Has anyone heard of this idea for improving RL?

[Matt M]

I also don't see why people don't like grubbers and bombs. They add excitement for me and add far more variety to a game.

 

[Kurt Angle]

This rule is also very unfair, it's already hard enough trying to defend 6 tackles while the other team is attacking on your own line, adding an extra 2 tackles would be ridiculous.

Erhh it's not a one way street, both teams get the same opportunity.

 

[Kurt Angle]

I also don't see why people don't like grubbers and bombs. They add excitement for me and add far more variety to a game.

Bombs have become more and more a lottery.

The defending player has to ensure it is caught and also maintain good field position so he isn't caught in goal or bundled over the sideline.

The attacking player just has to leap and tap it back for a second phase in broken field play.

The grubber is just a pussy option where you score or get the opposing team to have a goal line drop out.

 

[hitman82]

It's interesting, I don't think I like it and if it was seriously suggested for use in the NRL I would probably be strongly against it...

But I wouldn't mind seeing it tried in an exhibition game, witha slightly different rule rewarding the defending team for surviving the 8 tackles without conceeding points.

Say, if you decide to take the extra two tackles option, and fail to score a try... then your handover takes place at halfway, or perhaps a varying point depending on where play ends up.

Would be interesting anyway.

 

[Dogboy]

I remember hearing the Wok talk about this, and I think it has a lot of merit. Anything that brings a bit of uncertainty into the game is good in my opinion. Imagine the thrilling passing movements as teams desperately try to keep the ball alive on the 7th and 8th.

Good thinking.

 

[rugged]

But I wouldn't mind seeing it tried in an exhibition game, witha slightly different rule rewarding the defending team for surviving the 8 tackles without conceeding points

Half the people are saying it would be too hard to attack on the last 2 extra tackles and half are saying it's too hard to defend. Sounds like it might be OK then.

 

[Dog-E]

I agree with *MH* - Potentially rewards teams who CAN'T get a kick away on the last...How would you tell if they'd chosen to kick...or simply not been able to on the last?...Another rule - like stripping, or getting to one's feet to play the ball etc - too much grey there, that could bring up too many contentious can of worm incidents in a game - Good to see ppl are trying to think outside the square a bit - I'm not against changing the rules of the game...for the BETTER! But RL can do without this 'un IMO...

 

[taipan]

I personally don't mind attacking kicks to the in goal - it is something lacking from union due to their archaic in goal rules.
Sherwin is a master at this as is Johns and I think it takes real skill to do. Perhaps shorten the in goals to make it harder if you think these kicks are boring.

With your option plan, if the team is not in their attacking quarter, wouldn't the defending team's fullback and wingers come up to more easily snuff the attack, knowing there won't be a kick and partly blunt any attacking raids..??

The idea is not to remove completely the bomb in goal,just to reduce the
reliance on it too much by some teams.
The defence would still have the uncertainty up to the 6th tackle as it currently stands,although they know on the 6th that the ball in 99 cases out of a hundred will be kicked.
Under this plan if the defending backs decide to come up on the 6th tackle they will have a kick down into their territory,if that doesnt happen and they rush up for the 7th and 8th tackle to defend,they still leave their area undefended near the goaline for planned moves by the attack with ball in hand,andan extra 2 tackles could tire the defence giving a better chance to break the line.

It is a good idea but what happens if they have made a break but the cover comes across. They won't be allowed to kick or chip to beat the cover defence.

Thats the risk you take,by going for 2 additional tackles.You are saying we have got the defenders on the ropes they are looking tired,lets run it ,at least we have an extra 2 plays,we dont if we kick on the 6th in the defenders qtr(as an example).
Not different than kicking on the 6th tackle,you have in effect handed the ball back to the opposition by virtue of a scrum or one of the back three picking it up for a return run.

 

[taipan]

dont like it, the idea's been around for a few years. Ok teams kicks 99% of the 6th, this rule just means that on the 7th or 8th you know they wont kick so there's still predictability with it.

It'll also mean the ball being thrown around like hot potato on the 8th which whilst can look good just gets scrappy and filled with knock ons

Agreed that if they go to 8 tackles there is a feeling of predictability.It still gives the attack the extra time and plays to worry the defence,by forward rushes,backline attacking moves, extra plays gives opportunity for extra moves.
I would rather the predictability of an extra 2 tackles(and I will repeat the team is not forced to take that option) and they can use the kick judiciously in the first 6 tackles,for a 40/20 option,a distance finding line kick,a grubber, a Johns banana kick, chipm,a bomb whatever.Than what they are doing now with all those kicks available but using the repetitive kick on the 6th (just about the majority of the time) to give it to the defence without little effort on the 6th tackle by the defence.
And if anyone enjoys a fair slab of tries being scored by bombs,good luck ,its not my idea of a running game of rugby league.
Its hard to say whether hot potato football would necessarily occur on the 8th ,it could happen on the 7th or the 6th ,it may not happpen.I have seen enough dropped ball by some teams under the 6th tackle safety first approach,so its not unique.

 

[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.

 

[taipan]

yeh i dont like it at all

the risk of running the ball on the 6th tackle is gone and it leads to more predictability.... also have to agree with the point made what if good pressure is being put on the kicker and they get tackled.. instead of a handover they get to cart it forward 20 more metres

Why the risk of running it on the 6th is gone?,you can do so,and you then get 2 extra tackles (actually 3)( 6 ,7 and 8) attacking moves.
The simple fact it is an option only,conceivably you could have a whole game and the teams decide not to use the BTO-know it would be unlikely.
If the kicker on the 6th gets caught in a tackle,why because its a hurried not well thought out kick and a fast moving defence,who knows(again predictably) he has to kick on the 6th..With the BTO he can only guess that the attack will either kick up to any tackle on the 6th,or maybe they wont and go for the run.That is hardly predictable,compared to the almost 99% chance of a kick on the 6th.How many times under the current rule does the attack run it on the 6th reagrdless of where they are on the field,usely it is in the dying stages of a game when the scores are either locked or the attack is down by 5 points (eg).
I will repeat the BTO is only an OPTION,we STILL HAVE the 6th tackle rule per se,every kick in the rugby league armoury can still be and would be used,and do exactly what we are doing now,the only difference an extra attacking reward is given to both sides by option for using a running attack if they choose to do it. They dont have to.The decision would be based on territory,the ability of the backs,the ability of the defence,the class of the halves,and the tactics of the coach.
I honestly cant see that being predictable.Example the attack in the defenders(who are leading by 4 points) qtr,the 6th tackle is signalled,what happens invariably a bomb,sometimes a run,however with 3 running tackles extra without a kick who knows it would add to the tension and excitement and the unpredictality.
I do like to see a judicious kick being take in the air by an attacker to score a try,but not repeatedly,as most of the time the ball is either caught by the fullback a bad judged kick ,rolls over the line,or bumble and fumble its way around the ingoal until someone forces it.To me that is predictable.A sort of in goal AFL at times :twisted:

 

[taipan]

If the rule happened to be approved and was in use for an extended period of time, we could see teams begin to place less emphasis on having a good kicker.

Kicking IMO is still one of the most skillful aspects of our game, and it would be a shame to see players like Johns, Gower, Sherwin etc set aside their kicking prowess in favour of hot potato football on the 7th and 8th tackle.

Again the skills of kicking would remain in the game,why would that change? The 6 tackle rule is still operative any variety of kicking can be done in that period.
I would assume in your own half in attack you would more than likely kick up to and including the 6th for territory.If you are attacking in the defences half or qtr,you dont have to use 7th and 8th hot potato or ball in hand running attack,if you have the likes of Johns,Gower,Kimmorley,you can still use the kick or bomb or grubber,or chip,if you know the defence is extremely tight. You can use 6 tackles or 8 tackles its your decision
,that applies to both teams,on any part of the field.
I am not trying to get rid of the skills of kicking,they will remain in all their
glory,all I am trying to suggest is a reduction in the reliance of the bomb(which to a casual rugby league observer can be predictable- I get sick of the 5 tackles and a kick thrown at me) .I am trying to bring in an option for open attacking rugby league ,which i believe could make the game more exciting than what it is,and it is the best game any human has played.

 

[taipan]

Man, if they didn't kick on the 6th tackle, then the fullback would come into the line and make breaking the line even harder.

Even a grubber is not allowed with this 8 tackle rule right ?

Correct ,thats the choice open to the attack(you use it or lose it),it brings a little more of the tactical side into the game IMO.
So you have to be sure,you have some great attacking players who can use the ball with cut outs aka A Johns,great offloads SB williams,or defence splitting halves like Gower ,JKimmorley,Wing etc.
I think it also gives the opportunity for the brilliant players to shine more(and they are the ones who bring the fans through the gate),if they have on occasions 3 extra tackles in which to do their tricks.

 

[taipan]

Man, if they didn't kick on the 6th tackle, then the fullback would come into the line and make breaking the line even harder.

Even a grubber is not allowed with this 8 tackle rule right ?

Correct after the 6th tackle of course,thats the choice open to the attack(you use it or lose it),it brings a little more of the tactical side into the game IMO.you duff your kick on the 6th ,you have at least 2 extra tackles,but you cant kick on those so your team had better do something spectacular in the last 2 tackles otherewise its a handover to the defence.
So the attack has to be sure,they have some great attacking players who can use the ball with cut outs aka A Johns,great offloads SB williams,or defence splitting halves like Gower ,JKimmorley,Wing etc if they want to utilise the BTO.
I think it also gives the opportunity for the brilliant players to shine more(and they are the ones who bring the fans through the gate),if they have on occasions 3 extra tackles in which to do their tricks.

 

[taipan]

dont like the idea. you get 5 tackles where you can use any attacking option.

every ruck brings uncertainty.

thats what makes our game the greatest.

dont complicate things.

You still get 5 tackles actually 6 where you can use every attacking option in your armoury,its up to the attack.That has not changed.You can opt for an extra 2 that brings additonal uncertainty as to running moves,one on one steals,fumbled balls ,forward passes,rucks.It is more of an add on-we still have 6 tackle football(OK including kicks if need be) rather than rewritng the rule book.It is bring in just a hint of mixing the 6 tackle with a little unlimited ,and adding extra uncertainty.

You wont get an argument from me ur game is the greatest.

why is it complicated?. 2 extra tackles without kicking if you wish to do so.Every other rule in the book remains unchanged.

 

[taipan]

lemme get this straight. if you don't kick on the 6th you get two extra tackles? and if you kick and regather, what happens then?

If you kick on the 6th?-if you kick and regather and are tackled (the old rule as is applies) handover.You have chanced your arm by the chip kick (you reckon the defence is moving up too quickly),you could have regathered and scored,the defence nabbed you.Thats your choice.You could of regathered and scored your team didnt,so as you kicked on the 6th the defence now has the opportunity to attack.
Alternatively you might have thought the opposition's defence is struggling,lets take the 6,7,and 8 as a running attack,and put them to the sword.
Possession from i can figure is usally 60/40 55/45 50/50 .
A team with perhaps less possession might repeat might have a better chance by exploiting the option rule more than the team with greater possession who has more sets of 6,but has been run of its feet.

 

[taipan]

I think its a ridiculous idea, the 8th tackle would just be a whole lot of passing around for trying to keep the ball alive. It wouldn't work well at all, and I don't actually like the whole idea of it anyway.

As I said thumbs up or down fair enough.I have seen plenty of occasions when the ball is passed around to and fro on the 6th tackle ATM near the end of the game,when a team is behind.Grand finals FI.If we havent tried it how do we know if it would work well or not.
You are not obliged to use the option its there if you need it thats all.
Its not going to be introduced (huge sigh of relief).
All I want to see is less reliance on the bomb,and a bit more intitiave on the 6th tackle or earlier.If that happens I will be over the moon.

 

[taipan]

dont like it, the idea's been around for a few years. Ok teams kicks 99% of the 6th, this rule just means that on the 7th or 8th you know they wont kick so there's still predictability with it.

Agreed, he is trying to get rid of the "predictability" on the last tackle, but he is only just simply increasing the predictability factor with this new rule because on the 7th and 8th tackles there will be no kicks, simply just hit ups. This rule is also very unfair, it's already hard enough trying to defend 6 tackles while the other team is attacking on your own line, adding an extra 2 tackles would be ridiculous.

The question is how many times will they use the extra 2 tackles if they cant kick for territory.Yes there is predictability on the 7th and 8th as to no kicks,however the defence has no idea what will happen on the 6th ,will they kick,will they run and go for 3 more thats uncertainty.
The 7th and 8th tackle could have planned moves if they have a smart enough coach and decent clkassy players.
Depends where on the field there will be hitups,you are highly unlikely to do it in your own qtr,be tackled on the 8th and give the handover to the opposition giving them territorial advantage.
I would have thought repeat sets of 6 when the defence goal line is being bombed up to 4 times,and the defence has to force the ball with a line drop out would tend to stuff the defence. Twenty four tackles it happens.

 

[***MH***]

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.

 

[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,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.
It works both ways for both teams IMO.