Tackled behind the goal line.

[yipyee]

Should the rule be changed and being tackled in goal be 2 points to the opposition instead of a drop out ?

[Gerrumonside ref]

2 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Should the rule be changed and being tackled in goal be 2 points to the opposition instead of a drop out ?

Like a safety in the NFL?

[Gerrumonside ref]

It’d lead to less drama I think.

[Dave T]

Nah. I think the drop out is a good rule. However I do think the 7 tackle rule has somewhat ruined the short kick off somewhat, not sure whether that is just my perception or not. 

I'd love us to return to being a 6 tackle game. 

[sam4731]

14 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Should the rule be changed and being tackled in goal be 2 points to the opposition instead of a drop out ?

You would get so many 2 pointers and far fewer tries. Imagine the scenario... attacking team on the opponents goal line, last tackle. Do I put the ball up and fight for the ball or do I put a grubber in, leave the ball to the opposition and hoover up an easy 2 points.

The reason why it works in the NFL is that the attacking team has time to get out of the situation so it isn't that common.

In RL dropouts are conceded because of a last resort desperation in defence. The defending team just doesn't have that time to get out.

[Gerrumonside ref]

1 minute ago, sam4731 said:

You would get so many 2 pointers and far fewer tries. Imagine the scenario... attacking team on the opponents goal line, last tackle. Do I put the ball up and fight for the ball or do I put a grubber in, leave the ball to the opposition and hoover up an easy 2 points.

The reason why it works in the NFL is that the attacking team has time to get out of the situation so it isn't that common.

In RL dropouts are conceded because of a last resort desperation in defence. The defending team just doesn't have that time to get out.

Agreed.

[Dunbar]

6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

However I do think the 7 tackle rule has somewhat ruined the short kick off somewhat

Not sure what you mean by this.  How do you get 7 tackles from a short kick off, unless I am missing the obvious. 

[Dave T]

39 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Not sure what you mean by this.  How do you get 7 tackles from a short kick off, unless I am missing the obvious. 

If the ball rolls dead it's a 7 tackle set starting on the 20m line. I think that's too harsh an outcome for a short kick which may go an inch dead. 

[yipyee]

54 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

You would get so many 2 pointers and far fewer tries. Imagine the scenario... attacking team on the opponents goal line, last tackle. Do I put the ball up and fight for the ball or do I put a grubber in, leave the ball to the opposition and hoover up an easy 2 points.

The reason why it works in the NFL is that the attacking team has time to get out of the situation so it isn't that common.

In RL dropouts are conceded because of a last resort desperation in defence. The defending team just doesn't have that time to get out.

Whilst I agree slightly the game has stopped putting the ball up on the line for a contest as caught on the full is a 20m tap.

So the vast majority of completions is a grubber to force a repeat set, a grubber to turn over deep in the opposing half or run it on the 5th to the corner to turn over in the corner. Attacking kicks are now few and far between and most attacking kicks that end up in a try is a grubber to try to force the repeat set but are not fielded properly.

 

[yipyee]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If the ball rolls dead it's a 7 tackle set starting on the 20m line. I think that's too harsh an outcome for a short kick which may go an inch dead. 

Think it was to stop teams booting it downfield for position on the last tackle or quite often 4th or even 3rd to happily push the opposition back to their 20. Particularly on an out set from your own line.

[bobbruce]

1 hour ago, yipyee said:

Should the rule be changed and being tackled in goal be 2 points to the opposition instead of a drop out ?

Short answer no in general like off the back of a kick but I wouldn’t be massively against it if you took the ball into your own in goal. If say you were tackled and driven back into the in goal. 

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Think it was to stop teams booting it downfield for position on the last tackle or quite often 4th or even 3rd to happily push the opposition back to their 20. Particularly on an out set from your own line.

Yep, I think it's a case of unintended consequences tbh, it would have been easy enough to tweak the rules in a way that wouldn't stop short kicks. 

And TBH - even if a team punted it from their own half, surely a 20m restart was more than enough reward anyway.

[yipyee]

1 hour ago, Gerrumonside ref said:

It’d lead to less drama I think.

Currently a player will push it dead or ground it knowing that their kicker will clear the ball into the opposition half.

It would force players to try to get out of ingoal like they used to and would maybe see the return of bombs near the line

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Currently a player will push it dead or ground it knowing that their kicker will clear the ball into the opposition half.

It would force players to try to get out of ingoal like they used to and would maybe see the return of bombs near the line

I don't think that's what happens in the slightest. We do in fact see some real exciting attempts to get the ball back over the line as teams don't want to give the ball back for a repeat set. Putting the ball dead for a drop out is very much a last resort play. 

Most drop outs may be fielded around halfway, but often the first tackle is completed 40m out, in decent attacking position.

[Gerrumonside ref]

7 minutes ago, yipyee said:

Currently a player will push it dead or ground it knowing that their kicker will clear the ball into the opposition half.

It would force players to try to get out of ingoal like they used to and would maybe see the return of bombs near the line

Has it been trialled recently to see what might happen in reality? 

Bob makes a good point about penalising certain tactics.

Maybe as there’s a stop in play anyway that in scenarios like the one he talks about it would be optional to accept 2 points instead of receiving the kick?

You need to be careful not to discourage try attempts though.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Gerrumonside ref

[arcticchris]

1 hour ago, yipyee said:

Think it was to stop teams booting it downfield for position on the last tackle or quite often 4th or even 3rd to happily push the opposition back to their 20. Particularly on an out set from your own line.

The fix for that would be to say that you only concede a 6 tackle set instead when you kick within the opposition 20 whether it goes dead or taken on the full in goal so a true attacking intent kick is not punished.

[Sports Prophet]

4 hours ago, Dave T said:

I don't think that's what happens in the slightest. We do in fact see some real exciting attempts to get the ball back over the line as teams don't want to give the ball back for a repeat set. Putting the ball dead for a drop out is very much a last resort play. 

Most drop outs may be fielded around halfway, but often the first tackle is completed 40m out, in decent attacking position.

Yeah agreed, no player is deliberately grounding the ball unless it is to stop a try.

3 hours ago, arcticchris said:

The fix for that would be to say that you only concede a 6 tackle set instead when you kick within the opposition 20 whether it goes dead or taken on the full in goal so a true attacking intent kick is not punished.

I have heard this before but I think the referees have a tough enough job as it is without adding an even more complex element of adjudicating whether a restart is a seven tackle or six tackle set. It would simply be adding another element for which a referee could get wrong and then persecuted for.

[Damien]

7 hours ago, Dave T said:

If the ball rolls dead it's a 7 tackle set starting on the 20m line. I think that's too harsh an outcome for a short kick which may go an inch dead. 

I really don't see the big deal with this. All it does is punish a bad kick and there is far more upside if a team gets it right.

It could easily be argued that repeat set after repeat set, merely for a short kick to get a drop out, is too harsh an outcome on great defence. 

Edited September 27, 2023 by Damien

[Griff]

9 hours ago, yipyee said:

Should the rule be changed and being tackled in goal be 2 points to the opposition instead of a drop out ?

We used to count this as a "minor score". We stopped doing it about 130 years ago.

[GUBRATS]

Nothing wrong with the rules as they are , not broke , don't try to fix it 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

I really don't see the big deal with this. All it does is punish a bad kick and there is far more upside if a team gets it right.

It could easily be argued that repeat set after repeat set, merely for a short kick to get a drop out, is too harsh an outcome on great defence. 

My entirely unscientific perception on this is that short grubber kicks to the line are less prominent than before this rule. It's generally a power play or a floating kick to the winger. The dead ball areas are short, it doesn't mean it was a bad kick necessarily (although by default it could be described as that). 

But we are a 6 tackle sport, I'm not sure why we started to make sets 7 tackles. I understand on a knock on with zero as that replaces a scrum, but I don't think any other set needs to be 7 tackles. 7 from the 20m appears a very generous restart. 

[Agbrigg]

Drop out under the sticks works fine for me so why change.

[Dunbar]

9 hours ago, Dave T said:

If the ball rolls dead it's a 7 tackle set starting on the 20m line. I think that's too harsh an outcome for a short kick which may go an inch dead. 

I see.

I'm OK with it as it stands.  An effective short kick could result in a try or a repeat set via a goal line drop out or (even if slightly off) conceding a 7 tackle set.  I'm ok with that level of variability of outcome as we have less variability than ever in our game and it makes execution of such a skill a critical factor.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Dunbar

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I see.

I'm OK with it as it stands.  An effective short kick could result in a try or a repeat set via a goal line drop out or (even if slightly off) conceding a 7 tackle set.  I'm ok with that level of variability of outcome as we have less variability than ever in our game and it makes execution of such a skill a critical factor.

As I say, it is based on a non-scientific observation, but these tries have always been a bit of a favourite of mine. I used to love seeing Greg Mackey putting kicks into the corner for Mark Forster, and Briers doing the same for Faafili - but I think the risk element of them is too high nowadays. 

I think moving to 7 tackles should be to discourage certain plays, I don't think short grubbers over the line should be discouraged in the slightest, therefore, I don't see why you would get 7 tackles 20m upfield. 

[sam4731]

We're all getting distracted from the main downside to this. We do NOT need yo kero changing the rules. Any rule changes make things slightly more difficult for refs and if we want to give them a fighting chance, just let the game be.