Ball Stripping Good or Bad?

[lockyno1]

Love it. Game had become a bit boring so adding a bit of unpredictability is a good thing.

More of it please

 

[Tiger5150]

But honestly, i do like the rule, it doesnt even happy once a game. There is a few players who are particularly great at it, Munster and Hodgson in particular but even half of those are just straight up 1 on 1 strips, not drop offs

For years and years and years this code has bailed out players who cant secure the football properly. It's high time they made ball security a priority again, this does that to some extent.

I have no problem with this part of your post and that is where a classic one on one applies, not the current rubbish of 3 on one. IMO as soon as a second player touches the ball player it should be over.

 

[nick87]

I have no problem with this part of your post and that is where a classic one on one applies, not the current rubbish of 3 on one. IMO as soon as a second player touches the ball player it should be over.

Why does it matter? It's not like those 3 players are all attacking the football. It's not a beach ball where everyone can get a handle on it, if anyone more than the ball carrier and one defender can be playing at it, then that sumabitch is out there for the taking and not remotely secure.

Otherwise it's two guys fighting for the football, and the ball carrier will never lose it if he's got it secured properly. f**k em. They get a ton of penalties for drop balls anyways, and we give 6 to go for ball players passing into players who arent remotely playing at the footy and just trying to tackle. BIg hits are slowly but surely being legislated out of the game, the game is increasingly skewed to towards attacking football

We cant have it all one way, you've got to leave the defense SOME ability to make a big play.
And the by product is:

1) every team will have thier Munster/Hodgson
or
2) Ball carriers will start securing the damn football.

Either is great. Y'all just shitty because a few clubs have some players who are ahead of the curb.
Again, its easy for me to say, we've got Hodgson who's arguable the best in the league at it but there is no way that someone who has secured the footy can get it stripped 1 on 1 in any circumstances. So start there. Secure the footy and it goes away.

 

[ram raid]

I don't like how easy it is to strip the ball in general. I know the great minds like Gus and Sterlo disagree with me. It's all well and good to say the player with ball is responsible for ball security. But it can get pretty hard when in every tackle you've got two or three players hacking at the ball. So often the player with the ball is holding it in a way I could consider 'secure', when a defender karate chops it out in the motion of a 'tackle'. I'm not a fan.

As for the new one-on-one stripping role. Stupid shit. Get it back to how it was.

Oh and Step One Bamboo Underwear.

 

[T-Boon]

Get rid of 3 man tackles. I havent seen a 3 man tackle in years that wasnt just a wrestle tactic usually involving that ugly sight of one of the tacklers circling around the ball carrier to get at his legs.

 

[nick87]

It’s probably the most unfair rule in the game. How can you possibly go in with 3 men, hold the player up top and around the legs then have that third man rip the ball out when the other two drop off. What hope does the ball carrier have?

If it's so hopeless why does this not happen 10 times a game?
Genuine question, if it's so unfair and the ball carrier has no hope of retaining possession how on earth do we have a single set of 6 where it doesnt happen? Let alone entire games where it doesnt happen?

 

[T-Boon]

Except that it again rewards gang tackling rather than 1 on 1, I like it. I think there should be a higher risk of having the ball stripped if you get tackled. There should be more of a "don't get tackled" attitude. Or at least an "if you got tackled you have lost that contest" attitude. As things are now getting tackled is a good attacking strategy especially in those dump and run sets which is ridiculous. Remember, when RL originally started there was about 15 tackles a game. Pass the ball around a lot more.

 

[Front-Rower]

If it's so hopeless why does this not happen 10 times a game?
Genuine question, if it's so unfair and the ball carrier has no hope of retaining possession how on earth do we have a single set of 6 where it doesnt happen? Let alone entire games where it doesnt happen?

Because it’s been in for about 3 months as a rule? Give it a full offseason where teams can practice it more effectively.

 

[nick87]

Because it’s been in for about 3 months as a rule? Give it a full offseason where teams can practice it more effectively.

So the problem with the rule is that some teams havent prioritized a potential game changing play enough?
Sounds like the league is getting another coaching lesson from ol Rick then.

Do you honestly think this time next year we're going to see this become an pandemic? Isnt it far more likely that teams just adjust and players know when they run at Munster or Hodgson or anyone else that's good at it, that locking the footy in is the priority?

This happens probably on average about once a game. The hang wringing about it is pretty ridiculous.
If you cant secure the football, you deserve to lose it. That's a basic premise of this game and has been since day dot.

 

[TheDMC]

two players wrestle the dude in a way that the third guy can get their arms around the ball. Yeah that’s great for rugby league, more wrestling!

 

[Front-Rower]

So the problem with the rule is that some teams havent prioritized a potential game changing play enough?
Sounds like the league is getting another coaching lesson from ol Rick then.

Do you honestly think this time next year we're going to see this become an pandemic? Isnt it far more likely that teams just adjust and players know when they run at Munster or Hodgson or anyone else that's good at it, that locking the footy in is the priority?

This happens probably on average about once a game. The hang wringing about it is pretty ridiculous.
If you cant secure the football, you deserve to lose it. That's a basic premise of this game and has been since day dot.

Your problem is you keep looking at it as it is today. The rule will bring about a change, a bad one imo.

Again, how is it fair that you can have 3 or 4 men tackle the ball carrier, put him into a vulnerable position, then allow for the ball to be stripped?

The rule was bought in to help the referees, but just like the corner post becoming null and void, will bring a negative to the game.

 

[nick87]

Your problem is you keep looking at it as it is today. The rule will bring about a change, a bad one imo.

Again, how is it fair that you can have 3 or 4 men tackle the ball carrier, put him into a vulnerable position, then allow for the ball to be stripped?

The rule was bought in to help the referees, but just like the corner post becoming null and void, will bring a negative to the game.

Seems fair enough to me. The ball carrier has the ball, it's their job to secure it. Unless the tackled player is in a dangerous position, why is being tackled suddenly "vulnerable"?

I reject the premise of the question. A player being tackled isnt vulnerable. And if the ball carrier is prioritizing a quick play the ball, or an offload, or getting yards after contact and thus, isnt focused on making sure he's got the football secured. So be it. That's life, decisions have consequences.

How fair is it that basically every rule change in the game is aimed as promoting attacking footy and penalising defenders? How fair is most big game changing plays for the defence are being slowly but surely legislated out of the game? How is it fair that a kicker doesnt get a clean kick away, has it charged down and if his team recovers, they're rewarded with a new set? How is it fair that attacking players can surrender, lay prone on the ground as if they're dead, with not a hand laid on them, and if a defender throws him out, or back in goal, or makes him feel it by dropping their weight in on him, they get penalised?

Defenders should get the chance to make plays too. There is a simple and obvious answer for this. Ball carriers can secure the footy, as is their job.

I think the last bolded like is a little la raveal magnifico too. If you think the corner posts becoming null and void has been a negative to the game, then im not sure you're the right man to be talking to about what rules are good or bad.

 

[Tiger5150]

If it's so hopeless why does this not happen 10 times a game?
Genuine question, if it's so unfair and the ball carrier has no hope of retaining possession how on earth do we have a single set of 6 where it doesnt happen? Let alone entire games where it doesnt happen?

In my FURY watching on Saturday night I asked myself the same question, why dont more teams do it? Why dont the Tigers do it? The answer is pretty straightforward and you as a Raiders fan will love it.

The only way the 3 or 4 man strip can work is if your pack is massively on top of the opposing pack. On Saturday night the Raiders pack was great and dominated. In addition the Raiders were incredible at getting fast PTB's, as a result the Tigers were flat out trying to stop the Raiders and were not able to have the luxury of two players dropping of at any time in defence, they were flat out stopping and then trying to slow the Raiders. In attack the Tigers where not punching holes in the Raiders and therefore the Raiders had the time and luxury of standing the Tigers up and pinching the ball.

As you have stated Hodgson & Munster are probably the best and both in a team with a great dominant pack and experts in wrestling/slowing tactics.

Ive possibly just punched a hole in my argument, but I just think its a shit rule and unfair when three guys can hold a guy up, pull at his arms and then drop off. Im a big fan of the one on one strip (and Luke Brooks is good at it) but it should be a penalty IMO as soon as a second man lays a finger on him.

 

[2 weeks]

If Jennifer Hawkins is doing it to me it's a good thing.
If John Hopoate is doing it to me it's a bad thing.

I don't like how easy it is to strip the ball in general. I know the great minds like Gus and Sterlo disagree with me. It's all well and good to say the player with ball is responsible for ball security. But it can get pretty hard when in every tackle you've got two or three players hacking at the ball. So often the player with the ball is holding it in a way I could consider 'secure', when a defender karate chops it out in the motion of a 'tackle'. I'm not a fan.

As for the new one-on-one stripping role. Stupid shit. Get it back to how it was.

Oh and Step One Bamboo Underwear.

 

[Front-Rower]

I think the last bolded like is a little la raveal magnifico too. If you think the corner posts becoming null and void has been a negative to the game, then im not sure you're the right man to be talking to about what rules are good or bad.

Taking the corner post out has made it a lot easier to score tries. Wingers just have to swan dive in tot the corner without fear. But then again, rugby league is a simple game for simple people I suppose (Phil Gould seems to think the same).

 

[nick87]

Ive possibly just punched a hole in my argument, but I just think its a shit rule and unfair when three guys can hold a guy up, pull at his arms and then drop off. Im a big fan of the one on one strip (and Luke Brooks is good at it) but it should be a penalty IMO as soon as a second man lays a finger on him.

They tried that rule and it was terrible!
For mine if you're going to have strips, one on one blanket is the only way to do it

If you just want to eliminate stripping, fine. That'll fit nicely into the direction of the game where we're trying to get 56-48 scorelines.

 

[Slackboy72]

I agree that the orchestrated drop off is rubbish.
Go back to the old rule. If you can strip on a genuine one-on-one then you deserve the ball.

 

[T-Boon]

In my FURY watching on Saturday night I asked myself the same question, why dont more teams do it? Why dont the Tigers do it? The answer is pretty straightforward and you as a Raiders fan will love it.

The only way the 3 or 4 man strip can work is if your pack is massively on top of the opposing pack. On Saturday night the Raiders pack was great and dominated. In addition the Raiders were incredible at getting fast PTB's, as a result the Tigers were flat out trying to stop the Raiders and were not able to have the luxury of two players dropping of at any time in defence, they were flat out stopping and then trying to slow the Raiders. In attack the Tigers where not punching holes in the Raiders and therefore the Raiders had the time and luxury of standing the Tigers up and pinching the ball.

As you have stated Hodgson & Munster are probably the best and both in a team with a great dominant pack and experts in wrestling/slowing tactics.

Ive possibly just punched a hole in my argument, but I just think its a shit rule and unfair when three guys can hold a guy up, pull at his arms and then drop off. Im a big fan of the one on one strip (and Luke Brooks is good at it) but it should be a penalty IMO as soon as a second man lays a finger on him.

I think the better way to go would have been to legitamise one on one strips more by saying in the act of striping one on one there is no knock on (an exception to the knock on rule same as the charge down is an exception). So if you strip it out one on one and it otherwise would be a knock on against you it isnt a knock on and you are able to recover it and play on. Also no tackle count restart if the other team recovers it.

 

[Front-Rower]

I agree that the orchestrated drop off is rubbish.
Go back to the old rule. If you can strip on a genuine one-on-one then you deserve the ball.

Agreed

 

[Someguy]

I agree that the orchestrated drop off is rubbish.
Go back to the old rule. If you can strip on a genuine one-on-one then you deserve the ball.

I’m not liking this idea that one player gets his arms around the ball with no intention of making a tackle, he gets into this position because the ball carrier is held in position by two other players. Those two tacklers drop off once the player going for the strip is ready and the ball is then stripped out. Ugly look imo and the strip has only occurred from the help of the other two tacklers

I understand the rule was put in place to stop the situation whereby a player breaks a tackle and then is stripped by another tackler resulting in a penalty despite the strip taking place with only one tackler on the ball runner. Voluntarily falling off the tackle should not be treated in the same way.

The risk reward balance has been thrown out of whack, by going for a strip you should run the risk of your tackle being unsuccessful due to the strip attempt these orchestrated drop offs have none of that risk involved. Only risk seems to be that of time wasting as the roosters recently found out when they spent an entire set against the storm attempting to strip the ball (ugliest set of 6 to watch this year imo) never did get it out and the shenanigans cost them the chance of having a few extra tackles to attack on their final attacking set.