Often the defender is diving for the line at the same time as defenders are diving for him, both trying to achieve opposing aims. I think that's fair enough.

But if as sometimes happens a player just dives down to the ground past the line, a la Joynt, then the attacking team surely just need to wait until he regains his feet (as he is obliged to do) and then have an easy job of pushing him back over the line because he has lost all momentum?

Then, if he just lies there instead, eventually the ref has no choice but to award the voluntary tackle, however reluctantly.

I agree they should, but arent and it seems a little harsh to give a penalty pretty much on the goal line for the same action which in a lot of cases wont result in any punishment. Its a bit harsh on the person getting over the line that whether or not they give away a penalty is dependant on how quickly the defenders lay a finger on him especially consdering they will need to brace themselves for the impact of someone diving on them.

I think a smaller punishementt (one tackle or even some other punishment larger than a surrender tackle but larger smaller than a penalty) for all cases where the player doesnt contest the collision would encourage refs to actually use it as a punishment.

Does anyone know the last time a voluntary tackle was actually given?

Don't agree with any of that, some of the most skilful tries originate from kicks, and the arts of attacking with and defending kicks are a rich part of the game. Why would you think that only passing merits top points? Many "passing" tries are just straightforward mistakes in the defensive line, or running out of numbers. Many are of far less technical merit that some of the subtle kicks or grubbers that some players can achieve.

Can't remember the games but there were at least 2 this season, but both for players playing the ball when they should have been playing on.

Leastways, they were described as VTs, though I can't agree that it is within the wording of the rule. The explanation was that a player can't create his own tackle, and play the ball, as this "catches out" the defence, who have to retire the 10 etc. I can understand that, but can't see anything in the rules to prevent a player playing the ball back to a colleague as ina PTB but in general play. Obviously it would mean that the defence could go for the ball, try to tackle him, not retire etc. It would be confusing, but would it be illegal?

Never seen one that I can recall for a player just lying there, waiting.

The rule is in two parts. The first part states:

Without resurrecting JVT, the consensus was that when the Bradford player touched Joynt, that completed the tackle. Whereas in hindsight and while that may be factually correct, the penalty should already have been awarded as Joynt had voluntarily (a) deliberately and (b) unnecessarily (c) fallen to the ground all of which was (d) done quite purposefully to (e) allow himself to be tackled and run time out while minimizing any risk of losing the ball in contact.

So what of a defender running out of in-goal and diving down once past the line? The last time we had this argument the consensus was that the interpretation was over the word "unnecessarily". I don't think Joynt could have argued it was necessary to run out the clock, but I can see why the defender can reasonably argue it was necessary to avoid being tackled in goal, which is quite a different thing. But, and in common with the Joynt incident, the attackers don't [ihave[/i to complete the tackle, and the player must commit an offence if he doesn't then regain his feet and play on.

Although the last point (due to a typical example of poor rule wording) is contentious, as if nobody touches the prone player - how can you say that he "allows himself to be tackled"? Probably - you can't!

And you could argue that the wording is accidental, and imply the additional words "...or places himself in a position just waiting to be tackled", on the basis that the rule writers mustn't have had prone players in mind - except you can't, because they did! In the second part of the voluntary tackle rule it says:

.

So you would have to conclude from that (IMHO) that the rule writes DID have prone players in mind, and the only prohibition to prostrating yourself is staying prone after diving on a loose ball. Which is odd, but there you go.

ive had that in mind for a while, kinda taken from rugby union. id do it from a kick in your own half though. Its time bad kicks or negative kicks were punished