]

what do you have against rugby league's kicking game. A try from a precision kick is just as skillful if not more than a passing attack.
this idea was on the basis that a kick was too predictable.... if a team was in stuck deep in their own half, then wouldn't be more probable that they would make a deep kick on the 5th? If an attacking team hasn't made it into their opponents half by the end of the fifth, then they shouldn't be piggybacked over the halfway with an extra two tackles, irrespective if they can kick again or not. In the end the kick is pretty much a guarnteed handover and the defending team get a running start to attack rather than a stop/start play the ball. Teams can gather great momentum from a deep kick return. Just ask some of the great fullbacks. The proposed idea would basically take fullbacks out of the game in my mind.

 

[taipan]

I dont have anything against the kicking game in rugby league,only the overuse of the bomb.If that can be reduced by any means, I am all for it.
It was only an idea,its been given the thumbs down, I will get on with life ,and continue to watch rugby league the best game on this planet.

 

[rugged]

It's been interesting to see how many league lovers feel there is too much predictability in the 5 tackles and kick. I never used to think so but after twenty something years of watching I certainly think so.

 

[Berkeley_Eagle]

In theory it probley would work

dont the refs have enough to think about already as we know there were some that couldnt keep count to 6 tackles

 

[rugged]

bomber, who is a ref, said on another forum that he'd have trouble because he'd run out of fingers as he had to hold his whistle!