Can dusting off an old rule breathe life into rugby league attack?

Picture this typical scenario from any NRL game.

A fullback collects a kick just in front of his own try line.

He looks up and sees a line of opposition players bearing down on him. Being so close to his own line, he has two options.

Firstly, he can attempt to take on the defenders and almost certainly be forced back for a line dropout or, secondly, he can dive at the feet of the oncoming players and, despite losing a tackle, maintain possession to complete the set.

Almost invariably, they will choose the second option. After all, surrendering an easy tackle is much better than losing possession close to your line.

This is a scene we see played out several times a game, every single game, every season. But my question is why? After all, the ‘voluntary tackle’ rule is supposed to prevent this type of play from occurring.

If you’re not familiar with the voluntary tackle rule, I don’t blame you. I honestly can’t remember the last time the rule was enforced, but it is most definitely still a rule of the game of rugby league.

For the uninitiated, the voluntary tackle is explained in the International Rules of the Game of Rugby League as:

A player in possession shall not deliberately and unnecessarily allow himself to be tackled by voluntarily falling to the ground when not held by an opponent. If a player drops on a loose ball he shall not remain on the ground waiting to be tackled if he has time to regain his feet and continue play.

In layman’s terms, if you allow yourself to be tackled without resistance, you are in breach of the rules of the game.

However, despite this rule being clearly explained in black and white, many would be forgiven for thinking it doesn’t exist at all. Even Roy Masters penned an article for the Sydney Morning Herald back in 2013 asking where the rule had gone.

I had thought about this rule on many occasions over the last few seasons, but had begun thinking about it again while watching Josh Dugan at fullback for the Dragons on Saturday night at the SCG.

Dugan is clearly not a hundred-per cent fit after returning from Origin and there were many instance during the game in which he surrendered himself to defenders to prevent being forced back over the try line, rather than put his body through the physicality of trying to take them on.

However, it was an instance during the Broncos and Tigers game on Sunday afternoon that really proved to me that the match officials have all but forgotten this rule even exists.

During a tense defensive period in which the Tigers were charging at the Broncos’ line, Anthony Milford collected a chip kick close to both the sideline and his own try line.

Faced with the possibility of conceding either a line dropout or a scrum feed to the Broncos, he flopped onto the Suncorp turf in order to surrender the tackle.

But Kevin Naiqama, the first defender on the scene, was not bearing down on him perhaps as quickly as he thought and, faced with a not-so-urgent defensive situation, he didn’t actually bother to cover Milford.

So there we were, a Broncos player laying on the ground, protecting the ball from a tackle that wasn’t coming, and a Tigers player standing over him while the referee yelled “play on, play on.”

By the time Milford realised the tackle wasn’t coming he was forced to make a move and Naiqama was able to wrap him up.

Both Ray Warren and Phil Gould were as perplexed by the incident as I was. This was a textbook case of a voluntary tackle, and yet the player was simply ordered to play on.

Now, this may seem like a bit of a pedantic rule to get hung up on, but there are a number of reasons it is so important.

Firstly, surrendering to a tackle goes against the spirit of the game. Rugby league is a tough, physical sport, so it feels disappointing and even dissatisfying to see a player refuse to take on the defenders.

But another important reason relates to one of the major criticisms of the modern game – there aren’t enough opportunities to challenge for possession.

So when a winger is treading the try line and dives onto the ground to prevent being bundled over, he is robbing the other team of a chance to gain possession.

There has also been much talk about how to make the game more unpredictable by avoiding the five hit-ups and kick style of play often employed by some of the more structured attacking sides.

Yet how often have you seen a forward gain easy metres by simply running forward and throwing himself at the feet of the defenders to gain the quick play-the-ball?

According to the 2014 NRL Laws and Interpretations, in the instance of a surrender tackle, “Defender[s] are permitted to work the player on the ground, move to a bear hug position, lay on the player in possession or spin to the front of the tackle.”

Therefore, a defender is welcome to flip the attacking player over to eliminate the possibility of a quick play-the ball, while a single defender can even steal the ball for himself, resulting in a change of possession.

However, these days, such play would almost certainly result in a penalty to the surrendering player as a “flop” or “hand on the ball.”

I think attacking sides would rather try and throw the ball around earlier in the tackle count in search of metres, rather than risk giving away a penalty or slowing their attack by surrendering if it was enforced with more rigour.

Of course, as with most rugby league rules, there is grey area. For instance, a player is allowed to dive from his own in-goal to the field of play to avoid conceding a drop out, or can dive on a loose ball on the ground.

Similarly, if a player slips, or loses their footing, they could be forgiven for allowing a tackle to be completed on them, instead of wasting energy trying to find their feet. However, referee discretion can easily be used in these situations to ensure the match is being played in the competitive spirit the game intended.

This is just an example of how enforcing an existing rule can add another level of competitiveness to the competition without needing wholesale changes.

What do you think Roarers? Is it time to crack down on surrender?