The seven-tackle restart rule must be reconsidered, or perhaps even abolished if there are too many grey areas.
I understand this rule was implemented to discourage the ball being kicked dead deliberately so that a team may avoid a potential scintillating kick return (which is one of the most exciting aspects of rugby league) as well as allowing a team to get their defensive line in order.
With many NRL teams built around defence I get that implementing this rule may have seemed like a no-brainer at the time.
To be totally honest I don’t even remember thinking it was such a big problem in the first place. I don’t always watch as much NRL as I would like, but I only seem to remember Jamie Soward purposefully kicking the ball dead on two occasions in the same match.
As much as it pains me I still recall that amazing try Nathan Gardner scored against the Roosters from a kick return, and who could forget the Josh Morris try against the Storm set up by Ben Barba’s tremendous run.
There are quite a few others as well which I can’t remember off the top of my head, but these occurred prior to the seven-tackle restart rule being applied.
My issue with this rule is the disadvantage given to the team who was just on the attack. It seems unfair that an attacking team, which may end up knocking the ball dead from a mid-air contest or fails to regather a grubber by mere centimetres, has to defend against a seven-tackle set.
Even in instances when a well weighted kick by a team attempting to gain good field position and the ball barely goes over the dead-ball line does it not seem right, let alone during a field goal attempt.
I do my best not to criticise without offering any resolutions, so here goes. If a team kicks inside the opposition twenty and the ball goes dead then the next set is for six tackles. Same when a field goal is attempted.
Ideally, even when a team is trying to improve field position, should the ball go dead it should again be a six-tackle set, but I understand trying to discern whether it is a genuine attempt or kicked dead purposefully is near impossible and would only add pressure on the referees when they are under enough as it is.
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
I like the sound of that.
Wolly
Roar Guru
Point taken with the increase of ball running on the last, that is definitely a positive that has come from this rule being implemented. Other than that and it's original purpose though I can't think of any other benefits. It's not like it wasn't possible previously for a team to get within field goal range with a six tackle restart though, it just took a good set of hard running or a nice line break. Now it is almost a given that a team can get within range with the extra tackle.
Jamieson Murphy
Roar Guru
Kicking the ball dead was becoming a plague on the league, just like the wrestling tacklers. Bennett was the first to use it against Billy Slater and others soon caught on. I think it is a good rule to encourage attacking play, rather than the grind the opponent down tactics we often see from teams such as Melbourne Storm.
Jeremy
Guest
That would make sense Jay C except the NRL are dopes as by keeping the 7 tackle rule means that after a missed field goal by one team the other team will almost for certain end their 7 tackle set by taking a field goal attempt!
Jay C
Roar Guru
I am happy for it to remain for a missed field goal. It should deter players from taking them willy nilly. It is all about risk/reward. They should just get rid of field goals altogether. Does anybody watch footy for the field goals? Go watch AFL.
Jeremy
Guest
There's no doubt that when added this rule no one at the NRL saw what would happen after a missed field goal attempt went dead. Now we get 7 tackle field goal shoot outs where under the old rule from a 20m tap most teams would still be out of field goal range. I'd put more faith in rule changes made by a poll on the Roar than from inside the NRL bunker.
Jeremy
Guest
Because introducing rule changes no commentators, players or fans saw as necessary makes more sense? Really?
Edward Kelly
Roar Guru
Heard during the footy last night that Gus Gould wants it changed, so he will not let up until he gets his way. Time for commentators to stick to commentary and not barrow pushing.
Jason Hosken
Roar Guru
Great rule I reckon. There are stats that show running on the last is way up on previous years - better than watching bomb lotteries. Players are full time - no excuse for dribbling the pill dead. It's why halves are on big bucks - guide the team and look after the forwards and they'll look after you. If it comes down to field goals and you give away seven tackles - so what! You missed, if the game is that close, why aren't the other mob entitled to roll up field to reply in kind.
Dutski
Guest
Right call EJ. This would work.
eagleJack
Roar Guru
It's really dumb. 7 tackles is a huge advantage to get down the other end. Particularly in a tight game or golden point. You are guaranteed to be in great field position to take a drop goal by the end of your set.
Jeremy
Guest
It was never needed & once it got into the hands of the referees before the start of last season they extended it to all 20m restarts. Everyone says the referees and coaches should have no say on what rules are adopted & that is true. But we should also add the NRL office to this too. The rules of the game belong to the all countries and the RLIF.
The Barry
Roar Guru
It started that way Nordburg but now any mistake by the attacking team in the in goal results in a 7 tackle restart.
Nordburg
Guest
Correct me if I'm wrong,but the rule is only for kicks not knock ons in goal or knocked dead -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
eagleJack
Roar Guru
From the outset I felt they should have simply implemented the rugby union rule. Kick the ball dead within the 20m, it is a 6 tackle restart at the 20m. Kick it dead from beyond the 20m and the defensive team restart with 6 tackles from where the ball was kicked. So you kick it dead from 40m out, the restart is at the 40m line. This would deter teams from purposely kicking the ball dead from a long way out. But not punish those who put in a grubber from 1m out that goes dead in-goal. I also find it frustrating that drop goal attempts are punished with 7 tackles.
The Barry
Roar Guru
My problem with the rule is that it now encompasses any error made in the in goal which wasn't the original intent. If you knock on a metre out from the line the defending team gets 6 tackles starting from 10 metres out. If the attacking team goes one metre further and knocks on in the in goal the defending team gets 7 tackles starting from the 20. It's an anomaly that doesn't make any sense.
Jay C
Roar Guru
It is working well for what it was intended to do. It makes kicks a gamble, and you need to be good enough to get it right. One area where it has worked well is we are seeing a lot more teams running it on the last play. As being held with the ball two metres out is a reasonable result. However in saying this I would make some alterations; If the ball is kicked by the attacking team and goes out in goal it is a seven tackle set. All other instances result in a 6 tackle set. Diving for the corner and just being pushed out doesn't warrant a 7 tackle set. Likewise a knock on in goal.
Nordburg
Guest
I agree.Its another rule the buffoons at the NRL implemented without any thought of consequences.The rule was brought in to stop teams deliberately kicking it dead but it was not exactly an epidemic in the game.And when it was introduced the NRL said they didn't want to see an exciting part of the game disappear like a kick return but now when teams do get 7 tackles all they do is just cart the ball up one out or quick scoots from dummy half.All the new rules introduced to the game in the last few years have been to quicken the game up but it has also meant less attacking flair because teams just get quick play the balls and their only aim is to get field position -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.