Exactly. They’re letting the NRL and to an extent SL, do what they want with the rules. The longer it continues the less and less the sport will be taken seriously at international level which is an absolute travesty when you consider how the Pacific Island nations are [ipotentially[/i going to improve in the coming years and therefore add more credence to the international game which then adds more credence to the sport as a whole.

I've been calling out for something "Like This" for a couple of years

However

The penalty should be given, with the choice being either a new set of 6 or a kick at goal. (I'd even stretch to "Giving them 10 so the penalty is where the defensive line would have been).

Currently a team is almost penalised twice by the set of 6 restarting but 20/30/40/50 mtrs lost with the kick to touch.
I believe that's led to teams "Milking" for penalties too much in their own half as the reward for receiving it is massive.

That could then lead to sides giving away penalties deliberately knowing they only give up 10 yards.

And a new set of 6

Penalties dictate a game far too much than they should do currently, and when, where you get them influences the game far too much.
Bering in mind you could probably give a Penalty at 50% of the PTB's (Including Offside penalties) and only 10% of those occasions they are given the reward/penalty for receiving or giving one a way is far too great.

Nothing worse than defending 5 tackles in opposition 20 then last tackle a penalty is awarded often for no more than has gone on in 100 tackles before in the game and suddenly you defending 20mtrs from your own line.

It also leads to the player in possession pushing for penalties and in my opinion Milking of penalties far too much as the reward is so great.

I wasn't against the penalization more of players in possession over the last couple of years, but we seem to do it, then stop for 6 months before looking at it again. The ball carrier moving off the mark, throwing himself up and down on the floor, not rising to his feet before playing the ball, not playing the ball etc. are as much a reason why defenders try to slow it down as much as anything.

Agree with the reasoning definitely, and a penalty on the last tackle does my head in and we seem to cop it quite a bit.

There's just little bits I would want ironing out. Side makes a half break say, 1st or 2nd tackle (maybe from a kick) and you bring them down 60 out. Giving away a penalty under that system means a set of 6 which they have anyway 50 out. Under the current rules, that 60 out becomes 30 out. The only side that benefits there is the side you've penalised.

I agree, and don't think this proposal would achieve what it's intended to achieve.

But Jukes also makes a fair point; moving off the mark, and diving forward into the markers (or trapping their arms in the tackle ) is way too prevalent. But I'd rather counter that by the refs being stricter about 'milking' pens, as I believe they are in the NRL. warn them once, and make them go back and ptb properly, and if they do it again, penalise them

If the ref thinks a tackled player is milking for a penalty then we need a rule whereby he can increase the tackle count by one. They would soon stop doing it then.

Sure, but that's not what you said.

i've said this for a while, ball carriers can get away with murder also in the ruck, it takes something really REALLY obvious or blatant for a ref to penalise them.

I like that idea.

Increase?

Or decrease? Or do you mean, the 'milking' player should hand the ball over, and their opponents get seven tackles?

I mean if the player in possession is deemed by the referee as trying to milk a penalty then the referee can "up" the amount of tackles completed for the attacking team. For example instead of it being tackle two the ref could increase it to the 3rd tackle because the attacking player was trying to get an unfair advantage, if this happened on the 5th tackle (as most do) then the referee could instruct the player to hand over the ball. Of course this is open to interpretation by the referee but then again so are a lot of the penalties that are given.

Yes, we agree, hatty, just wording; your "increase to the 3rd" is my "decrease the remaining tackles".

There would be no end of confusion if we were both reffing