An interesting, although I suspect tongue in cheek twitter campaign is ongoing to outlaw a third man joining a tackle. Support includes Lee Briers and Richie Mathers. Wigan and Melbourne would no doubt throw their toys out of the pram over this, so I'd vote for it purely on those grounds.

Seems a valid idea to me. There are so many instances where two players stop the momentum, then a third comes in, usually a grub, and just hammers away at a player's kidneys or knee, purely intended to damage the ball carrier and add five or six seconds to the play the ball. Melbourne in particular are being moaned about for this in the NRL.

How about they change the rules so that its a penalty to join a tackle after the initial impact has happened? Gang tackling would still be possible as if you could get three into the initial tackle you wouldn't be penalised and effort in defense is rewarded, which is fine because in that situation it isn't dangerous. They could also make it illegal to join any tackle below the waist if the player is already being held. I reckon this rule change alone would strip a good few season ending knee injuries out very quickly.

I sort of agree in principle but I don't think you can just ban a 3rd man from coming in since often a 3rd man is actually needed to complete the tackle.

What is needed is to ban the 3rd man from using excessive force in the tackle, since whether its on the knees or ribs it can cause damage and sadly that is what it is often intended to do.

While I appreciate a players safety is paramount I don't like the amount of rule changes that are having to be made due to new and advanced coaching techniques. While not agreeing a rule change or inclusion is the answer a gentlemans agreement between coaches may well be the initial step in the right direction.

If it were to continue and major injuries were being caused due to this tactic then yes but I would exhaust all other avenues before writing anything in the rule book.

Clubs like Wigan and Melbourne don't see written rules as being applicable to them, they would completely ignore any gentleman's agreements. They pioneered the chicken wing, invented the dreaded Ninja tackle and have taken gang tackling to a knee busting extreme.

the third man is often needed to drive a player into touch or to prevent the ball carrier from scoring

if the tackle is not complete and 2 men are struggling to bring down the player, and a third man is needed. That third man cant be penalised for completing the tackle.

Although i do understand why players want it to be outlawed

It is a very interesting point...I wonder how many injuries occur in this instance? The only issue I'd have is often you have a prop for example tackled by 2 backs...they continue the leg drive and ultimately continue forwards. The 3rd man is often going low to stop this and as such serves a purpose. If we banned a 3rd man entering then it would result in forwards running at backs and making more metres that way....if two backs tackle a prop they would have to go one up one down and that would open up far more offloads (which I guess is a good thing).

Additionally, how would you referee the 3rd man? half the referee's cant' get ball steals correct and that's been law for ages!

My preference would be to educate coaches not to allow players to do all they can to injury opponents. If the ball is wrapped up in a tackle and the 3rd man is solely there to take the attacker to the ground, then it should be with appropriate force and not with the thought of breaking a leg! Persistant offences by clubs should see coaches disciplined....they would then be more inclined to stop the practice and not select repeat offenders in their squads!!

There should be limits on what a third man into the tackle can do. They should have to use there arms rather than run in for a cheep shot with the shoulder. Hits on the legs should be restricted as well.

Attackers need to just learn when to stay up and move or offload, and when to get on the ground.
Banning more than the 2nd tackler is just silly.

There should be no limit on the number of tacklers allowed to participate in any tackle.

The issue is controlling the tackling technique of those involved. Jeff Lima is the prime example of how not to do it, clean that up and there's no problem.

Although there are no stats to hand I would say given the nature of the collisions that occur like this, plenty.



This is the situation that has been threatening to boil over in Super League for a year or so now with Maguire and is breaking out with Bellamy in the NRL at the moment. Mick Potter has publicly criticised Maguire for deliberately coaching tactics designed purely to damage the ball carrier. When he came to this country Wigan's defensive tactics changed totally and whilst most of that is good hard work, there was a massive rise in the use of limbs and pressure points. Things like chicken wings, ninja tackles and hitting the knees of players held up in the tackle. Potter mentioned it's a question of morality, some coaches won't do it and some will. No matter how you educate, there are always certain coaches whose competitive nature and desperation for personal glory and career gain will lead them astray.

But how do you ever clean it up, if there are no rules against it in the first place?

There are rules against it. The last but one edition of a monthly RL mag contained a list of directives sent out from Red Hall on such issues before the start of the season. That's why the likes of Lima have been banned and there are a reducing number of chicken wing and pressure point type tackling efforts.

If you want to legislate specifically against defenders joining the tackle late, why not make it so the third or subsequent man in must use their arms to wrap and tackle (similar to the rule that exists in Union) and cannot attack the knees or below of the ball carrier?

I saw Richie's tweet, sent a reply to him saying I thought below the knee third man tackles were already banned, but he didn't seem to want to discuss it. I thought that's what Lima and Shenton got yellows for earlier in the season. while i do agree with where he is coming from, 3rd man in tackles are necessary. as long as they are legitimate. How else do you get a man down who is dragging two people along with him? go for the legs. Again, legitimately. Joints shouldn't be attacked at all, but 3rd man in on the legs should be fine. I very much doubt a twitter trend is going to affect Red Hall, but power to the people there Mr Mathers

It was a yellow card earlier in the season but magically players stopped been binned for it when Wigan complained about it

I agree....but that number will decrease drastically if the punishment is put on the coach and not the player. The player admittedly should face sanctions for dangerous play....but a coach that brings these techniques to the game (whether they are moral or not) will stop them if they themselves are punished. If we use Wigan as an example (and I'm not picking on them because of a hatred etc)...Maguire has brought the 3 man tackle in to slow the game down and that often involves questionable technique as you've mentioned. If Jeff Lima (who was suspended numerous times from memory at the start of the season) keeps on tackling dangerously which results in Maguire being punished...I assure you that Lima wouldn't make the 17 man squad on match day.

That is the message we need to get out there.

Well done Sadact, reeled in perfectly by the two biggest pussies in SL, the two pussies that read this forum, the two pussies that couldn't tackle a hot dinner.

If it was left to half the people on here we'd be playing tag rugby, the games gone soft enough as it is.

Just out of interest, what's tough in driving your shoulder into the standing leg or ribs of a player unable to do anything about it?

I wouldn't call that tough, I'd call them a pussy.

It is amusing to see a Warriors fan defending it and saying the game has gone soft yet a little bit of a rough time for ickle Sammy from the fans and it's the worst thing the sport has ever witnessed!!!!!

I wonder if Sam actually stopped tackling himself before even getting touched the Wigan fans would be so happy about a third big tough prop forward smashing his knee to smitheriens and having him retire at such an early age...Now I do not wish this on anyone least of all one of the brightest young talents in the game but as the Wigan faithful and staff are so keen for this tactic to go on within the game justice can only be around the corner can it not?

3 things.

1. Its not the fact its the third man in, its the nature of the tackle they might put in. Lima was naughty earlier this year, as others have been. A 3rd or 4th or 5th man in is often a necessity. As others have said, police it properly and the offences will decrease. Not that I actually recall many injuries from 3rd man hits despite the wailing in some quarters.

3. Any SL players moaning about 3rd man in are indeed shi1houses and should be embarrassed.

2. Stop replying to sadsack. He's a miserable little troll whose sole pleasure in life is fishing on tinternet.

Love you too

Jesus you are a one sided poster, didn't you watch the Saints v Wigan game last week, plenty of 3+ tackles made by Saints and quite a few with the 3rd man around the legs.

Anything that helps improve the health & safety aspects of our sport should be championed. Anyone who knows me on here will know I put club affiliation aside in order to progress the sport.

And we wonder why we never beat Australia.

I'm no fan of Wigans, but thier defence last week against Saints was one of the best i have seen in a number of years. if the rest of SL could defend like that we might have a chance against Australia.