I was prompted to think about this due to the horrible injury Ben Evans suffered in the Saints v Wire game. First, let me be clear that I thought the tackle was innocent, in the sense that there was no intent to injure at all. I don't think the various tacklers were necessarily aware of the position Evans had found himself in. This thread isn't about that. It's more about the sort of development of the tackle we've seen in SL in the last 5 years.

I am increasingly concerned about the way tackling has evolved in super league. There's always been an element to the tackle of controlling the speed of the PTB, and this used to involve the first tackler seeking to stand up the ball carrier with a ball-and-all tackle, then the second man would come in to put him on the deck, with both tacklers on top, controlling the collision. There's always some risk, but generally injuries would take place at the point of collision, rather than in the grounding of the ball carrier.

This then evolved with the introduction of wrestling techniques, (of which some - putting pressure on joints - were rapidly and rightly outlawed), which involved trying to consciously manoeuvre the tackled player not only while still standing, but also while he's already on the ground. This introduces an additional risk, as limbs and torsos are twisted. Referees are watching out for this sort of thing, but it's hard to police.

What I seem to be seeing more and more of now, however, is first contact by one or two tacklers stopping the man standing up, and then an additional two or three bodies in [inot to put him on the deck, but to push him back in the collision [/iwhile he is effectively helpless, or even part grounded. At the same time, using wrestling techniques to manipulate his position so that he ends up underneath three tacklers to control the PTB speed. It's this method which I think is responsible for what seems to be a significant increase in serious injuries - particularly leg injuries - in our pro game. This is particularly the case because ball carriers are coached to find the floor, so often will go into a collision partly bent forward. Then the first tackler will actually physically hold the carrier up to prevent the ball hitting the ground, in order to give his teammates time to arrive at the tackle and engage in what follows. Which means that the carrier is then already bent at the waist, but is about to have the equivalent of 60-70 stones of weight (literally half a ton) applied to him as the tacklers seek to drive him back and also end up on top of him. I often see players being bent backwards with legs bent at the knee and ankles pinned beneath their haunches, while three tacklers drive the upper torso backwards. That's enormous pressure on knee and ankle joints.

Watch the next game, and look to see the number of times when a ball-carrier is swamped with three or even four tacklers, and has at least one leg pinned stationary on the ground, while his body is being twisted in a different direction by two or three additional tacklers seeking to drive him back and put him underneath them all. It's pretty gruesome to watch.

In a collision sport like ours, injuries will always be part of the game. However, I do genuinely think that the tackling techniques which combine wrestling, multiple-tacklers, and trying to force the man back in the tackle simultaneously, are increasingly dangerous. Thankfully, it's still very rare in the amateur games I ref, because players are rarely fit or drilled enough to get more than 2 tacklers into the collision, and not usually powerful enough to engage in serious driving back of the halted player. But in the pro game I think we're approaching a situation in which we need to consider rule changes to the tackle to prevent horrendous injuries such as that Evans suffered.

What rule exactly could you bring in though that would prevent that injury? IMO your point may be valid, but any link to that tackle is weak to say the least.

I've had a big problem with cannonball tackles for years, since Maguire started coaching Wigan to do it so aggressively. That kind of thing is genuinely horrific and dangerous. I don't however see the wrestle and the attempts to get players down on their backs as being dangerous, the rate of serious injury is minute, the injury to Evans was a freak accident.

I don't want to focus on the Evans tackle. As I said, it was unintentional in my view. The point I'm making here is that tackling techniques have evolved to make all sorts of unintentional injuries more likely. Historically, RL has had fewer serious joint/back/neck injuries than RU, and the reason for that was that we didn't have a contested scrum, or large rucks/mauls. A lot of these injuries occur in situations where the injured player was not in control of his body's position, and had a large weight exerting pressure on him. The driving gang-tackle is introducing those sort of pressures into League in a much more frequent way, in my view.


I think there are a couple of things one could do :

- It would be relatively straightforward, for example, to impose a limit of 3 tacklers in any tackle. That doesn't eliminate the risk of driving back or bending bodies, but it does reduce it. Theoretically you could set a maximum number of two at any one time, which would have the interesting side-effect of making an offloading game much more likely, which might be entertaining.

- We could also have referees calling held much faster. At the moment, the ball carrying arm has to hit the floor, or the player has to visibly succumb to the tackle. Referees could be given much more discretion so that if the ball carrier is stopped, and tacklers are clearly trying to drive him back, as opposed to complete the tackle, then refs could call held quickly, with penalties if tacklers follow through anyway. Because a player who is "held" standing up plays the ball faster than one who is grounded, this would provide an incentive to coaches to get their players to ground the player quickly, rather than holding him up for the driving gang tackle.

You would be lucky to see 10 tackles a game at the moment, the rest is grappling ,wrestling and trying to get a penalty by whatever means. Add to that the numberof "knock ons" in 3 man + tackles. Nobody can convince me that it isn't stripped or pushed at by a defender, the odds are against it.
Simple way to improve tackling is to penalise all shots to the head, accidental or not and a minimum of 15 minutes in the sin bin.
That would focus a few minds and get coaches to coach and players to learn new techniques which wont cause them problems.

Never happen though.

If the refs suddenly start calling held faster, then it would resolve this issue, but the Sky clowns and RL players alike would moan about refs blowing too early, before the tackle is completed.

Lets be clear both attacking and defending players are culpable for bringing this about. It's a natural progression from the way the game used to be played with quick play the balls catching defences on the back foot. 10 years ago, people bemoaned teams scooting from dummy half and the quick taps and teams being on the back foot from quick play the balls. Well you could argue this is the natural progression from that. I imagine as the game keeps moving forwards, we will see another shift as one style counters the next.

Agree entirely Roy. I cringe when I see some of the tackles and I don't mean the big hits, it's the ones where the ball carrier is stopped, held and then pushed back.

It sounds a bit incongruous with a pro sport but we have to continuously hold defenders at least partially responsible for the safety of the ball carrier.

Fortunately the players do a lot of flexibility training which helps mitigate some of these issues but I still think it's just a matter of time before we see a horrific injury from bending/pushing/cannonball tackles.

Slightly OT but I also think we're still running a fine line with head injuries.

I have had concerns for while when players are pulling at one leg to turn a player so as to delay the play the ball. I think it has come about along with the wrestling tactics to combat the head long rush to speed up the ruck by te ref's. To my mind a simple way to prevent injury is to police the ruck correctly. Penalise the voluntry tackle or call surrender & allow the tacklers more time to get set (to many players dive to the ground to get a quick play the ball) it should be a players duty to remain upright & make ground, make the tackled player play the ball with their foot & penalise rolling the ball backwards with the hand. All these are in the rule book but just not applied correctly. If we did this the defense should have plenty of time to get set & would not need to waste energy wrestling & putting undue strain on the ball carriers limbs which is where the injurys are comming from (IMO).

This is what I mean, players in both attack and defence will do what they can to get the best advantage.

So attacking players try to offload the ball, to counter this tackling players hit higher in the hope of clamping the ball, result is more head high shots as they are aiming at a place between the chest and the neck.

Attacking players try to get a quick play the ball, to counter this defending players will try to hold up the player in the tackle, before dumping to the ground. The result is a wrestle which can put players into restrained positions.

Attacking hookers, scooting at players not set at the play the ball, leads to more shoving and pushing at the play the ball as the defenders try to organise the release of the play.

You could go on, the chicken wing and attempt to roll a player onto his back to give the defending line more time to get set.

There are also rule inconsistencies. Defending players cannot shoulder charge, but attacking players will run with a body position very much like a shoulder charge.

Do we go back to unlimited tackles, taking away the need to get quick play the balls as you can take your time getting up field?

I don't think there is a simple answer, other than to apply the rules as best we can.

Where joints are being targeted is an easy rule to pick out. ie chicken wings and cannonballs.

Where legs are lifted, or players wrestled to a standstill and dropped is far more difficult.

You can lift a players legs one on one and dump a player on his back - add in a second player and that lifting of the legs pivots on the second player and it can quickly turn into a spear without any intention to do so.

Maybe 2 refs are the answer with one stood over the play the ball to judge the hold more efficiently.

See here for aftermath of injury m.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sport/11875284._/

See here for aftermath of injury m.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sport/11875284._/

Would you still say that if it's your team's full back trying to get into the field of play from the in-goal, though? IMO the voluntary tackle rule could be done way with; it's a law that's virtually never applied anyway. It's difficult to see what rule changes would bring in the things you'd like to see, and I agree that the refs calling 'held' quickly is the best, if imperfect, solution.

I do think that the fairly modest changes to refereeing brought in this season in the NRL have improved the spectacle considerably. In this case, yes, I think we should slavishly copy the Aussies.

7-tackle rule as well.

Yep I'd agree we need 2 refs (not necessarily the way the NRL do it) and I think you're right on the held call too. We need more situations where a player is called held to avoid some of the situations. We also need the held call to be accompanied by time for the markers and defence to have a chance to get back into position. As a play the ball following a held call is often pretty quick and can result in an easy dummy half scoot, so naturally defenders don't want a held call as its done at the moment.

I think a very simple rule change would be to adapt an existing rule. At present, if the carrier is held up and the defenders begin to drive him back, then as soon as one of the carrier's own teammates adds weight to the tackle, the ref calls "held" and the tackle stops. We could simply make that into any player - once the tackler is stopped, if any further player joins the tackle, then we shout held, and the tackle ceases. The ref would have to be on his toes to get the call in early, and so I agree that a second ref policing the ruck might be useful here.

There's a duty of care to players issue. I'm not blaming anyone. Both attacking and defensive tactics have led to this place, and while that doesn't matter so much at an amateur level for the reasons stated, I think at the top level, the players' own fitness and strength is combining with these tactics to create career- and long-term-health-threatening issues. We've taken important steps forward this season by taking head injuries and concussion much more seriously. I think that this is an area where a little more proactive refereeing with only minor changes to the rulebook, if any, could help protect more players from injury.

If a side-effect of that was that attackers were encouraged to run upright and look for an offload, rather than aim for the floor and a quick PTB, then I can't help thinking that wouldn't be a bad thing for entertainment value either.

Yes I would & go even further, not only make sure the voluntary tackle is well policed. I would make it the duty of every player to keep the ball in play & make ground, knock the ball out of play now you have to drop out, I would go back to the old rule & penalise for deliberatley throwing the ball out of play. I would also stop the farce of putting the foot over the line & catching the ball to get a penalty or ball back at the point of kick. if you are so sure it would go out on the full leave it alone to go out on its own. My main point is that by applying the rules we already have we can cut out the need to wrestle & delay as making the tackled player play with his foot / not moving off the mark / rolling the ball backwards / will give a well trained defence just enough time to get set. I just want to see players carry the ball try & make ground & break open defences with their skill & strength I feel the attack has to much of an advantage now.

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.