Rex said:
That's the problem with journalists. They think more is better, and so get caught in unnecessary detail.
Many of the problems of the game disappear with just one key rule change. Limit the number of simultaneous tacklers to two. Unlimited numbers might be allowed when a player is close to scoring a try - say from five metres out.
Some advantages:
1. No need for a stripping rule - removing an area of refereeing interpretation disputes
2. Almost all of the Storm-introduced dangerous tackles would automatically disappear from the game - removing an area of refereeing interpretation disputes
3. Players good enough to beat a double tackle deserve reward - and get a reward.
4. Players not good enough to tackle get exposed
5. Far safer game for players
6. Brings back the benefit and spectacle of scything low Menzies-style tackles.
7. Can then dump all referee-determined dominant tackle and submissive tackle subjective judgements. Just allow a standard time for players to get off every single tackle. Let the low tacklers hang on as long as the high tacklers. Could even provide referees with an automated timed beeper to reduce referee subjectivity and differences.
8. This favours attack and favours footy players with real talent - not a bad thing
9. Games would be increasingly decided by the players, rather than by disputable refereeing penalties.
This would be a terribly grey area for ruling on although I like the sentiment, players will just be hanging off the ball carrier waiting to hammer them as soon as player two drops off - which would conveniently be just before the ball carriers momentum stops. Then the play the ball is slowed legally while player two gets to set himself for marker.
How many video decisions will we see looking at whether the third defending player was touching the ball carrier or where the third defender made contact in relation to the five metre line.
A nice sentiment but not practical.
