That's actually a sensible idea. Players could still be tackled in goal but rather than being able to place the ball down they'd have to grab hold of it or knock it out of play.
It removes the inconsistency or whether a player deliberately grounds it or not. As others have said, players will often put downward pressure on the ball simply to grab hold of it and pick it up so there's already inconsistency because that's never given as a drop out, while someone slipping in the in goal is.

But what happens when a defender deliberately grounds the ball in the in goal but isn't tackled?

I don't think it's that big of an issue, no different to slipping and your foot going out in touch.

The in goals rules need to be made consistent.
A high kick or bomb caught in goal is a 20 mtr re-start.
When the ball is grubber kicked and caught in goal that also should be a 20 mtr re-start, not as at present where the defender has to run the ball out of the in goal area.
The current rules are inconsistent.
So a player fielding a ball in goal should be able to make it dead either by catching it or grounding it.
Under the present rules repeat sets are too easy come by. If we changed then half backs would have to be far more creative and coaches would have to coach more creative play. At times all we get are five drives then an angled kick to trap the defender in goal for a repeat set. That's lazy and not creative at all. Sometimes teams have to defend repeated sets when the attacking side haven't a clue how to break them down. They are just trying to batter them into conceding a try.
Let's just make the rules consistent for the kicks in goal.

First things first, picking up the ball does not constitute grounding it[iPicking up in in-goal[/i 3. (a) [iPicking up the ball is not grounding it and a player may pick up the ball in his opponents’ in-goal in order to ground it in a more advantageous position.[/i

A sensible interpretation of this suggests that the same applies to players picking up the ball in their own in-goal area.



No, for the reason stated above.



No it's not.

I really like the rule; it's consistent. If an attacking player grounds the ball they immediately kill it, so why shouldn't it be the same with a defending player? It also ties in nicely with the 'simultaneous grounding' law which allows tries to be scored when both and attacking and a defending player ground the ball at the same time. I don't think scrapping the current in-goal laws would sit right with that.

OK, so some players slip/fall over and inadvertently ground the ball. Big deal, some players accidentally put a foot in touch, or on the dead-ball line. Get over it. In fact I've seen the odd player utilise this rule to kill the ball and save them running into a brick wall kick-chase.

Rugby League has laws, not rules.

Stupid comment. The laws of the game [iare[/i its rules. The fact that the front page refers to the laws of the game doesn't mean they're NOT rules. ffs.

Oh btw the "Laws" specifically refer to
"the 40/20rule"
"Downtown...This
rule delays the movement of the off side players downfield"
"Delay restart of play
(i) To deliberately delay the restart of play from the goal
line, 20 metre line or halfway line constitutes misconduct
for the purposes of this rule"

Is it your case that these references are meaningless and these rules therefore don't exist?

Rules are rules. Laws are open to interpretation.

Nothing wrong with how it is now. The rules/laws of the game state that a player can pick the ball up so that rules out any "technically this technically that crap". If the ball is touched onto the ground then it's a drop out whether it's accidental or not. You can't get more black and white than that.

The ball has to be rounded with downward pressure for a drop out no? So picking it up is different as there is no downward pressure, well there might be a slight bit of downward pressure as the player first touches the ball but if it's part of picking the ball up it's play on. If a player slips and grounds the ball then unlucky, but they shouldn't have slipped! It's up to the defender to make sure they don't ground the ball in goal to avoid a drop out.

Yep. It's as if the english language is supposed to be suspended because, well, pedantry.

No. Rules are a concept, rugby league has them by their very definition.

Its a bad rule that should not exist.

Never existed in my playing days, nor should exist now.

You either place the ball dead, or get up and attempt to clear your lines.

I hate to say this, but doing this gives no prowess to the attacking side. Should be a 10m scrum IMHO, similar to RU.

Completely agree! I don't like the 20m restart rule when you jump and catch it either. If the attacking team can place a kick in the in goal area they should be rewarded accordingly. It should be either a drop out if caught in goal or the ball goes in to touch, or it's brought back in to the field of play and play on.

An attacking team are perfectly entitled to contest such a ball, it's just that more often than not there is no one near the man who diffuses the bomb.

Then he can run in field. If it is being contested, the attacking team lose out because they can't tackle him and what should be an advantageous position dissipates.

Not logical.

The kick only creates a POTENTIALLY advantageous position.

If the attacking team follows it up and contests for the ball, and if the attackers are better than the defenders, then they get the ball, and score a try.

If the Kick is not well enough placed to allow the attackers to contest it, or if they do contest it but the defender wins the contest and catches the ball, then they get the ball and get a tap on the 20.

You are talking as if a kick into the in-goal is currently a clever and wonderful piece of skill, which should be rewarded. In fact, it isn't. It is either a POOR kick, or at best, a high-risk strategy. A GOOD kick is one that falls just SHORT of the in-goal, because that gives the attackers more options and will never lead to giving the defence a 20 metre tap.

Anyone who kicks a ball that will land in-goal, either didn't mean to (in which case it was a misdirected kick and not deserving of a reward) or knowingly took the risk that by doing so, a de-fuse would surrender possession to a 20m restart.