7 Tackle Sets

[Big Pete]

The good defensive teams are capable of applying pressure which is difficult to do when the opposition is allowed to start their sets off as comfortably as possible. I don't see the logic from 40m out deliberately kicking it dead. The opposition retreats 10m, the fullback bullets the pass back and the attacking team has had what? 10 seconds to recover?

Just seems overly cynical when if you want to play defensive the better option would be to give them the ball 5m out from a corner, or the old Locky kick-chase play for his centre/wingers.

 

[Dexter]

It's not so much the seven tackle set as much as it's the free 20m and set start in the middle of the field. Ideally you get a good kick-chase going, trap them in a corner and belt the winger on the next tackle to effectively win the set.

The only time I could see it being permissible is when a team is trapped inside their own 30m and they just need to kick the ball as far as possible.

Yes to this.

When teams give a set restart on the first it's for the purpose of setting their line so they can sprint forward winning the ruck and making it damn hard for the attacking side to get rolling.

When the 7 tackle sets are started from the 20 the attacking team often get that restart with a winger flying onto the ball with the D barely reset and they do manage to get a roll more often than not.
So I agree, in certain situations from a distance when you can turn the defensive team around and get set on the 20 then 7 tackle sets are defendable but from reasonably close range it would be a disadvantage.

 

[Broncapz]

This is probably absolutely the right move to make when we're struggling to make it out of our own half.

Throw it to Isaako with permission to belt it straight down the field as hard as he can.

Yes, we have to deal with a 7 tackle set...but chances are we'll be starting the whole set on the back foot anyway and give away a set reset midway meaning a 9 tackle set.

Pass this on to Kevie.

 

[Huge]

What is with all the fucking question marks and exclamation points? Settle down son.

It's a decent strategy for a team that doesn't let opposition make 60+ metres per set.

Okay, fair enough. You might just interpret it as me being passionate about an idea. The English language has such tools to enable us to put emphasis on what we believe is important when writing. For me it's taking the place of the way we put emphasis or weight on words when we speak. I'll take the criticism as I hope you intended but it's difficult to write down and convey nuance without them.

 

[holdzy]

Okay, fair enough. You might just interpret it as me being passionate about an idea. The English language has such tools to enable us to put emphasis on what we believe is important when writing. For me it's taking the place of the way we put emphasis or weight on words when we speak. I'll take the criticism as I hope you intended but it's difficult to write down and convey nuance without them.

Yes 'nuance' was what you were going for.

Just comes across at petty to be honest.

You have a good idea, and it should be discussed with civility. It has flaws, address them with civility.

 

[Huge]

The good defensive teams are capable of applying pressure which is difficult to do when the opposition is allowed to start their sets off as comfortably as possible. I don't see the logic from 40m out deliberately kicking it dead. The opposition retreats 10m, the fullback bullets the pass back and the attacking team has had what? 10 seconds to recover?

Just seems overly cynical when if you want to play defensive the better option would be to give them the ball 5m out from a corner, or the old Locky kick-chase play for his centre/wingers.

Don't get me wrong here. All I'm saying is yes, kick for the corner, kick for ingoal but it's time to stop acting as though a seven tackle restart is such a big deal. It stopped being important to avoid as soon as six again was introduced and we regularly see teams defending 9 and 10 tackle sets from 20 out from their own goal line. We need to stop ragging on guys who've tried to stop it ingoal and it's gone over the dead ball line. I believe there's plenty of merit in a reset especially when you've finally got the ball back after defending for long periods. We get a breather while we wait for the offensive team to get onside and we have a set defence when they do.

 

[Huge]

Yes 'nuance' was what you were going for.

Just comes across at petty to be honest.

You have a good idea, and it should be discussed with civility. It has flaws, address them with civility.

No, I don't agree I wasn't being civil. That's what you infer but not my intention. If there's another way to insert nuance please let me know. Exclamation points and question marks were introduced just for this purpose. Sorry if your feelings are hurt by them but I wasn't trying to be nasty. In fact I've tried to be as civil as I'm capable of.

 

[Huge]

Yes to this.

When teams give a set restart on the first it's for the purpose of setting their line so they can sprint forward winning the ruck and making it damn hard for the attacking side to get rolling.

When the 7 tackle sets are started from the 20 the attacking team often get that restart with a winger flying onto the ball with the D barely reset and they do manage to get a roll more often than not.
So I agree, in certain situations from a distance when you can turn the defensive team around and get set on the 20 then 7 tackle sets are defendable but from reasonably close range it would be a disadvantage.

I agree and don't advocate kicking it dead when you're full on in attack. In that scenario the whole opposition is already onside. No, it's more for when they are all past their 20 metre line and we can force them back into their 20. Quite often we bomb or kick only to see it fielded on the full and old mates coming hard against an uneven defence and generally already over the 20 metre line. Again, I just think we need to give up putting shit on someone who has kicked it dead. It's not a big issue OR a bad result. It's just the lesser of two good results.

 

[holdzy]

No, I don't agree I wasn't being civil. That's what you infer but not my intention. If there's another way to insert nuance please let me know. Exclamation points and question marks were introduced just for this purpose. Sorry if your feelings are hurt by them but I wasn't trying to be nasty. In fact I've tried to be as civil as I'm capable of.

Didn't hurt my feelings, but you look like an idiot going:

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's all.

Otherwise, your strategy suggestion probably benefits the top teams.

Slowing down occasionally in the ruck certainly would benefit us. We are constantly trying to keep up with the speed of the game to our detriment.

 

[Big Pete]

Don't get me wrong here. All I'm saying is yes, kick for the corner, kick for ingoal but it's time to stop acting as though a seven tackle restart is such a big deal. It stopped being important to avoid as soon as six again was introduced and we regularly see teams defending 9 and 10 tackle sets from 20 out from their own goal line. We need to stop ragging on guys who've tried to stop it ingoal and it's gone over the dead ball line. I believe there's plenty of merit in a reset especially when you've finally got the ball back after defending for long periods. We get a breather while we wait for the offensive team to get onside and we have a set defence when they do.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Giving the opposition a free 20m and ideal positioning is different to conceding one on your line where you take the penalty but stop a potential try. It's also a lot easier to restore your line since you don't have to retreat as far as the set goes on. Similarly teams are willing to burn a tackle as long as they 'win' the ruck on play one.

I think the only thing that has made it slightly more viable is that they've gotten rid of scrums from kicking it into touch.

 

[Mr Fourex]

When the 7 tackle sets are started from the 20 the attacking team often get that restart with a winger flying onto the ball with the D barely reset and they do manage to get a roll more often than not.

Yes...
this is why I'm unsure of your plan Huge, because more often than not....the defence is not set. The kicker could kick the ball into the grandstand and still some smarmy fucken ball boy will be there to pass to the attacking team's winger, who's flat chat on his way to the 20m line for the quick restart.

Control that happening.....? Dunno, maybe the "spare" balls have to come from placement on the halfway....then make their way down the field. (?)

It certainly has merit, starting your defence line, set ...middle of the field.....ready to defend against a 20m tap start.

Weird how fans are trying to slow down the game yet fuckhead NRL management continually are hell bent on speeding it up.

 

[Kimlo]

They're all good points. I totally acknowledge new things need practice.

First of all I'd sit the gang down in the video room and show them footage from multiple matches of the kick and first possession trapped deep in one's own territory. I'd show t least 20 of them. The dummy half making 3 metres or the pass to the only guy there. I'd then impress on my back three that I want them to take their sweet motherfucking time getting up, looking round checking there's a dummy half in possession, stretching a knee or hammy, anything they like just so it's as slow as ****.

Remember here, I'm only talking to my back three. It's usually the wingers but still, just the back three. My captain though or dominant half would get a simple instruction, get the guys onside. The amount of dawdling that players do in our team is staggering but what few people know(or even observe) is that Craig Bellamy doesn't tolerate it. If his team is in that situation he expects guys sprinting to get onside, this being put onside and dawdling back thing is a sin.

So, we only need the back three to know to slow the **** down and our on field general to scream at his troops to get onside and provide options. The defence is already set and there's nothing we can do about it so if we take our time we lose absolutely NOTHING but we gain a breather, provide options, have greater and more precise control and the right guys, forwards, are the ones getting smashed by giant forwards and not our centres and fullback.

I don't see this particular situation as being difficult to implement no matter how dumb you may think our guys are. In fact, I believe it's rather simple with multiple benefits and no downside.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the theory of the idea, it's just the execution is easier said than done. It's one of the reasons Melbourne were on top for so long, because Smith is an absolute master at controlling tempo.

But do you honestly believe Isaako has the brains to know when and where to take up this strategy? Mead? Coates? Mead might have the smarts, I don't know, but Coates and Isaako strike me as being pretty bloody dumb footy players, they're purely athletes.

Dearden is flat out catching a ball ATM, he's too raw to think about any of this stuff.

I think the only viable strat this year is WB style Bennett Ball.

If we sign Reynolds, Dufty, Gagai, Capewell, etc. You start to have the brains in the team that can actually implement strategies.

What you're saying is a really simple idea, and I actually agree that it can have specific use cases, but once again, (yes I'm repeating myself), Walters wanted Milford and Croft to target a specific player in defence and they didn't do it once. This team is absolutely devoid of brains.

Seibold learned this the hard way, the only way this team learns footy smarts is by overhauling the roster.

 

[Mr Fourex]

I don't think there's anything wrong with the theory of the idea, it's just the execution is easier said than done. It's one of the reasons Melbourne were on top for so long, because Smith is an absolute master at controlling tempo.

But do you honestly believe Isaako has the brains to know when and where to take up this strategy? Mead? Coates? Mead might have the smarts, I don't know, but Coates and Isaako strike me as being pretty bloody dumb footy players, they're purely athletes.

Dearden is flat out catching a ball ATM, he's too raw to think about any of this stuff.

I think the only viable strat this year is WB style Bennett Ball.

If we sign Reynolds, Dufty, Gagai, Capewell, etc. You start to have the brains in the team that can actually implement strategies.

What you're saying is a really simple idea, and I actually agree that it can have specific use cases, but once again, (yes I'm repeating myself), Walters wanted Milford and Croft to target a specific player in defence and they didn't do it once. This team is absolutely devoid of brains.

Seibold learned this the hard way, the only way this team learns footy smarts is by overhauling the roster.

Whats going on with the Brisbane system then....why are we breeding footballers with no football brains?

You're 100% right btw........we are a dumb team.......a rudderless ship.....a complete fucken basket case. Whats even worse, there's appears to be no light at the end of the tunnel within the current squad.

It can't be the QLD system......there's plenty of smart footballers running round who came up through the QRL. Its seems isolated to us.

Overhauling the roster....yeah probably, but overhauling the entire Brisbane Broncos system would be a better start.

 

[Huge]

Yes...
this is why I'm unsure of your plan Huge, because more often than not....the defence is not set. The kicker could kick the ball into the grandstand and still some smarmy fucken ball boy will be there to pass to the attacking team's winger, who's flat chat on his way to the 20m line for the quick restart.

Control that happening.....? Dunno, maybe the "spare" balls have to come from placement on the halfway....then make their way down the field. (?)

It certainly has merit, starting your defence line, set ...middle of the field.....ready to defend against a 20m tap start.

Weird how fans are trying to slow down the game yet fuckhead NRL management continually are hell bent on speeding it up.

Mmmm, really? O.k., the ball boy throws the ball to this winger you speak of. How exactly does he start tearing up field when half his team is still outside the 20? It doesn't happen. Yes, if you kick it dead when both teams are already in that 20, sure, that's no good but I'm not talking about that am I? I addressed exactly this earlier, you wouldn't want it going dead then but I'm talking about when the opposition fullback is upfield over the 30 or 40 his end. If you kick long straight and hard while hopefully pulling up ingoal every single defensive player is upfield our end. They all have to get back onside however, we, now the defence, are already on side and only have to make it to the 30 metre line. Can you not see I'm not talking about when we are in their territory? I'm thinking when we are on our 40 and up to halfway. Just kicking the fucking dead and reset. There's no downside.

 

[Foordy]

I see why the 7 tackle set was brought in and the rule itself does have some merit. I.e. to stop teams kicking the ball dead from outside the 40m to take players like Slater out of the game.

the problem I have is this is a one size fits all rule, and it shouldn't be ... if there is a genuine attacking kick, like a bomb that goes a fraction too deep, or a grubber that takes one bounce too many, it should NOT be a a 7 tackle set.

my adjustment to the rule would be that if the ball is kicked inside the 20m (maybe 30m) zone then it is just a regular 6 tackle set

 

[Huge]

I see why the 7 tackle set was brought in and the rule itself does have some merit. I.e. to stop teams kicking the ball dead from outside the 40m to take players like Slater out of the game.

the problem I have is this is a one size fits all rule, and it shouldn't be ... if there is a genuine attacking kick, like a bomb that goes a fraction too deep, or a grubber that takes one bounce too many, it should NOT be a a 7 tackle set.

my adjustment to the rule would be that if the ball is kicked inside the 20m (maybe 30m) zone then it is just a regular 6 tackle set

Sure, I can see some merit in this suggestion. You touched on an interesting point. As you say the rule was brought in to stop teams taking out players like Slater, Paps, Teddy etc however the 'penalty' of a 7 tackle set has been watered down by 8/9/10/11/12/13 tackle sets which are now, common as muck. That's why I say two things, we stop caring about the ball going dead and blaming our players and secondly we can use it to our advantage WHEN we are on our 40 and beyond to their 40.

The idea to me that Milford hoist a bomb most of the time seemed stupid. If my guy can drop punt it down the guts and we chase it will quite often settle short of dead and like I've said repeatedly, if it goes dead, no biggie. We are set defensively, we get a break and we take control. We take offside and crappy six again calls out of the refs hands. In truth, we only need 6 guys to even make the defensive line solid as the tap must be taken in the middle. However, there's no way we won't be set because every defender had to turn and run to get behind the 20. Win win.

 

[broncsgoat]

Sure, I can see some merit in this suggestion. You touched on an interesting point. As you say the rule was brought in to stop teams taking out players like Slater, Paps, Teddy etc however the 'penalty' of a 7 tackle set has been watered down by 8/9/10/11/12/13 tackle sets which are now, common as muck. That's why I say two things, we stop caring about the ball going dead and blaming our players and secondly we can use it to our advantage WHEN we are on our 40 and beyond to their 40.

The idea to me that Milford hoist a bomb most of the time seemed stupid. If my guy can drop punt it down the guts and we chase it will quite often settle short of dead and like I've said repeatedly, if it goes dead, no biggie. We are set defensively, we get a break and we take control. We take offside and crappy six again calls out of the refs hands. In truth, we only need 6 guys to even make the defensive line solid as the tap must be taken in the middle. However, there's no way we won't be set because every defender had to turn and run to get behind the 20. Win win.

There has always been penalties and repeat sets off the back of them. Having extended periods where you need to defend isnt some new thing that's only just come about.

 

[Huge]

There has always been penalties and repeat sets off the back of them. Having extended periods where you need to defend isnt some new thing that's only just come about.

???? Well I am not old enough to remember the unlimited tackle rule so having to defend 12 or 13 tackles on a regular basis is new to me and definitely everyone in the competition. Sure, there's been penalties but everyone gets a breather, same for repeat sets. I will concede we've had six agains in previous years too like when it's been played at after a kick or stripped and the player has regained possession so you're right, it's been around and nothing new in a sense.

Anyway, I made my case and I know some posters will look at those times when we(anyone actually) kick it dead and they'll take more notice. They'll look at where the first tackle starts from, they'll pay more attention to the kick through situation, they'll notice how many players have dawdled back onside. If anything I've tried to raise awareness and get folk thinking about how we can adapt the current rules to suit our team.