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.

To go on a tangent then, are the defences harder to crack because of the physical intensity of the NRL vs SL? Or does it go further towards the academy and amateur games to junior and school level Rugby?

I don't think a strict two-man tackle rule is needed, but better policing of this area is definitely needed. Somebody mentioned on another thread about the possibility of touch judges getting the players back 10m, thus allowing the referee to get closer and manage things a little better. Either way, there has to be a way of stopping the way sides slow the play the ball down, particularly the use of three/four men in one tackle.

As for the 5m rule, I wouldn't like that. An intense defensive line being 10m away can be pretty difficult to play against and break down, giving them the extra 5m would nullify some of the expansive stuff, whilst I don't think it would necessarily reduce the slowing down at the PTB.

Stay with 10m and just stop the third and fourth man joining the tackle

No for me, however the problem lies with late incomers when it is clear forward momentum has already being stopped. Another unwarranted part of slowing the ptb down and should be penalised more to remove it (which also lessons injuries from such)
My reason for not wanting to get rid of gamag tackles is that when a player took some taking down the defence might have committed 4 tacklers to do so to stop his run, this would have been an advantage pretty much every time to the attacking team in days gone by. However in recent times tacklers are allowed to turn players over when effectively the tackle has already been made & not allowing the player up until the ref calls 'move', which is bollox IMO and always has been a carp rule. This nullifies good play for the most part (aka slowing down the ptb) and any advantage gained from it.

IF this was taken out of the game, ie you move away as soon as possible otherwise you're penalised then good forward efforts would be rewarded more thus defenders would have to seriously think about how many they commit to each tackle enabling them to stop the play.

Also it would be almost impossible to enforce a max 2 man tackle rule, given the object of the game is to stop the opposition gaining metres upfield to your try line human nature in respect to that basic rule would be extremely difficult to overcome especially if a Willie Manu type is pushing off or carrying two tacklers downfield with him and yet no-one could aid those 2 defenders until they pull him down.
It just isn't practical IMO and would make a mockery of the game.
It is a failing of the law makers & the officials, just tighten up what we have and penalise teams heavily consistantly for all the things that have been mentioned previously.

The Brisbane Broncos on Friday several times in the second half had two men hanging on to an attacking player who was able to make 10 yards plus after the initial tackle was made, because neither tackler had gone low - too concerned with preventing the pass. A third man was required in each case to come along and actually trip up the attacker by going low. You couldn't penalise that player for coming in, as the attacking player is clearly moving forward due to poor defensive technique by two defenders.

What probably can/should be looked at is the unnecessary third man into the tackle - i.e. tackled player falling/already stopped and a third man comes in just before the ref calls held. Basically Nathan Hindmarsh's tackling technique. That does lead to delays in the PTB which probably aren't deserved by the defending side, but I'm not sure how exactly it could be stopped unless refs call held earlier?

But surely thats what we are looking for. Defence should be punished for poor tackle technique and having 2 players hanging off a forward running through the line is poor defensive technique, the forwards has earned those extra 10metres, he has earned a quick ptb. Currently he will lose that quick ptb because despite poor defensive technique the defence get to slow the game down and reset themselves.

Can't go back to 5m, game's too quick now. I was suggesting a similar 2 man rule a couple of years ago. I'd like to see see 2 tacklers only in the opposition half, once the ball is carried past halfway you should be able to defend however you like.

Just leave the game alone.

There needs to be less tweaks, not more.

Some good ideas on here.

Id like to see outside of the 20 only one defender at the play the ball.

If you are gang tackling you have to work a bit harder and would create a few more gaps.

Often the last man on lines up to defend at the PTB whilst one of the original tacklers gets back 10.

And you wouldn't have a lot of those markers square penalties.