Johnathan Thurston has never been shy about speaking his mind, and now that the four-time Dally M medallist has a seat on the North Queensland Cowboys board, his voice carries more institutional weight than ever. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Thurston has turned his attention to one of the NRL's more contentious on-field mechanisms, arguing that the seven-tackle set rule puts certain teams at a "massive disadvantage" and warrants serious review.
The criticism lands at the start of a season already defined by significant rule changes. The Australian Rugby League Commission confirmed four on-field amendments for 2026 following an extensive consultation process that included clubs, players, coaches, and key stakeholders. One of those changes directly addressed the seven-tackle set: under the new rules, a team will no longer concede an extra set if a player knocks the ball on in the act of scoring in the in-goal area. The intent was sound. As multiple industry observers have noted, seven-tackle sets were originally designed to penalise deliberate kicking dead, but knock-ons in the in-goal had begun producing the same punitive result through accidental means.
The partial fix, however, has not fully satisfied Thurston. A seven-tackle set is still triggered when a kick goes dead in-goal, and it is this remaining provision that he contends creates competitive inequity. The argument has genuine merit on its face: teams that rely heavily on kicking games and aggressive field-position play are structurally more exposed to conceding seven-tackle sets than sides built around ball-in-hand attack. Whether that asymmetry constitutes a fundamental unfairness or simply a tactical trade-off is where the debate becomes genuinely complex.
The ARLC, for its part, says the 2026 package of changes was the product of thorough consultation. ARLC chair Peter V'landys said the consultation process was "thorough and constructive" and that stakeholder feedback was weighed carefully before decisions were finalised. There is a credible case that the commission has been more responsive to club concerns in 2026 than in some previous years. The proposed kick-off rule change, which would have allowed teams conceding a try to choose whether they kicked off or received, was shelved after clubs pushed back hard, with the commission acknowledging that legitimate concerns had been raised about altering the fundamental fabric of the game.
That responsiveness deserves acknowledgement. The NRL has a complicated history with rule tinkering, and the commission's decision to trial the kick-off change in late-season games with no finals implications, rather than imposing it wholesale, reflects a more measured approach than critics of V'landys have sometimes credited him with. Equally, the concerns of former players like Thurston are not simply nostalgia. They reflect real competitive consequences that can shape premiership outcomes.
Thurston's standing lends the critique particular credibility. He is not merely a pundit. Inducted into the NRL Hall of Fame in 2024, Thurston won four Dally M Medals, led Queensland across eight consecutive State of Origin series victories, and delivered North Queensland its maiden premiership with one of the most celebrated field goals in the competition's history. In February 2026, the Cowboys announced his appointment to the club's board, meaning his critique of the seven-tackle set rule now sits at the intersection of commentary and governance.
The broader question is whether the NRL's approach to rule-making is sufficiently systematic. Changes to the six-again rule, penalty zones, interchange rotations, and tackle counts have all arrived in rapid succession over recent seasons, each with its own intended benefits and unintended consequences. Ryan Hoffman, another former premiership winner, separately flagged concerns about the new six-man interchange bench, warning that players sitting on an extended bench without regular game time risked losing match fitness and development opportunities. The pattern of grievances from credible former players suggests the consultation process, while improved, may still be leaving important competitive impacts insufficiently modelled before rules are locked in.
There are no easy answers here. The game's administrators face a genuine tension between the desire to keep rugby league entertaining and commercially viable, especially with a landmark broadcast deal on the horizon, and the obligation to maintain competitive fairness and rule stability. Thurston's frustration with the seven-tackle set is a legitimate signal that at least one significant constituency believes the balance has not yet been struck correctly. The wiser course for the NRL is neither to dismiss that feedback nor to treat it as a mandate for wholesale change mid-season, but to commit to proper empirical review of the rule's competitive effects before the 2027 season begins. That kind of evidence-based governance, rather than reactive tinkering, is what the game's long-term health actually requires.