I know this rule has been in the NRL for a couple of seasons for kicks going dead but why should it apply to a kick that has to be diffused in goal?
Surely an attacking kick like this, shouldn't be penalised the same as a meaningless kick that goes dead and is sometimes kicked from in your own half?

Yeah I agree, I thought it did only apply if it went dead - was surprised to see it used after a diffused bomb.

I'm not sure it does apply to a diffused kick caught on the full in goal, I think that should be a 20m restart, I think the ref got it wrong the other night.
In the video explanation it never mentions a diffused bomb, so either it's been missed off in that interpretation or it's not the correct decision.

I'm sure we've just adopted the NRL rules whereby if the bomb is caught over the try line then it is 7 tackles from the 20 metre re-start ??

But it's still a poor kick. I'm presuming the purpose of the rule is to keep the ball in play and the action constant, so anything that results in a 20 metre restart is negative.

Had an obstructed view of FC's winning try but seemed to be a kick to the in goal, that if diffused, would have resulted in 7 tackles to Wakey from the 20?
How can that be classed the same as a pressure relieving kick, when you're under the kosh in your own half, just so you can get set up on their 30?

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.