Voluntary tackle penalty

[Brycey]

I watched over the weekend that a lot of backs usually when near their goalline or sideline tend to dive to the ground just prior to getting tackled rather than trying to contest the tackle. Now I am not 100% on this rule but I think how it is now if say they dived on the ground and the opposing player did not lay a hand on them to complete the tackle and they play the ball it is regarded as a penalty. The reason for this was ti discourage diving and to encourage contesting tackles.

I know it is a fine line but players seem to be diving more to force the opposition to complete a tackle without having to actually contest the tackle, should the rule be stretched over to say players must contest tackles and if not it shall be a penalty regardless of whether the tackle is complete. I know it would be hard to referee in some instances and should only be used for obvious cases, but I think its a bit of a blight on the game that a good kick and chase down the field is not getting rewarded because players chasing back for the ball do not necessarily have to contest the tackle.

 

[Glenn]

A player just has to lay a hand on them and the tackle is complete in that case, if they go to ground then try to get up and play the ball then a penalty, however Moses was just a young boy the last time a referee gave a penalty for that.

 

[Brycey]

The last one I remember was in 99 or 98 I think against Ivan Cleary, Roosters v Norths.

It doesn't make for a good look, this game is meant to be tough, players should have to contest tackles no matter what disadvantage it gives to them.

 

[Raider_69]

Ordinarily id say if the player is laying on the ground surrendering, do a Kurt Giddley and make him feel the impact of the tackle... but apparently thats a penalty this year :?

 

[Brycey]

I dunno if that is a penalty, from the referees POV (however fked up it is), someone had laid a hand on the Raider therefore completing the tackle (because we all know a tackle is placing a hand one someone) so Gidleys was a late tackle apparently.

 

[Raider_69]

I dunno if that is a penalty, from the referees POV (however fked up it is), someone had laid a hand on the Raider therefore completing the tackle (because we all know a tackle is placing a hand one someone) so Gidleys was a late tackle apparently.

well that'd make more sense, will watch the replay today when its posted on bigpond... am hoping for the sake of the game you are correct

 

[Joe Davola]

I have no problem with a player conceding a "voluntary" tackle to avoid getting thrown into touch or pushed back in goal or diving out of the in-goal into the field of play or even conceding after a possible obstruction. Is it really such a crime ? It is not a question of toughness. It is about protecting your team's interest in retaining possession. Should wingers not be allowed to step inside away from the sideline, but rather have to take the tackle against the sideline and hope they can win the battle and not go out ?


To me, we only need the voluntary tackle penalty to counter the situation where the player may somehow be trying to gain an advantage on the next play with a quick play the ball because of the voluntary tackle. This interpretation, of course, would make the voluntary tackle penalty even rarer than it is now.


While we are at it, when a player falls on a ball on the ground and then doesn't attempt to get up and run, then the ref should call held and the tackle be completed, even if no oppposition player has laid a hand on him.

This would eliminate the ridiculous situation of a guy not wanting to get up because there is a defender or two refusing to lay a hand on him, but instead waiting to belt him as soon as he moves in attempt to force the ball loose. Nothing tough about that sort of play.

 

[mickdo]

Voluntary tackles near the sideline or goal lines (or diving on a loose ball) are just part of the game, and should be given latitude IMO. If you do it in the middle of the park that's a different story.

 

[Eels Dude]

It's in the hands of the defence. If a player dives and no one lays a hand on him then he has to get up and keep running. He's going to have no momentum and could be forced back into goal as soon as he stands up. Instead of laying a hand on him, the defence should just let him lay there and force the referee to make a decision about a voluntary tackle penalty.

 

[Inferno]

Whenever they do that though the player just starts moving forward on their hands and knees.

 

[Joe Davola]

Which is stupid. If he doesn't want to get up and run and the defence don't want to tackle him (or a lay hand on him), then the ref should call held and get on with the play the ball.

 

[Nikki]

So glad I found this thread. I have seen a few, what I consider to be, voluntary tackles this weekend. But give it a few week. The NRL bosses will decide to have a blitz on them and every little indiscrestion will be penalised then forgotten about for another 10 years :roll:

 

[Danish]

I think the rules actually allow for a player to commit a voluntary tackle when coming out of his ingoal i.e you are allowed to go to ground to stop yourself being pushing into the in goal. and you are allowed to simply dive for the goal line to get back into the field of play.

Where I get the sh*ts, however, is when small wingers do it 10m out from their goal line just so they dont get smashed by the 2-3 men charging at them. Players like Merritt and Bowen do this all the time, and it sh*ts me to no end. Referees even call for them to play on instead of penalising, its weak as piss.

This move backfired on bowen a couple years ago however when Finch simply scooped him up and carried him into the in goal. Just desserts IMO.

 

[Marshall_magic]

Ordinarily id say if the player is laying on the ground surrendering, do a Kurt Giddley and make him feel the impact of the tackle... but apparently thats a penalty this year :?

that call was ridiculous, Des La Heras told him "just put a hand on him"

 

[parra-matters]

Luke Patten should have been pinged twice for it yesterday.
But unless they just lay there and no defenders touch them then the refs won't blow it up.