So ....the new cannonball tackle rule

[innsaneink]

Dogs 2nd try, Thaiday penalised for tackling a Bulldogs players with forward momentum that two other Broncos are struggling to contain (not held upright & stationary as in most cannonball tackle situations)....Thaidays tackle, from behind and around the legs....would be classed as a classic tackle one on one, even with two upstairs struggling, it showed how effective legs tackles are at stopping players...not effective in reducing quick play the balls though....this is now classed as a cannonball tackle....penalty, ensuing set Williams scores.

What is Thaidays other options??

Grab him by the shorts, the collar, ankle tap him??

Well done NRL on f**king the game further...

 

[eozsmiles]

Nobody wants to see anybody get hurt, but the cannonball rule gives big men an advantage, which in turn hurts little men. But it's not a charity, them's the breaks.

 

[BranVan3000]

Did anyone ever get injured from a cannonball?

 

[tumbidragon]

Trent Merrin against the broncs last year Rnd 22. Missed the last 4 weeks.

 

[Ausguy]

hit above the knee then down... its a non issue.

 

[innsaneink]

Lots of these new rules seem to be the NRL covering their own arse in case something bad happens in future

I can see the potential for a serious injury with the tackle in question, theoretically, but its a high impact game and the potential for serious injury is there for all manner of legal incidents throughout a game

The NRL is like parents these days wrapping their kids in cotton wool, dont eat dirt, dont run, jump - you might get hurt...FFS let em be footy players

 

[Snappy]

Whilst getting rid of grey areas is a good thing, the rule needs to be open for more interpretation. If the player is still moving forward (like the Thaiday tackle on Prichard) a tackle to wrap up the legs should be ok.

 

[Card Shark]

Lots of these new rules seem to be the NRL covering their own arse in case something bad happens in future

I can see the potential for a serious injury with the tackle in question, theoretically, but its a high impact game and the potential for serious injury is there for all manner of legal incidents throughout a game

The NRL is like parents these days wrapping their kids in cotton wool, dont eat dirt, dont run, jump - you might get hurt...FFS let em be footy players

Hits nail on head.

 

[Mortar]

Whilst getting rid of grey areas is a good thing, the rule needs to be open for more interpretation. If the player is still moving forward (like the Thaiday tackle on Prichard) a tackle to wrap up the legs should be ok.

This is it exactly. The NRL are getting ridiculous in their sanitisation of the game.

 

[Springs]

I thought this was only supposed to be for when a player dives at the legs from a bad angle with a lot of force, like Isaac Luke used to do a few years back.

 

[Parra]

What was the tackle called that outed Wing for 12 weeks in 2008? Wasn't that a cannonball? A dog tackle straight to his back while he was being held up by two other players.

 

[Rosetta]

What was the tackle called that outed Wing for 12 weeks in 2008? Wasn't that a cannonball? A dog tackle straight to his back while he was being held up by two other players.

Nah, that was the prowler.

Cannonball is diving in at exposed knees with extreme force.

Thaiday did not cannonball in, he made a good grass-cutting tackle and had no other option as the player was past him and the only thing he could reach was the lower legs and the player still had forward momentum - there was an identical penalty last night against Sam Moa for doing the same thing on George Burgess.

The rule is dumb.

 

[some11]

Stuff like this is what they're trying to get rid of:

 

[I Bleed Maroon]

Stuff like this is what they're trying to get rid of:

That is truly a disgrace. I don't care if you're the dumbest footballer playing Rugby League. Basic common sense would tell you that doing that is going to seriously injure somebody.

 

[Perth Red]

Don't mind it, eventually we will see the reversion back to the classic one up top, one down below like the old days. It shouldn't take three players to tackle someone. It is do e to slow down the play of ball. If two tacklers go high on a player they deserve to be dragged down field.

 

[POPEYE]

Problem is we have referees that have been conditioned in the same way a monkey earns a f**king banana. The great Pommy ref Richard Silverwood would I expect look at a 3 man tackle and have enough brains to determine if the bloke on the legs was 'wrapping' or 'diving'.

The difference between stopping momentum and harmful premeditation being discernible is beyond our blokes. . . the NRL should pay Silverwood to instruct our referees on how not to ruin a game

 

[umina panther]

Don't mind it, eventually we will see the reversion back to the classic one up top, one down below like the old days. It shouldn't take three players to tackle someone. It is do e to slow down the play of ball. If two tacklers go high on a player they deserve to be dragged down field.

And 100 offloads a game. You really have no idea about Rugby League

 

[Springs]

And 100 offloads a game. You really have no idea about Rugby League

It's not the offloads that's the problem with low tackles, it's the quick play-the-balls. In fact a good low tackle stops the offload most times.
I too hope it goes back to those two-man tackles. First it will mean a lot of wrestling is out of the game, and second it means that those with actual good tackling techniques will be most effective.

 

[pHyR3]

Love the rule change, a godsend from who ever is advising Dave Smith and his team.

Speeding up the play the ball YES
Less injuries YES
More exciting footy YES

if you need a 3rd man, then simply come in at the hip or thigh or shoulder or whatever. Just dont do it at the knee or below. pretty clear.

Usually you'll have 1 at the shoulder and 1 at the hips which should be enough. a 3rd can wrap up the ball/arms or bring him to ground by tackling him around the stomach/hip. But shouldnt be necessary in most situations.

 

[innsaneink]

Love the rule change, a godsend from who ever is advising Dave Smith and his team.

Speeding up the play the ball YES
Less injuries YES
More exciting footy YES

if you need a 3rd man, then simply come in at the hip or thigh or shoulder or whatever. Just dont do it at the knee or below. pretty clear.

Usually you'll have 1 at the shoulder and 1 at the hips which should be enough. a 3rd can wrap up the ball/arms or bring him to ground by tackling him around the stomach/hip. But shouldnt be necessary in most situations.

Theory- yes, its simple

Realistically - its not so black & white

Doesnt matter about 'most' situations...lets look at last nights one situation.

It was a nothing 3rd man tackle around the legs, which drew a BS penalty which in turn lead to a try and the gap in the scoreline going from 8 - 2.

No one was injured, there was nothing malicious...there was no intent other than to stop a ball runner...and it now is worth a penalty, incase something ''might happen in future' lets stamp this out!!

Penaltys now are so valuable, youre basically guaranteed an attacking play on the last if you complete your set, no matter where you recieve it.

We will be seeing lots more of this.

Its quite significant