An interesting, although I suspect tongue in cheek twitter campaign is ongoing to outlaw a third man joining a tackle. Support includes Lee Briers and Richie Mathers. Wigan and Melbourne would no doubt throw their toys out of the pram over this, so I'd vote for it purely on those grounds.

Seems a valid idea to me. There are so many instances where two players stop the momentum, then a third comes in, usually a grub, and just hammers away at a player's kidneys or knee, purely intended to damage the ball carrier and add five or six seconds to the play the ball. Melbourne in particular are being moaned about for this in the NRL.

How about they change the rules so that its a penalty to join a tackle after the initial impact has happened? Gang tackling would still be possible as if you could get three into the initial tackle you wouldn't be penalised and effort in defense is rewarded, which is fine because in that situation it isn't dangerous. They could also make it illegal to join any tackle below the waist if the player is already being held. I reckon this rule change alone would strip a good few season ending knee injuries out very quickly.

I sort of agree in principle but I don't think you can just ban a 3rd man from coming in since often a 3rd man is actually needed to complete the tackle.

What is needed is to ban the 3rd man from using excessive force in the tackle, since whether its on the knees or ribs it can cause damage and sadly that is what it is often intended to do.

While I appreciate a players safety is paramount I don't like the amount of rule changes that are having to be made due to new and advanced coaching techniques. While not agreeing a rule change or inclusion is the answer a gentlemans agreement between coaches may well be the initial step in the right direction.

If it were to continue and major injuries were being caused due to this tactic then yes but I would exhaust all other avenues before writing anything in the rule book.

Clubs like Wigan and Melbourne don't see written rules as being applicable to them, they would completely ignore any gentleman's agreements. They pioneered the chicken wing, invented the dreaded Ninja tackle and have taken gang tackling to a knee busting extreme.

the third man is often needed to drive a player into touch or to prevent the ball carrier from scoring

if the tackle is not complete and 2 men are struggling to bring down the player, and a third man is needed. That third man cant be penalised for completing the tackle.

Although i do understand why players want it to be outlawed

It is a very interesting point...I wonder how many injuries occur in this instance? The only issue I'd have is often you have a prop for example tackled by 2 backs...they continue the leg drive and ultimately continue forwards. The 3rd man is often going low to stop this and as such serves a purpose. If we banned a 3rd man entering then it would result in forwards running at backs and making more metres that way....if two backs tackle a prop they would have to go one up one down and that would open up far more offloads (which I guess is a good thing).

Additionally, how would you referee the 3rd man? half the referee's cant' get ball steals correct and that's been law for ages!

My preference would be to educate coaches not to allow players to do all they can to injury opponents. If the ball is wrapped up in a tackle and the 3rd man is solely there to take the attacker to the ground, then it should be with appropriate force and not with the thought of breaking a leg! Persistant offences by clubs should see coaches disciplined....they would then be more inclined to stop the practice and not select repeat offenders in their squads!!

There should be limits on what a third man into the tackle can do. They should have to use there arms rather than run in for a cheep shot with the shoulder. Hits on the legs should be restricted as well.

Attackers need to just learn when to stay up and move or offload, and when to get on the ground.
Banning more than the 2nd tackler is just silly.

There should be no limit on the number of tacklers allowed to participate in any tackle.

The issue is controlling the tackling technique of those involved. Jeff Lima is the prime example of how not to do it, clean that up and there's no problem.

Although there are no stats to hand I would say given the nature of the collisions that occur like this, plenty.



This is the situation that has been threatening to boil over in Super League for a year or so now with Maguire and is breaking out with Bellamy in the NRL at the moment. Mick Potter has publicly criticised Maguire for deliberately coaching tactics designed purely to damage the ball carrier. When he came to this country Wigan's defensive tactics changed totally and whilst most of that is good hard work, there was a massive rise in the use of limbs and pressure points. Things like chicken wings, ninja tackles and hitting the knees of players held up in the tackle. Potter mentioned it's a question of morality, some coaches won't do it and some will. No matter how you educate, there are always certain coaches whose competitive nature and desperation for personal glory and career gain will lead them astray.

But how do you ever clean it up, if there are no rules against it in the first place?

There are rules against it. The last but one edition of a monthly RL mag contained a list of directives sent out from Red Hall on such issues before the start of the season. That's why the likes of Lima have been banned and there are a reducing number of chicken wing and pressure point type tackling efforts.

If you want to legislate specifically against defenders joining the tackle late, why not make it so the third or subsequent man in must use their arms to wrap and tackle (similar to the rule that exists in Union) and cannot attack the knees or below of the ball carrier?

I saw Richie's tweet, sent a reply to him saying I thought below the knee third man tackles were already banned, but he didn't seem to want to discuss it. I thought that's what Lima and Shenton got yellows for earlier in the season. while i do agree with where he is coming from, 3rd man in tackles are necessary. as long as they are legitimate. How else do you get a man down who is dragging two people along with him? go for the legs. Again, legitimately. Joints shouldn't be attacked at all, but 3rd man in on the legs should be fine. I very much doubt a twitter trend is going to affect Red Hall, but power to the people there Mr Mathers