We all know a voluntary tackle is when a player hits the deck and stays down without being touched, but I w as wondering what people's thoughts are about when there's a short kick off with a few seconds to go and the defending team catch the ball, then run it backwards and straight into touch. Should this be deemed a voluntary tackle? If they caught it and kicked it out, no problem, but to catch it and run out is voluntary. I just think it may have a different outcome if the defensive side is penalised.

What are your thoughts?

Bring back JVT. Thats my thoughts.

Nah it's up to the team that's behind to do something special to regain possession. Although I've always thought that maybe when it gets to 78 or 79 mins the clock on the Sky big screen could go off. That way players know it's close to the end but don't know exactly how long is left and so it's a bigger risk to just kick the ball out since the opposition might have just long enough to set the scrum.

As for JVT, I concur.

I always thought a voluntary tackle was for example when a player dropped on a loose ball and made no effort to regain his feet and play on.

Kicking to touch in open play to end the game is just as voluntary as stepping over the touchline ball in hand. There is nothing in the law book that says progress up field must be made in any set of six. If that were the case should a side be penalised for being on the receiving end of a dominant tackle that ends up behind the last ptb?

The voluntary tackle rule is an archaic law, that remains from the 'unlimited tackles' days when there could be a real advantage to dropping to the deck - the opposition could literally never get the ball from you.

These days, there's no huge advantage to be gained by the VT which is why it's rarely, if ever, penalised.

Unless you're a Bulls fan, in which case it cost you the title.

For me this issue is not down to the laws of the game but how the men who play it want to show themselves.

Rugby is running the ball in and taking big hits, this should be the case down to the final whistle. I don't like to see players drop to the deck, I find it soft.

I don't like to see a player just run the ball out, Leeds did it in the play-offs at our place but there is no rule in place to stop it. I think running the ball over the dead ball line on purpose to stop play and win the game could result in a drop out to stop this.

Good post, although it doesn't need a rule change IMO.

Can't stamp out timewasting completely - you know if you're a score behind and the oppo are in possesion with 20 seconds to go, then you didn't do enough in the preceding 79:40.

Isn't the voluntary tackle only if you play the ball without being tackled? i.e. you go down to make a quick tackle and get up to play the ball to make the defence retreat, but no-one has actually touched you?

I remember seeing Stanley Gene do this a few years ago when he was at Huddersfield and get penalised.

Uh oh.

Beware the Bradford Mafia.

The voluntary tackle rule was never about players not getting to their feet after falling on a loose ball or deliberatley going to ground to avoid being taken into touch or in-goal. It was purely to stop players conceding in a tackle and playing the ball quickly in a deliberate attempt to catch the opposition offside. They have surrender and dominant tackle interpretations now to help solve this situation instead.

You need to play the ball before you're penalised.
Sometimes you'll see some ridiculous situations where a player hasn't heard the call to play on. They should just allow the ptb as the attacker is still at a disadvantage for losing a tackle

When Chris Joynt deliberately fell to the floor, without a hand being laid on him with about 10secs to go. Brafurt should have had a penalty from a kick-able spot and would have won the game.

One more victory for the masters of sly St Smellys.

That is exactly the reason.

Just to make Wheels' day...

The Chris Joynt incident didnt deserve a penalty. Discuss.