Three Man Tackles

[Michael Clare]

I'm just wondering if Andrew Johns this morning (31st July Wide World of Sports) was getting close to suggesting that we might need to move to two men in a tackle? Carrigan's tackle on Jackson Hastings (broken leg) last night was just another example of this dangerous technique that can cut careers short. Johns said that he believed crusher tackles have come into vogue in recent years because players often back into the defence to avoid the third man hitting him around the legs whilst unaware. Perhaps this is a radical solution you might hate the sound of, but it is idea which had been around for a few years in some quarters and might need further consideration from the NRL given it's increasingly tough stance on player safety. In many ways I'm a traditionalist, but apart from player welfare there are a few possible advantage in opening up the game a bit 1) avoiding the ugly wrestle that is wrecking the games attractiveness and 2) lessening the flood of boring and "lucky" tries coming from kicks every game. Who knows? Maybe we wouldn't need the "six again" rule if only two players were allowed in a tackle.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Don’t mind this suggestion

 

[Woodsie]

I would be all for it just for the fact it brings back a legitimate contest between ball runner and defenders ..

The sight of 4 defenders driving a runner back 10 m is a blight on the game ....

 

[Ranga]

That was a bad tackle last night, but the thing I couldn’t comprehend was how carrigan stayed on the field. We’ve had incidents where the bunker has gone back minutes to find an incident that was debatable, with the ‘offender” sin binned. But last night only a penalty. Crazy.

I’ve watched the Tigers last two games and honestly, if I was a tigers fan, I would never watch the game again.

 

[MissKate]

Funny thing is that generally we only have 2 in most of our tackles, however on Friday I noticed we were getting 3 in plenty of tackles

 

[maxta]

Funny thing is that generally we only have 2 in most of our tackles, however on Friday I noticed we were getting 3 in plenty of tackles

Spot on 100%
Plus did you notice our markers did not allow the bloke playing the ball to advance 1-2m off the mark, which generally kills us
A depleted side, but by far our best defensive control in the middle...slowed the tempo and had a set defensive line

 

[XV-1]

Penrith and Melb do the 3 man tackle better than any other team.

How about rewarding one man tackles with a bit of leeway on holding on in a sort if dominant tackle type call and refs quickly call held on 2 and 3 man tackles - then penalise them.

Does seem that difficult to me. Would encourage more one on one tackles.

 

[eagleron]

That was a bad tackle last night, but the thing I couldn’t comprehend was how carrigan stayed on the field. We’ve had incidents where the bunker has gone back minutes to find an incident that was debatable, with the ‘offender” sin binned. But last night only a penalty. Crazy.

I’ve watched the Tigers last two games and honestly, if I was a tigers fan, I would never watch the game again.

Yeah it p1sses me off that every referee/bunker combination has a seemingly different set of rulings for the same offence, the game is in danger of extinction from this inconsistent bullsh1t, the league has to get down from its position of arrogance and do something about this mess before the fans walk away en masse

 

[castle eagle]

Penrith and Melb do the 3 man tackle better than any other team.

How about rewarding one man tackles with a bit of leeway on holding on in a sort if dominant tackle type call and refs quickly call held on 2 and 3 man tackles - then penalise them.

Does seem that difficult to me. Would encourage more one on one tackles.

3 man tackle for them is the least they like to use, the more in the longer they can hold the player down

 

[Rafferty]

That was a bad tackle last night, but the thing I couldn’t comprehend was how carrigan stayed on the field. We’ve had incidents where the bunker has gone back minutes to find an incident that was debatable, with the ‘offender” sin binned. But last night only a penalty. Crazy.

I’ve watched the Tigers last two games and honestly, if I was a tigers fan, I would never watch the game again.

Yes they have been right royally screwed by the officialdom, but from a footy perspective, the last 2 weeks have actually given their fans some hope, they’ve played pretty decent footy, especially without the ball, tidy up their discipline and the stupid random junk they continue to dish up with the ball and they would be winning more often.

 

[SeaEagle21]

That was a bad tackle last night, but the thing I couldn’t comprehend was how carrigan stayed on the field. We’ve had incidents where the bunker has gone back minutes to find an incident that was debatable, with the ‘offender” sin binned. But last night only a penalty. Crazy.

I’ve watched the Tigers last two games and honestly, if I was a tigers fan, I would never watch the game again.

What’s worse is the ref blew the whistle initially because of a dropped ball from Hastings after he was bent over clutching his leg. Then after a pause blew the penalty fmd

 

[Pittwater Legend]

That malicious tackle has ended Hastings’ season. Carrigan deserves to miss the rest of the season as a result

 

[Eagle 1]

Funny thing is that generally we only have 2 in most of our tackles, however on Friday I noticed we were getting 3 in plenty of tackles

Gee...what's David FLOPfita going to do now...no more 3 man tackles..mmm!!

 

[silvereagle]

I'm just wondering if Andrew Johns this morning (31st July Wide World of Sports) was getting close to suggesting that we might need to move to two men in a tackle? Carrigan's tackle on Jackson Hastings (broken leg) last night was just another example of this dangerous technique that can cut careers short. Johns said that he believed crusher tackles have come into vogue in recent years because players often back into the defence to avoid the third man hitting him around the legs whilst unaware. Perhaps this is a radical solution you might hate the sound of, but it is idea which had been around for a few years in some quarters and might need further consideration from the NRL given it's increasingly tough stance on player safety. In many ways I'm a traditionalist, but apart from player welfare there are a few possible advantage in opening up the game a bit 1) avoiding the ugly wrestle that is wrecking the games attractiveness and 2) lessening the flood of boring and "lucky" tries coming from kicks every game. Who knows? Maybe we wouldn't need the "six again" rule if only two players were allowed in a tackle.

Best suggestion I have heard all year....not only from a player safety perspective but also would eliminate the wrestle we see while the ball carrier is on his feet. Definitely will speed up the game. As also suggested in one of the other replies here, I would also allow more time and leeway for a one-on-one tackle as a reward. Great suggestion. C'mon Buz Rothfield get onto this

 

[The Who]

If this is a further rule that the refs have to adjudicate on then it's a 'no' from me. There are already too many rules,

 

[Tragic Eagle]

Please no more mid season rule changes. I agree however that they need to look at stopping players going low when a player is held up by other defenders. As far as the referees are concerned they simply need to be told what the rules are and to apply them. Its not for the referees to interpret the rules at all. If they feel they need assistance / interpretation they should be required to ask the NRL.

 

[Will on the hill]

A complete ban on 3 man tackles is unrealistic, too many grey areas. What happens if 2nd and 3rd man hit simultaneously, a player drops off, a tackled player falls into a nearby defender who is the 3rd man? If a player is going for the try line with 2 defenders on him must everyone else stand back and watch?

A more realistic version is ban the 3rd man in from tackling below the waist. They already penalise cannonball tackles just move the mark higher.

 

[Will on the hill]

A complete ban on 3 man tackles is unrealistic, too many grey areas. What happens if 2nd and 3rd man hit simultaneously, a player drops off, a tackled player falls into a nearby defender who is the 3rd man? If a player is going for the try line with 2 defenders on him must everyone else stand back and watch?

A more realistic version is ban the 3rd man in from tackling below the waist. They already penalise cannonball tackles just move the mark higher.

This could also be coupled with referees not allowing as much time for defenders to hold onto a tackled player who stays on his feet. Give less advantage to defenders who intentionally hold a player in a standing position.

 

[eaglebuzz]

Easy way to solve the legs tackle injuries would be to start hammering players at the judiciary for any injuries they cause.

 

[Brissie Kid]

Another blight caused by the ill thought decision in 1993 to go to the 10m rule.

The referees are exposing players to danger by not calling held quickly enough. They do it as the NRL likes late off loads.

If the referees called held sooner, maybe players would pass the ball instead of willingly running into a gang tackle.

Never happen, but i would restore the 5m rule and have the referee call Held sooner.