Needs looking at this rule, espeically when a player is clearly just trying to make a tackle and the slightest of touch off them (without being played at) results in the opposing team getting another set, it kills a side.

It's massive grey area but when the ball has clearly not been played at, we're seeing a lot of referees just waving back to one whatever

Agreed. Also I'd like to see more 'loose carries' and less 'strips'.

Do you mean charge down on kicks, or just generally? If the latter, I think it's better this way. Yeah they might not be playing at it but it removes all doubt and all attempts to guess the defender's intentions.

I've often thought, if there is a touch from the opposition be it a stray hand in the act of tackling or a ricochet/charge down from a kick on the last tackle that ends up with the ball back in the possession of the attacking side, a "7th" tackle could be introduced.

It would cut out any doubt about if the ball was played at, gives both teams time to re group and is a better reward for a defending team, who have worked hard to get to the kicker/man in possession.
As it stands we are rewarding the attacking side for not getting the pass/kick away quickly or accurately enough.

That's actually not a bad idea, EXCEPT I fear it'd mean lengthy trips to the VR every time it happened (or apparently might have happened). And we already get too much of that as it is.

I agree, it is a good idea, but the decision on this should not be sent up to the VR.

That is a good shout and yeah, regarding your last sentence, it's kind of what i'm alluding to, we're rewarding poor play too often.

But just sticking your hand out to knock a pass down isn't good play either. In fact it's worse play than the team that's trying to pass the ball.

The rule itself is fine, it's just the refs and video refs have gone a bit too far sometimes in deeming a defender has played at the ball when he sometimes hasn't.

I was glad to see that wasn't the case in the Leigh v Hull KR game though.

In union it's a sin-bin! Which I've always thought was crazy. But I can sympathise with the view that it's poor play by the attacking side; it's up to them to throw their passes over or past defenders in such a way that they can't be intercepted.

But they aren't being intercepted, they're being knocked down. Defending teams can intercept a pass and go and score, but that's not what's happening. They're just knocking the ball to the floor. I don't see why we should give them any advantage for that. If they've played at the ball then they've knocked on, I don't see why we should change the rules just because they were defending rather than attacking.

I agree, I don't think we should 'give any advantage' to a defending team for knocking the ball down. And under the current laws, we don't.

To be honest, i only ever thought about a 7th tackle with regards kicks on the last play as I was just trying to come up with something that would eradicate any doubt and possibly make the refs life a bit easier, without penalising either team too harshly.

If the ball is kicked, touched by the defending team (played at or not) and ends up back with the attacking side they get a 7th tackle. If it ends up in the hands of the defending team its zero tackle

If the ball has been tapped down by the defender in an attempt to intercept, its a knock on, if it is touched in the act of making the tackle, then the 7th tackle could be applied.