Broncos' nightmare run home

[Smokin' Joe]

What frustrates me more than any refereeing error, is the 7 Tackle set rule....

For 100 years we never had 7 tackle sets. Now a team is severely penalised, for kicking a ball dead, by not only giving up 20 metres, but 7 tackles! It swings momentum more than any refereeing decision, or any other rule and it is killing the game in my opinion.

 

[Super Freak]

What frustrates me more than any refereeing error, is the 7 Tackle set rule....

For 100 years we never had 7 tackle sets. Now a team is severely penalised, for kicking a ball dead, by not only giving up 20 metres, but 7 tackles! It swings momentum more than any refereeing decision, or any other rule and it is killing the game in my opinion.

I also don't think it's really fully achieved the effect they were hoping for as teams are just kicking it over the sideline instead to slow down play.

It's a stupid rule, and it's even more stupid in GP.

It punishes tactical kicking and we hardly see spectacular tries from kicks anymore, like the Folau tries in Origin.

 

[Kimlo]

What frustrates me more than any refereeing error, is the 7 Tackle set rule....

For 100 years we never had 7 tackle sets. Now a team is severely penalised, for kicking a ball dead, by not only giving up 20 metres, but 7 tackles! It swings momentum more than any refereeing decision, or any other rule and it is killing the game in my opinion.

Maybe it's sour-grapes because we have shit kickers, but I totally agree it's a rubbish rule. It's far, far too punishing for a mistake. Penalties are less punishing and that's for foul-play.

 

[Broncs_Fan]

The 7 tackle rule was brought into deter teams from kicking the ball dead on purpose from like 30-40 m out. That was the rationale behind it. It doesn't make sense to penalise a team for merely grubbering the ball dead when they were actually trying to keep the ball in the in goal to force a line drop out.

 

[winslow_wong]

The 7 tackle rule was brought into deter teams from kicking the ball dead on purpose from like 30-40 m out. That was the rationale behind it. It doesn't make sense to penalise a team for merely grubbering the ball dead when they were actually trying to keep the ball in the in goal to force a line drop out.

But in golden point you are essentially being penalised for missing a drop goal and it goes dead. That's a joke

 

[Morkel]

The 7 tackle rule was brought into deter teams from kicking the ball dead on purpose from like 30-40 m out. That was the rationale behind it. It doesn't make sense to penalise a team for merely grubbering the ball dead when they were actually trying to keep the ball in the in goal to force a line drop out.

Specifically, because teams were using it to blunt Slater. A well-conceived tactic and it gets barrelled because how dare anyone stop the Storm.

 

[BroncsFan]

But in golden point you are essentially being penalised for missing a drop goal and it goes dead. That's a joke

Yeah I'm not a fan of it being applicable for dropped balls in the in goal either... what does that have to do with kicking it dead

 

[Brent81]

What frustrates me more than any refereeing error, is the 7 Tackle set rule....

For 100 years we never had 7 tackle sets. Now a team is severely penalised, for kicking a ball dead, by not only giving up 20 metres, but 7 tackles! It swings momentum more than any refereeing decision, or any other rule and it is killing the game in my opinion.

Agreed. No 7 tackle sets.

Personally I like the union rule (the team gets it from where the kick happened) with a tweak (if it goes dead from within the 20 then you get in on 20 m line).

For example if a bloke hoofs it dead from 40 or 50 metres, then the other team gets it at the 40. If a kick goes dead form 10 out then its on the 20m.

That fixes the original problem and problem created by the new rule.

Personally I'd also bin the 40 - 20 rule for 4th and 5th tackle kicks. It just rewards a crap set.

 

[Dash]

I like how it has the effect of encouraging teams to run the ball on the last, rather than continuously pepper the winger with bombs and hope for a knock on. However, like @BroncsFan says, being punished for knocking on while attempting to score is ridiculous and completely against the spirit of the game.

 

[Thelmus]

anything that encourages running on the last play is for the best in my opinion. The game was always about passing through the hands. The 40-20 makes the wingers drop back, so there's that too. I just think when ever rules are brought in/changed, they should look at how a referee might be able to interpret them in a black/white way. Soccer for all its failings does this particularly well. You even know what actions might lead to a yellow or red card, and they complain when theyre not applied correctly. We in league have no idea and sometimes things that should be seriously dealt are left for after the game (foul play, high tackles, trips etc.)
The steal of the ball is another rule i hate. It can be interpreted in so many different ways by different referees in similar circumstances. It gets to the ridiculous stage now where players help their opponents hold onto it for fear of getting penalised. Other times a player will legitimately steal the ball but because a referee is forced to call on what he sees, fails to see that it occurs before a second player becomes involved. It should be the responsibility of the player holding the ball to maintain possession. Upon completion of the tackle, play the ball. Stripping should only be penalised for three players involved in the tackle or used to deliberately slow the play-the-ball down.

 

[Number6]

Agreed. No 7 tackle sets.

Personally I like the union rule (the team gets it from where the kick happened) with a tweak (if it goes dead from within the 20 then you get in on 20 m line).

For example if a bloke hoofs it dead from 40 or 50 metres, then the other team gets it at the 40. If a kick goes dead form 10 out then its on the 20m.

That fixes the original problem and problem created by the new rule.

Personally I'd also bin the 40 - 20 rule for 4th and 5th tackle kicks. It just rewards a crap set.

Like the idea but harder to market a union rule, just like how I'd much prefer a 5 point try and 1 point goal to minimise effect of goal kicking but too much like union.

Disagree with the 40-20 on late tackles suggestion. If you are having such a poor set then you should be on back foot for the kick and fullback should have position so it is a bigger achievement.

 

[Super Freak]

Personally I'd also bin the 40 - 20 rule for 4th and 5th tackle kicks. It just rewards a crap set.

And punishes a perfect kick by not gaining any advantage from it.

 

[Dash]

And punishes a perfect kick by not gaining any advantage from it.

Why does a perfect kick require a reward? You don't get a reward for a perfect pass, tackle or any other piece of play.