The instructions given to refs by Cummings might say that but the official laws of the game as downloadable and readable on the rfl website do not say that.

I'd [ilove[/i the RFL to do a fans forum with at least Cummings (preferably some senior refs, too) in attendance. It would be a hoot.

you see it in the NRL alot i watched the opening game and the dragons fullback dove over the line and lay on the floor waiting to be tackled and their commentaters were looking at it being a great bit of skill to get out of the in goal area. its a fine line but do u really want a penalty everytime someone dives out of the in goal area that would just drain time and slow our game down more.

where would you draw the line? Diving out of the in goal area is that not a version of the voluntary tackle? The Myler should have been a penalty, Terry Albert told him a few times. The Jefferies one was class quick thinking from him imo to nutmeg the Wolves player definately the play of season.

Saw one against Wakey a few years ago when Luke George was running the ball out of defence. His hamstring went, and he went down like he'd been shot - but the ref called voluntary tackle!

Haven't read the thread and I haven't seen this weeks games, but I can't remember the last time I seen a voluntary tackle given, it's like it doesn't exist anymore.

Isn't it technically only a voluntary tackle if the player tackles himself then gets up to play the ball without the ref having called held?

Not according to the rules. At least not the way I'm reading them ... The pre-requisites are that the player goes to ground to stop play unnecessarily allowing himself to be tackled.

To me, I read that as the player simply falling to the floor and waiting for a defender to complete the tackle, I don't read it as being necessary for the tackle to actually be completed. If the powers that be do feel it can only be deemed voluntary if the tackle is completed (or the ball carrier plays the ball before the tackle being completed), then maybe they ought to re-word that section of the law book.

I've put in bold the section that makes me think the tackle doesn't need to be effected for a penalty to be given

I take that point - maybe this bit is that causes the ambiguity:

"if he has time to regain his feet and continue play."

How does the ref judge if the player has time to do the above?

It needs to be clarified either way.

Yeah, it can also be difficult I suppose to understand why the player's lying prone and making no attempt to move - in some cases the player could legitimately be hurt - maybe if we found the refs cracking down on VT's we could suddenly start seeing a lot of play acting with fullbacks across the league suddenly being very injury prone when collecting balls close to their own line.