The incentive not to do it remains the same though. We can applaud its accuracy, I suppose, but rugby should be about passing and crossing the line with the ball, not just jumping the highest and flopping to the ground. It might produce more running plays on the fifth tackle, as then you'll be facing a handover and six tackles on perhaps the ten metre line than seven tackles on the twenty.

rule makes perfect sense in my opinion.
There's the reward of a possible try from a kick but then the risk that if the kick isn't good enough or the defence take an excellent catch that you will concede a 7 tackle set.

I don't understand why people think it is a bad rule

I think this rule is why we are seeing more teams 'take the 2' anywhere near the opposition line.
They get 2 points and the ball back, rather than nothing and having to defend for 7 tackles.
To me this can only have a negative effect on play close to the line.
How many times on Friday did Warrington and Cas run the ball on the last tackle near the opposition line, rather than kick?

Except we didnt when we had the chance on Friday would have put us 10 in front with the ball back we took 2 in the first half so no idea why we refused in the second we then gave a penalty away a penalty the rest is in the paper

Think that's purely down to game management.
Something we don't seem to want to do.