Tackled behind the goal line.

[Dave T]

12 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

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.

I agree. We have a great sport, I think we have made too many unnecessary tweaks in recent years anyway. 

This suggestion fixes literally no problem, and imho won't make things any more interesting. 

[Leyther_Matt]

10 hours 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.

Spot on. 

[Griff]

10 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. 

The game's about inches.  Have we not all seen tries disallowed because a player put his foot an inch on the touchline?

There's always a hard line between this or that.  Nearly isn't good enough.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Griff

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

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. 

But I don't see the need to encourage more short grubber kicks. Argubly its a tactic that is over used anyway. As far as I can tell there are plenty as it is and there is plenty of reward as is for an attacking team.

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, Griff said:

The game's about inches.  Have we not all seen tries disallowed because a player put his foot an inch on the touchline?

There's always a hard line between this or that.  Nearly isn't good enough.

But we don't reward, and we don't punish. For years a kick an inch too far was a 20m tap restart. I don't recall anyone ever (and I mean ever) complaining about that from an attacking kick. This came about to fix people punting it from 50 yards and getting themselves set up. SO this is an outcome of fixing another 'issue'.

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

But I don't see the need to encourage more short grubber kicks. Argubly its a tactic that is over used anyway. As far as I can tell there are plenty as it is and there is plenty of reward as is for an attacking team.

Maybe it is being a Wire fan and we've normally dropped the ball before the 5th  but I don't see it as a prominent tactic nowadays. We see mainly lofted kicks to the corner on the 5th now, which funnily enough there is a vocal population who don't like that and have asked for rule changes.

[DavidM]

10 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. 

Good point . This rule was brought in to stop negative play . St George famously were booting it dead to stop Billy Slater running it back in a game . But a short grubber is a skill and it’s not always easy to get right . Also how many times have you heard a commentator say ‘ great kick … ooh it’s rolled on , unlucky ‘ . I don’t like seeing players just taking a tackle on last play , that’s pretty negative in itself really . Also missed drop goals lead to 7 tackle sets which could decide a game at the other end . I’d get rid of the 7 tackle set , it was an answer to a problem that wasn’t really much of a problem 

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, DavidM said:

Good point . This rule was brought in to stop negative play . St George famously were booting it dead to stop Billy Slater running it back in a game . But a short grubber is a skill and it’s not always easy to get right . Also how many times have you heard a commentator say ‘ great kick … ooh it’s rolled on , unlucky ‘ . I don’t like seeing players just taking a tackle on last play , that’s pretty negative in itself really . Also missed drop goals lead to 7 tackle sets which could decide a game at the other end . I’d get rid of the 7 tackle set , it was an answer to a problem that wasn’t really much of a problem 

Pretty much my thoughts mate. 7 tackle sets have crept in and a team starting on the 20m line with 7 tackles is a big shift imo.

[Leyther_Matt]

I’d have said the huge increase in lofted kicks to the corner is very much a consequence of seven tackle sets. 

[Click]

13 hours ago, Dave T said:

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. 

I do somewhat agree with you on this, I do like the 7 tackle rule and I do think it should stay, but I think it should only be for kicks from outside perhaps the 40m line, rather than short, attacking kicks from 10m out.

Whenever I think about this rule, I always remember a game back when we were Harlequins at the Stoop, Chad Randall controlled his kicking game by just booting it for 20m restarts almost every set from around the half way line, making the game stop while the attacking team got back behind the 20m and the defensive line got set up. It was almost the entirety of the second half's game plan - And it worked. But it wasn't the most exciting tactics to watch, even as a fan of the winning team.

[Griff]

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

But we don't reward, and we don't punish. For years a kick an inch too far was a 20m tap restart. I don't recall anyone ever (and I mean ever) complaining about that from an attacking kick. This came about to fix people punting it from 50 yards and getting themselves set up. SO this is an outcome of fixing another 'issue'.

OK - not sure we're disagreeing, though.

[unapologetic pedant]

11 hours ago, Damien said:

But I don't see the need to encourage more short grubber kicks. Argubly its a tactic that is over used anyway. As far as I can tell there are plenty as it is and there is plenty of reward as is for an attacking team.

Never understood why dropping the ball on the toe and rolling it a few metres into the in-goal is applauded. Used to assume it was a lingering value from the days of unlimited tackles or RU where you would risk giving away possession for the chance of scoring.

That stops making sense when you would hand the ball over on tackle 6. Now the short grubber is the ordinary option. Various ways you might get a repeat set. For one thing, it's hard nowadays for a defender to dive on a loose ball without the ref seeing a "little bobble".

The zero tackle gives the attacking team more to think about. A dynamic running play, with extra incentive to keep the ball alive in contact, is the most exciting last tackle option.  

Edited September 27, 2023 by unapologetic pedant
grammar

[unapologetic pedant]

5 hours ago, Griff said:

The game's about inches.  Have we not all seen tries disallowed because a player put his foot an inch on the touchline?

There's always a hard line between this or that.  Nearly isn't good enough.

Kicking the ball dead can be deemed an error. It's therefore logical to resume play with a zero tackle as is the case following any other type of error.

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Never understood why dropping the ball on the toe and rolling it a few metres into the in-goal is applauded. Used to assume it was a lingering value from the days of unlimited tackles or RU where you would risk giving away possession for the chance of scoring.

That stops making sense when you would hand the ball over on tackle 6. Now the short grubber is the ordinary option. Various ways you might get a repeat set. For one thing, it's hard nowadays for a defender to dive on a the loose ball without the ref seeing a "little bobble".

The zero tackle gives the attacking team more to think about. A dynamic running play, with extra incentive to keep the ball alive in contact, is the most exciting last tackle option.  

Its kind of one of those rules that we have become used to but somewhat seems at odd with the way the rest of the game is played. If instead of a drop out it was a 20m tap to the defending team then I don't think anyone would question it (other than the fact that they are now used to something quite different).

[Griff]

13 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Kicking the ball dead can be deemed an error. It's therefore logical to resume play with a zero tackle as is the case following any other type of error.

Fumbling the ball backwards can be deemed an error.  Is it therefore logical to resume the next set with a zero tackle?

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, unapologetic pedant said:

Kicking the ball dead can be deemed an error. It's therefore logical to resume play with a zero tackle as is the case following any other type of error.

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? 

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by Dave T

[Griff]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

 

In fact, do you even get a scrum nowadays? 

 

I've given up on this now.  I've better things to worry about.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a scrum if the ref says it is.  Or a ptb if the ref says it is.

[Dave T]

29 minutes ago, Griff said:

I've given up on this now.  I've better things to worry about.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a scrum if the ref says it is.  Or a ptb if the ref says it is.

haha, I must admit, that's how I watch the game nowadays, I used to understand every nuance in the rules, and I just don't anymore. I'll wait and see what restart happens.

[Griff]

24 minutes ago, Dave T said:

haha, I must admit, that's how I watch the game nowadays, I used to understand every nuance in the rules, and I just don't anymore. I'll wait and see what restart happens.

What about - referee gives a penalty and the game restarts with a scrum?

[Click]

5 minutes ago, Griff said:

What about - referee gives a penalty and the game restarts with a scrum?

I know in some situations teams have the option of taking the penalty as a scrum, rather than a tap. Not sure if that is just if they get a penalty from a scrum?

That is how I understand some of them, but I may be wrong!

[Griff]

Just now, Click said:

I know in some situations teams have the option of taking the penalty as a scrum, rather than a tap. Not sure if that is just if they get a penalty from a scrum?

 

It is.

[unapologetic pedant]

5 hours ago, Griff said:

Fumbling the ball backwards can be deemed an error.  Is it therefore logical to resume the next set with a zero tackle?

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.

[unapologetic pedant]

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

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

No. The ref calls play-on, zero tackle if the non-offending team regather and suffer no material disadvantage. Otherwise he calls a scrum. The play off the scrum is tackle 1. 

A curiosity I've noticed since the change from scrum to PTB after the ball crosses the touchline, is that when a player knocks on and the loose ball goes into touch, they call a PTB not a scrum. Given that the knock-on happened first I would have expected it to be a scrum. Could be down to the general aversion administrators now have to scrums.

Edited September 27, 2023 by unapologetic pedant
must have misspelt scrum as ####?

[Dave T]

17 minutes ago, unapologetic pedant said:

No. The ref calls play-on, zero tackle if the non-offending team regather and suffer no material disadvantage. Otherwise he calls a scrum. The play off the scrum is tackle 1. 

A curiosity I've noticed since the change from scrum to PTB after the ball crosses the touchline, is that when a player knocks on and the loose ball goes into touch, they call a PTB not a scrum. Given that the knock-on happened first I would have expected it to be a scrum. Could be down to the general aversion administrators now have to scrums.

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

[unapologetic pedant]

6 hours ago, Damien said:

Its kind of one of those rules that we have become used to but somewhat seems at odd with the way the rest of the game is played. If instead of a drop out it was a 20m tap to the defending team then I don't think anyone would question it (other than the fact that they are now used to something quite different).

Used to be a drop out if the ball were caught on the full in the in-goal.

I suppose the current rule rewards territorial dominance in that it's hard to trap opponents in-goal from distance. Also rewards a well-weighted kick, good chase. Or conversely, can sometimes punish poor defending.