5m No 2 man yes. 2 man will speed up the PTB and with the line still having to get back 10m this will open things up more.

Players might have to start shedding a few kilo to be a half yard quicker. this leads to smaller collisions and less injuries.

5m means line set quicker and fewer gaps AKA Union. Now wouldn't that be really great to watch?

We could outlaw tackling completely and play 7 a side tag instead. Now that would really open things up. The Roby's and Burrow's of this world would be absolutely scootscootastic under such conditions.

Just make it a red card (on TV games the VR can tell the ref he's spotted one) and an automatic 5 match ban for chicken wings, grapples and cannon balls etc...that will stop the wrestling because as soon as a coach realises he's down a few players he will soon be coaching it out of them.

going beyond what you have just said, any other reasons for favouring a shorter retreat? the requirement for better running lines, structure and passing im assuming?

Or to cover for poor defence and limit the worth of the forward winning the collision maybe?

its all just a none starter really 5m's retreating distance you would seriously get no where in attack with tackles, does anybody know what skills forwards have lost since the rule change?

two man tackle well it would be fraustrating at first but peoples defence one on one would certainly get better after time and weaklinks would get found out. people like tony williams, hock, thiady, westwood would become the key players and be gold dust to teams. but i dont think the rule change should happen. more to the point just call the tackle held and penalise teams for holding them up and dropping them when held is called its all a slow down the ruck technique that all teams use.

funny buderus mentions all this because he has looked ordinary since going back to the nrl because he cant scoot and steal cheap yards because ruck defence is alot tighter over their the only player i have seen do this is isaac luke. pet hate of mine is stevo constantly rim licking any hooker who scoots and makes ten meters its just very boring and you cant get away with it at international level.

A 5m rule would open up the gap between the top and bottom teams even more IMO and it would put too much emphasis on a good kicking game. I like what we have now.

A 5m rule would make it incredibly boring. It would be a defense-athon. You would barely have time to pass the ball from dummy half before the entire line stomped all over the team in possession.

I like the idea of a 2 man limit in tackles, I think that could work.

But the wrestle and most of the nasty, malicious tactics in the tackle seemed to have left Super League at the same time Maguire did. Massive coincidence that one.

There's some sense in his view on tackling but as usual, a new rule is not required; a zero tolerance enforcement of rules that already exist would be fine. It's clear to everyone watching the game that Aussie coaches are constantly devising new ways to slow down the ruck and piling bodies into the tackle is just one of them; no need to limit the number per se, just penalise the last man in if he joins after the tackle is complete (flop) and penalise the defending team if they don't get up fast enough, regardless of how many made the tackle.

I note from this weekend's NRL games that ref's appear to have stopped calling every stage of the tackle; good - it gives players licence to hold on until the call is made, resulting in the daft spectacle of a player clearly holding down, looking at the ref and waiting for the call to 'move!' I hope they do the same here too - put the onus back on the defender(s) to get off when the ref calls held - if they don't, penalise them.

As for the 5m thing - I think that's a non-starter; it would kill off dummy half play and limit attacking options too much.

Indeed, that's exactly what I'm getting at. There's a limit to the amount of orgasmic stimulation derived from the 10 metre rule, the speed of the PTB, the acres of space in which a forward gets to run the ball in before entering into the crash-ball collision, the mind-numbing tedium of dummy half/first receiver scoots into acres of wide open space against the enforced constant retreating of defences, the abundance of soft tries scored in the quest for quantity over quality, because quantity means more entertainment, right?



Somewhere along the line the game has lost the plot along with a shed load of skill sets to boot. Who needs to develop the guile and skills in the art of slick, deft, passing in order to unlock robust defences when the current rules encourage easy metres and rapid scoot/pass quick PTB movement up field in wide open spaces against constantly retreating defences? Who needs to develop a shrewd and accurate kicking game (another skill set which has disappeared) when it's so easy to make ground otherwise? That's another reason why we get nailed at international level by the Aussies because we've no kicking game and when we're confronted with their fitter, sterner, in-your-face defences, we find ourselves kicking under pressure from within our own half right down the throat of their fullback who returns it with interest. There's no plan B - no alternative skill sets to fall back on because they were rendered obsolete by the poorly thought-out, knee-jerk rule changes in the 90's. The Aussies have only managed to retain certain skill sets (particularly among the half backs) which we've flushed down the toilet because their defences are better organised and harder to crack than over here.

I often don't recognise the game today as rugby league - call it super league lite, crash-ball scoot league or whatever, but it's tedious and something needs to change sooner rather than later. The game can return to being recognisable as a form of rugby league as a real physical contest by kicking the 10 metre rule into touch where it belongs. And that's just for starters.

i hope not, I know that AP has posted previously about the the relative lack of skill required to scoot successfully and therefore get on top of the opposing team. im hoping that his preference for a shortening of the retreat is based on skilll maximisation as opposed to (lack of) skill minimisation ie better attack rather than poor defence.