Tackled behind the goal line.

[EagleEyePie]

Slightly diverting the topic a little, but I feel like at some point we'll see the end of drop outs anyway, so there will have to be another method of restart for being tackled in the in-goal or knocking the ball dead. Even collisions that don't result in contact with the head can contribute to concussions and drop outs are one of those situations that lead to significant impacts with carries of up to 20m directly into onrushing defenders. It's hard to work around kick offs, but drop outs can be more easily avoided. I wonder if we'll soon see scrums given for grounding the ball or knocking it dead. A tap restart would seem a bit bland.

[unapologetic pedant]

18 minutes ago, Dave T said:

So a knock on can lead to a 6 or 7 tackle set depending on how it is gathered by the opposition (or not)... 

You're demonstrating why "7-tackle set" is a misleading phrase. Concocted by the media. Doesn't appear anywhere in the rulebook where "zero tackle" is used.

In the past, when a player dived on a loose ball following an opponent's error, that was counted as tackle 1. Clearly unfair and a huge disincentive to playing on.

So for that scenario, zero tackle was introduced. 

Edit: For absolute clarity (I hope) - by "opponent's error" I mean "opponent's knock-on". 

Edited September 27, 2023 by unapologetic pedant

[Dave T]

36 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

You're demonstrating why "7-tackle set" is a misleading phrase. Concocted by the media. Doesn't appear anywhere in the rulebook where "zero tackle" is used.

In the past, when a player dived on a loose ball following an opponent's error, that was counted as tackle 1. Clearly unfair and a huge disincentive to playing on.

So for that scenario, zero tackle was introduced. 

Edit: For absolute clarity (I hope) - by "opponent's error" I mean "opponent's knock-on". 

It isn't concocted by the media in the slightest. The way zero tackle was introduced made perfect sense - it fixed a problem. The example I have given is a 7 tackle set, there is nothing misleading at all with it. 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 - that is 7 tackles and comes from a 20m tap restart. 

[Griff]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

An error is not necessarily a breach of the rules. The zero tackle is applied after a handling error to ensure that the non-offending team suffer no disadvantage if they play on. 

Resuming play with a zero tackle when the ball is kicked dead brought this rule into line with other instances where a zero tackle is called. The only difference is a controlled resumption with the mark on the 20m line. I think it's a mistake to see it as punishment for a breach. If that were the case, a penalty would be given from where the ball was kicked. Wherever the zero tackle is used, the aim is to establish the right balance of incentives and disincentives.

Indeed. An error is not necessarily against the rules. So, if we are to penalise all errors, why not the fumble backwards, or the missed tackle, or the wayward backward pass?

Why have you singled out kicking the ball dead for special treatment?

[bobbruce]

7 hours ago, Dave T said:

Genuine Q, do you get 7 tackles if yiu get a scrum from a knock on? 

In fact, do you even get a scrum nowadays? 

 

That was the idea of zero tackles to cut down on scrums. So a team could pick the ball up and be tackled before the advantage line and we could still play on because it’s zero tackle. I suppose it’s easier to ref if just all knock ons are zero tackle. We do still have scrums for knock  ons if the ref feels the ball is so far beyond the point of the knock on that the zero tackle no longer cancels it out. 

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

It isn't concocted by the media in the slightest. The way zero tackle was introduced made perfect sense - it fixed a problem. The example I have given is a 7 tackle set, there is nothing misleading at all with it. 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 - that is 7 tackles and comes from a 20m tap restart. 

Exactly the same after a knock-on is regathered by the non-offending team - 0, 1, 2, etc. But the media don't call this a "7-tackle set".

These are the relevant items from the international laws -

"The initial tackle effected on the team taking the 20 metre optional kick restart shall be a zero tackle"

"Where an accidental breach occurs (i.e. knock-on, forward pass) and possession changes hands, the following tackle will be a zero tackle, notwithstanding that the team gaining possession may have gained a territorial advantage"

Call the 20m restart a "7-tackle set" if you wish but, guided by the language in the rulebook, I'm suggesting it's more instructive to use the same term for both occasions.

Note that the two rules are further entwined when a player commits an accidental breach in the opposition in-goal. Play resumes with a zero tackle on the 20m line.

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, bobbruce said:

We do still have scrums for knock  ons if the ref feels the ball is so far beyond the point of the knock on that the zero tackle no longer cancels it out. 

And when the offending team regather the ball.

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, Griff said:

Indeed. An error is not necessarily against the rules. So, if we are to penalise all errors, why not the fumble backwards, or the missed tackle, or the wayward backward pass?

What leads you to think I want to penalize all errors?

 

2 hours ago, Griff said:

Why have you singled out kicking the ball dead for special treatment?

My argument was "kicking the ball dead can be deemed an error" i.e. I think it's a useful way of understanding some of the rationale behind the 20m zero tackle. It corresponds with other zero tackle applications.

[Dave T]

6 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Exactly the same after a knock-on is regathered by the non-offending team - 0, 1, 2, etc. But the media don't call this a "7-tackle set".

These are the relevant items from the international laws -

"The initial tackle effected on the team taking the 20 metre optional kick restart shall be a zero tackle"

"Where an accidental breach occurs (i.e. knock-on, forward pass) and possession changes hands, the following tackle will be a zero tackle, notwithstanding that the team gaining possession may have gained a territorial advantage"

Call the 20m restart a "7-tackle set" if you wish but, guided by the language in the rulebook, I'm suggesting it's more instructive to use the same term for both occasions.

Note that the two rules are further entwined when a player commits an accidental breach in the opposition in-goal. Play resumes with a zero tackle on the 20m line.

Those two things are quite different. The purpose of 1 is to keep play flowing without creating a disadvantage. So if you drop on a ball from a knock on you don't lose a tackle for no gain. 

But a 20m restart sees you get the ball 20m upfield and then given a free tackle. So in reality it's likely to be zero on the 27m. Other than being called zero tackles those two passages of play bear no resemblance to each other. 

[Dave T]

6 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

What leads you to think I want to penalize all errors?

 

My argument was "kicking the ball dead can be deemed an error" i.e. I think it's a useful way of understanding some of the rationale behind the 20m zero tackle. It corresponds with other zero tackle applications.

Doesn't catching the ball on the full in goal get you 7 tackles? Not an error. 

[Dave T]

9 hours ago, bobbruce said:

That was the idea of zero tackles to cut down on scrums. So a team could pick the ball up and be tackled before the advantage line and we could still play on because it’s zero tackle. I suppose it’s easier to ref if just all knock ons are zero tackle. We do still have scrums for knock  ons if the ref feels the ball is so far beyond the point of the knock on that the zero tackle no longer cancels it out. 

Yes. I think the knock on piece has clear logic, if you dive on the ball it is tackle 1, which is a disadvantage to putting a scrum down and making metres from that scrum. But while they have adjusted that element, they have simply flipped the disadvantage. Now you can make 10m from a knock on and it be zero, or make 10m from a scrum and it be tackle 1. I always found the RL laws in general to be logical, now I think they have tweaked without considering all impacts and we have inconsistencies. 

[yipyee]

On 27/09/2023 at 07:00, GUBRATS said:

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

If we all took that view we would still be playing by the union rules with 15 a side !!

[yipyee]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Doesn't catching the ball on the full in goal get you 7 tackles? Not an error. 

We have gone away from attacking kicks on the goal line, certainly high balls, its a power play to hand over in the corner or a small grubber designed for a repeat set

[bobbruce]

8 hours ago, Dave T said:

Yes. I think the knock on piece has clear logic, if you dive on the ball it is tackle 1, which is a disadvantage to putting a scrum down and making metres from that scrum. But while they have adjusted that element, they have simply flipped the disadvantage. Now you can make 10m from a knock on and it be zero, or make 10m from a scrum and it be tackle 1. I always found the RL laws in general to be logical, now I think they have tweaked without considering all impacts and we have inconsistencies. 

Fair points but I just think maybe it’s to make it easier to referee. 

[sam4731]

7 hours ago, yipyee said:

If we all took that view we would still be playing by the union rules with 15 a side !!

But with further rule changes, will it still look like rugby league?

[Dave T]

20 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Fair points but I just think maybe it’s to make it easier to referee. 

Aye, I can appreciate that. Tbh, the easier thing is to just have a 20m restart like we did for a long time. It was a bit of a knee jerk to a few negative tactics imo. 

I would add, with the changes, I don't think keeping it easier to referee has been a clear objective! 

[unapologetic pedant]

7 hours ago, Dave T said:

Doesn't catching the ball on the full in goal get you 7 tackles? Not an error. 

Can be deemed an error similar to the kick over the dead ball line. i.e. too much weight on the kick, enough to risk conceding a zero tackle on the 20m line.

8 hours ago, Dave T said:

The purpose of 1 is to keep play flowing without creating a disadvantage. So if you drop on a ball from a knock on you don't lose a tackle for no gain. 

But a 20m restart sees you get the ball 20m upfield and then given a free tackle. So in reality it's likely to be zero on the 27m. Other than being called zero tackles those two passages of play bear no resemblance to each other. 

A non-offending team can pick up a loose ball and go 90 metres. It's still a zero tackle. The RFL tried to further encourage teams to take full advantage of an opposition breach with the "Free Play". But it just resulted in the ball being aimlessly kicked away.

In the case where a team knocks-on in the opposition in-goal, play resumes in the same way as when the ball has been kicked dead i.e. 20m tap, zero tackle. 

If you link that process with the zero tackle after a knock-on elsewhere on the pitch, the only major difference stems from the inescapable need to move the mark away from the in-goal. In that regard, it's similar to other times where the mark is moved to the 10m line after a breach or accidental breach close to the goal-line.

BTW, one rule I'm unsure of in this area is the kick into touch on the full. Think it's a zero tackle.

8 hours ago, Dave T said:

Those two things are quite different.

The same terminology or sanction is used for different things throughout the game. How we see and judge those things is a matter of choice.

I believe the role of the zero tackle in RL is more intelligible if we use that term in all instances of its application. You obviously prefer 7-tackle set for some occasions. The media are in tune with your preference, the rulebook is in tune with mine. 

[Griff]

6 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Can be deemed an error similar to the kick over the dead ball line. i.e. too much weight on the kick, enough to risk conceding a zero tackle on the 20m line.

A non-offending team can pick up a loose ball and go 90 metres. It's still a zero tackle. The RFL tried to further encourage teams to take full advantage of an opposition breach with the "Free Play". But it just resulted in the ball being aimlessly kicked away.

In the case where a team knocks-on in the opposition in-goal, play resumes in the same way as when the ball has been kicked dead i.e. 20m tap, zero tackle. 

If you link that process with the zero tackle after a knock-on elsewhere on the pitch, the only major difference stems from the inescapable need to move the mark away from the in-goal. In that regard, it's similar to other times where the mark is moved to the 10m line after a breach or accidental breach close to the goal-line.

BTW, one rule I'm unsure of in this area is the kick into touch on the full. Think it's a zero tackle.

The same terminology or sanction is used for different things throughout the game. How we see and judge those things is a matter of choice.

I believe the role of the zero tackle in RL is more intelligible if we use that term in all instances of its application. You obviously prefer 7-tackle set for some occasions. The media are in tune with your preference, the rulebook is in tune with mine. 

Great choice of user name there.

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

Great choice of user name there.

You're not the first to say that.

And I always reply that it was chosen to get my retaliation in first.

[unapologetic pedant]

11 hours ago, Dave T said:

 I always found the RL laws in general to be logical, now I think they have tweaked without considering all impacts and we have inconsistencies. 

The purpose of the rulebook is to provide the best game possible to play and watch. Pure simplicity and consistency won't deliver that. Complexity is no cause for alarm. Rugby League is an ineluctably complex game. People only think it's simple because its history and fanbase are working-class.

I think the laws and applications in the area under discussion on this thread are the best they can be. 

On a tangential matter, I thought the obstruction call against Leigh last week was a bad one. What I took away was that the on-field benefit of the doubt stance needs addressing to ensure that such potential obstructions in try-scoring plays are sent to the VR as a try.

Mr Beaumont's interpretation was assorted renditions of "we was robbed". I'd love to see Derek's "Ultimate Rugby" in action. The rules would no doubt be basic, designed with the tastes and morals of salt-of-the-earth simple folk in mind. Then every game would throw up a series of incidents showing that "Rugby" wasn't so simple. And, like most revolutionary ideologues, Derek and his mates wouldn't know how to do the rest of the trick. Things would be tweaked and re-tweaked on a weekly basis. Thereby proving that club owners should never be allowed anywhere near the RL rulebook. 

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The purpose of the rulebook is to provide the best game possible to play and watch. Pure simplicity and consistency won't deliver that. Complexity is no cause for alarm. Rugby League is an ineluctably complex game. People only think it's simple because its history and fanbase are working-class.

I think the laws and applications in the area under discussion on this thread are the best they can be. 

 

So you think this element is optimal? 

Team A knocks on. There are two potential outcomes:

Team B gets the ball and when they are tackled that is zero and they get 7 tackles. 

Or. 

Team B doesn't recover the ball, so they get a scrum and have 6 tackles.

A scrum is contested, so in scenario 2 there is risk and one less tackle. 

[yipyee]

7 hours ago, sam4731 said:

But with further rule changes, will it still look like rugby league?

Yes.. if you watch games from as little as 5-10 years ago its a different game , somewhat faster, less wrestle, less holding down, more passing and kicking.

The games from the 80s are like watching a different sport

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, Dave T said:

So you think this element is optimal? 

Team A knocks on. There are two potential outcomes:

Team B gets the ball and when they are tackled that is zero and they get 7 tackles. 

Or. 

Team B doesn't recover the ball, so they get a scrum and have 6 tackles.

A scrum is contested, so in scenario 2 there is risk and one less tackle. 

Yes. I'm not clear what your objection is.

Bear in mind, I don't regard the first scenario as a 7-tackle set. When the zero tackle is made, I deem it to be the completion of a play where possession changed hands. The extent to which the non-offending team take advantage is immaterial to the tackle count. Only if a significant disadvantage is incurred will play be stopped and a scrum called. Officials consistently get this subjective judgement right. Which indicates the laws make sense.

The zero tackle after a knock-on wasn't just introduced to limit the number of scrums. They also wanted to encourage the non-offending team to claim and use the loose ball in broken-field counter-attack. Rather than everybody stand there, looking at the ball on the ground, waiting for the whistle.

[Griff]

I'd be ashamed to call myself a pedant if I didn't see a zero tackle as a tackle.

[sam4731]

8 hours ago, yipyee said:

Yes.. if you watch games from as little as 5-10 years ago its a different game , somewhat faster, less wrestle, less holding down, more passing and kicking.

The games from the 80s are like watching a different sport

Have a look at the rolling mauls creeping into league which are going unchallenged and it looks like we're creeping back to rugby union tackles.