Rumours and Stuff

[Noise]

As excited as I get about a seven tackle set, I think that rule needs to be altered. Why not just change it so that it doesn't apply for any kicks inside the 20?

It would encourage even more bombs as you won’t give a shit if the fullback catches it on the full.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

It would encourage even more bombs as you won’t give a shit if the fullback catches it on the full.

Would it though, or more grubbers? And would that be worse than what we have now? In any case, you can keep it for any ball caught on the full but scrap it for grubbers. Here's what beesting head had to say about it:

Rugby league figure Gus Gould has labelled it as one of the ''most stupid of rules''.


''They introduced the rule to combat the occasional negative tactic from a long-range kick. In doing so they included absolutely every infringement the attacking team can make in the opposition in-goal area, or forcing the ball dead in-goal through a kick from any distance,'' Gould wrote on Wide World Of Sports.

''The little grubber kick from 5m out that rolls an inch or two, to far. A team who misses a field-goal attempt and the ball goes dead in-goal. A kick that is caught on the full in the goal area, even if the kick only travels two metres! A player knocking the ball on, in the attempt to ground the ball for a try.

''Why do any of these infringements warrant a 20m penalty and the seven-tackle set to your opposition?

Sauce: https://www.nospam47.com/au/league/...es-penrith-panthers/gp5l2qolc2eo1lm81ji1mprjg

That's probably nospam but here's another one
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...n/news-story/cf95d210da1de9eefd520d6f84ca5c69

 

[Bazal]

I still don't really like the seven tackle set rule because it does lead to more negative kicks.

Not sure how you could tweak it though. Definitely, 100% should never be a seven tackle set after a drop goal attempt

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

I still don't really like the seven tackle set rule because it does lead to more negative kicks.

Not sure how you could tweak it though. Definitely, 100% should never be a seven tackle set after a drop goal attempt

That is the worst of the lot. Wholesale changes don't need to be made but if you change a rule and you get an unintended consequence, as we have, then you don't have to stick with it.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Quick play-the-balls lead to plenty of expansive play.

The problem is there is no longer any expansive play without a quick play-the-ball.

 

[T.S Quint]

The problem is there is no longer any expansive play without a quick play-the-ball.

Well there are plenty of quick play-the-balls in each match, so there's still lots of opportunities.
I don't think shortening the 10 is going to make it easier to have expansive play. The defence is already up and in their face as it is now with quick line speeds. Union has the defence at the advantage line and they aren't exactly more expansive that League. They just need to kick more often to gain any ground.

 

[T.S Quint]

As excited as I get about a seven tackle set, I think that rule needs to be altered. Why not just change it so that it doesn't apply for any kicks inside the 20?

The seven tackle set was never a good idea to begin with. I'd be happy if they were to scrap it altogether.

 

[Noise]

Not sure how you could tweak it though. Definitely, 100% should never be a seven tackle set after a drop goal attempt

Agree, though some sneaky f**k would start doing short drop kick bombs (like union kickoffs) into the in goal and claim it was a field goal attempt to avoid the 7 tackle set. And then every merkin would start doing it.

 

[T.S Quint]

It would encourage even more bombs as you won’t give a shit if the fullback catches it on the full.

Really?
You are still giving over possession, a full set of six and a free 20m with the old rule. I can't imagine players would 'not give a shit' if they put in a shit kick and gave that up.

 

[T.S Quint]

I still don't really like the seven tackle set rule because it does lead to more negative kicks.

Not sure how you could tweak it though. Definitely, 100% should never be a seven tackle set after a drop goal attempt

Or a player diving and reaching out to attempt to ground the ball for a try but he just misses it.
Or any situation, really.
Was the 'epidemic' of players kicking it dead on purpose really so bad that they had to massively change the way the game is played to stop it?

 

[Noise]

Really?
You are still giving over possession, a full set of six and a free 20m with the old rule. I can't imagine players would 'not give a shit' if they put in a shit kick and gave that up.

They didn't give a shit with that consequence. The attacking team were doing it on purpose. Which is why they brought in the 7 tackle rule.

 

[Noise]

Or a player diving and reaching out to attempt to ground the ball for a try but he just misses it.

That's the one I reckon they should change - knock on by attacking team in the in goal shouldn't be a 7 tackle set.

 

[Incorrect]

For all intents and purposes, if you're shooting for a field goal, you're likely trying to ice a win, or stay in the contest and force extra time.... You shouldn't get penalised 20 metres and an additional tackle for that. Same as reaching out trying to score a try and dropping it over the line... There shouldn't be such a high price to pay for playing positive footy.

 

[T.S Quint]

They didn't give a shit with that consequence. The attacking team were doing it on purpose. Which is why they brought in the 7 tackle rule.

You mentioned bombs.
Those ones done on purpose were long kicks from a team's own half trying to negate the kick return.

And maybe I'm remembering it wrong but I only really seem to recall it being used mostly by Jamie Soward, who began doing it to stop Jarryd Hayne from running straight through them.

 

[T-Boon]

All this stemmed from my Brock Lamb post.

 

[eel01s]

100% agree with Gus Gould on this. 7 tackle sets for anything other than a kick going dead from greater than 30m out should be removed from the rules asap.

 

[Noise]

You mentioned bombs.
Those ones done on purpose were long kicks from a team's own half trying to negate the kick return.

Yea because I think teams would actually bomb more. Bomb to the corner, send 2 attacking chasers, the rest of the team has a chance to get in a set defensive line by the time the ball gets to the middles of the 20m line. It becomes a low risk high reward play for the kicking team - they either score or defense catches it on the full and they get to make a set defensive line for the turnover.

I would rather teams be rewarded for high risk or at least enterprising play and IMO bombs aren't that.

And maybe I'm remembering it wrong but I only really seem to recall it being used mostly by Jamie Soward, who began doing it to stop Jarryd Hayne from running straight through them.

It was happening to Hayne, Slater and Ben Barber who were probably the best kick returners in the game.

 

[Happy MEel]

I remember we employed the tactic one year against Manly. Hayne booted the shit out of the ball numerous times which resulted in a 20m restart with a set defensive line.

 

[Noise]

I remember we employed the tactic one year against Manly. Hayne booted the shit out of the ball which resulted in a 20m restart with a set defensive line.

Yep at Brooky with Brett STewart at the back . Pretty sure we still lost haha

 

[Happy MEel]

Yep at Brooky with Brett STewart at the back . Pretty sure we still lost haha

It was during the big face era so it’s highly likely.