As the game has got faster, more and more things have crept in to the game to slow it down which is spoiling it it my opinion. The focus of tackling has shifted over the last few years from actually stopping the man to preventing the offload and slowing down the PTB.



Gang tackles - There are often four defenders involved in the tackle. It can take an age for these defenders to get out of the tackle one by one, yet a brilliant one on one tackle can be penalised if the tackler is just a split second too long in getting out.



Hands in/loose carries/knock-ons - Have a look at footage or stills of above mentioned gang tackles. You'll usually see 2 or 3 hands on the ball to prevent the offload. When the ball comes free, it's difficult to say whether it's a knock-on or a ball steal, although you can usually tell the ball has been stripped with the speed at which the ball comes out of the tackle, yet on so many occasions it's given as a knock-on. The amount of dubious 'knock-ons' is increasing.



Wrestling/cheap tactics - How many times do we see a player tackled then wrestled about on the floor to put him into a position that makes it harder to execute a quick PTB? Once the player is down, that should be tackle over. I'm also getting sick off tacklers grabbing the players foot or leg and twisting it round, again, trying to move the player into a position where it's harder to get up quick and also risking an injury.



The image below is a classic example of a modern 'tackle'. The irony being nobody really is doing any tackling! Inside left is trying to steal the ball, the player behind has a hand on the ball and a hand under the attackers arm to force a knock-on, and the outside left and outside right are merely just adding weight by pushing the other two. There is also a fifth defender thinking whether he should have a push too. If you were a referee, when would you call held? If the ball came loose, what would you give? How long would you allow the four, possibly five defenders to get out of the tackle once the player is held/on the floor?

I agree with the opening post.



This is fairly easily solved IF the governing bodies (RFL, NRL, International Board) agree a standard set of interpretations around the tackle and play-the-ball. There is no need to change the actual Laws of the game IMO.



Referee to call "held" as soon as (1) A defender is in contact with the ball carrier AND (2) the ball carrier's OWN MOMENTUM HAS BEEN HALTED.



The tackler(s) be given TWO SECONDS to end all contact with the tackled player. To "roll away" as the Laws say. (Note if a tackler is trapped on the tackled player because one, two or more of the defenders' team mates have flopped onto the tackle and they take too long to peel away so that the bottom defender remains in contact with the tackled player for more than 2 seconds after the call of held, then too bad. It's their fault - the defending team is penalised.



To play the ball, the tackled player has to regain feet (if not already on feet), face the opponents' goal line and THEN,

1) PLACE the ball on the floor with his hand(s).

2) RELEASE CONTACT of HAND(S) WITH THE BALL and THEN

3) Play the ball backwards with the foot

I posted something very similar a few weeks ago - the tackle/ruck has been taken to a ridiculous extreme by cheating coaches and it's ruining the game; one form of cheating (slowing down the ruck) has created another form of cheating (milking a penalty/moving off the mark) and we've ended up in a situation where the game is becoming ugly and dangerous.



The suggestions posted above are sensible; I also think there is some mileage in limiting the number of tacklers allowed in a tackle. Before all that though, a consistent and ruthless application of the existing rules would go a long way to taking some control back from the coaches and players.

Good example picture. What's likely to happen in that tackle now is one of three things :



1) The player, having been sat on the ground, is going to find the weight of two or three tacklers sitting on his back, forcing his torso to bend forward on to his legs. Effectively, like a gymnast or diver putting their head between their own straightened knees. That places huge strain on the ligaments and tendons of the hamstrings, knees (thighs being pressed down with knees unable to move) and lower back.



2) The player is pushed backwards towards his own line. If his feet dig into the ground, his legs will lock, and his knees will be being bent forwards, rather than backwards, risking catastrophic damage.



3) His torso might be twisted to one side, while his legs remain in that upward facing position. Again, this presents significant risks to the spine and the muscles of the lower back.



If there was merely one man in the tackle, or even two, then the risks are not absent, but minimised. But with three, four or even five men in the tackle, then that ball carrier has effectively no control over what's about to happen to the position of his body, and a huge force is going to be applied to him.

The most obvious rule-change would be limiting the amount of men allowed in tackles. That would completely change the game (maybe for the better - opening it up more).



An alternative would be to say any player involved in the tackle has to stay lined up at marker at the next play-the-ball. All the "benefits" they get from wrestling an attacking player would disappear and you'd have to think twice about gang-tackling if they're going to be outnumbered 12 to 9 on the next play. Again, it would encourage more expansive back play as a side effect.



Any of this would have to be agreed internationally though, or we'd be playing two separate sports.

I would reduce the number of substitutions/interchanges to reintroduce levels of attrition in our sport. As eluded to by the OP, tackling of this nature in the amateur game is negated due to the lack of fitness of the players.



If we reduced the number of interchanges, players wouldn't go into tackles in such numbers or with such intensity due to a) reserving energy b) fatigue

I've played versions of this many times, but normally in training: "Right lads, 15 minutes of touch, stop momentum!". Many teams play forms of this in training - it's touch RL with a bit more of a physical edge.



Think about what you're suggesting. It would end up a chaotic mix of tag and touch/momentum. If the defenders have to release as soon as momentum is stopped then in no time attacking teams will cotton on and start sprinting in, stopping upon contact and playing the ball at breakneck speed - just like the best tag teams - far too fast for the defence to ever regain any shape, or indeed even make 10 metres back. No thanks.



I agree many teams take the wrestle aspect too far. But a huge part of RL for me is the physical aspect - the impact and the challenge of bringing your man to the ground. It's not all about attack - defence has many nuances and is a huge part of the ebb & flow of the game. A well executed tackle to slow an attacking team with a roll-on can change the flow of a game and lift your side as much as a 50-metre break.





Agree completely. Too many subs/interchanges reduces most forwards to little more than a couple of 20 minute stints. Let's challenge them to raise their standards and if necessary reveal their weaknesses rather than give everyone the platform for 17 muscle-bound automatons to swap & change whenever they feel tired. And let's see how well your players can adapt if there are injuries. You're right, you wouldn't see so much eagerness to get 3/4 men in the tackle.

On.y way to change it would be two men max in a tackle but that is a radical rule change. 3-4 men in is standard in nrl now. It remains the big difference between SL and nrl, no doubt SL will be doing the same more and more to slow down the ptb. The reduction in interchanges may help?

Let's go back to the days when one man grabbed the legs of another, therefore making him stop running and fall on the ground, having done that he lets go and lets the tackled player play the ball so the game can continue at a (usually) quick, exciting pace !!!!

Far too radical

Except they weren't doing that out of some benevolent notion of service to the sport. It's because they were knackered and no-one else could get there in time to support the tackler.



To FORCE that to happen now, rather than it being a natural part of the game, would be a very radical step.

Limit the number of wouldbe tacklers to two, if a third joins in ref calls held immediately. Ban scoots from dummy half. The dummy half must pass from the PTB.