Ball Stripping Good or Bad?

[myrrh ken]

If you have a mini ruck every tackle, then attackers should be allowed to join in to help secure the ball.

 

[Sean7]

I don't think the previous interpretation was difficult to understand. It was just complicated by the commentators who couldn't get their heads around it. It was frustrating listening to them try to make sense of it.

The problem now is that ball is effectively being stolen with 3 in the tackle well before the other 2 drop off. They just wait for the other 2 to release before they actually show the ref they've got the ball. I wonder if we'll start to see the attacking player simply release the ball before the defenders release.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

I doubt they will change it back as well. It was changed because the NRL wanted to make it easier for the refs. The rule before was too complicated as to the interpretation as to when a tackler or tacklers fell off and the tackle became one on one.

Surely it's now much harder for the refs. When 3 are in the tackle and 2 peel off and the last guy emerges with the ball, it makes it harder to determine who was in the tackle at the point the ball was stripped. Only allowing it in one on one tackles was far easier to police.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

I don't think the previous interpretation was difficult to understand. It was just complicated by the commentators who couldn't get their heads around it. It was frustrating listening to them try to make sense of it.

The problem now is that ball is effectively being stolen with 3 in the tackle well before the other 2 drop off. They just wait for the other 2 to release before they actually show the ref they've got the ball. I wonder if we'll start to see the attacking player simply release the ball before the defenders release.

haha, I should have read your post first.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Robinson is very smart. The Roosters thrive off a fast attack when they have the ball. When they attack at pace, no one can keep up with them. The attempts at stripping stifle this. That's why he's going on about it now.

Souths are the same, there game plan is based around getting to the ground as fast as possible for Damien Cook to take advantage of. No player in the comp is as good as Cam Murray in diving to the ground the moment he is touched to get a quick play the ball.

 

[Front-Rower]

Surely it's now much harder for the refs. When 3 are in the tackle and 2 peel off and the last guy emerges with the ball, it makes it harder to determine who was in the tackle at the point the ball was stripped. Only allowing it in one on one tackles was far easier to police.

Not really. Now, as soon as there is only one defender in the tackle it’s regarded as one on one. If you remember previously, if a tackler(s) fell off, it was still regarded as a multiple man tackle unless everyone dropped off and the ball carrier was engaged again further down field.

 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

Good. It's what makes RU more compelling or gets you more engrossed in the contest sometimes than RL, as in RU you're not quite sure what's gonna happen in tackle areas, there are more turnovers in the tackle area in RU and i want to see more in RL, and the only way of doing that is allowing stripping, should be allowed to strip the ball with 2 or 3 defenders touching the ball carrier

 

[gerg]

Why don't we bring back the rake-backs and kick throughs in the PTB then.

Can you imagine a bloke like Josh McGuire being given permission to strike in the ruck? He'd be kicking everyone in the nuts, and getting away with it, always with that shit eating grin.

 

[LineBall]

Here's Sterlo's view on the stripping rule. At 12:50.

 

[nick87]

Sterlo absolutely f**king nailed it.

 

[T-Boon]

Sterlo absolutely f**king nailed it.

I agree with him.
I would however also bring in rules that essentially outlaw 3 man tackles. For example if you need 3 in the tackle the tackle does not count against the set of 6 tackles it is just a play the ball/ "continuation".
Every three man tackle in the game now is an eye sore disgrace. The worst being those hyena tacklers that circle in behind to get at a guys legs while he is being strangled. (most of Cam Smiths tackles).

 

[Danish]

It will be fun next year once every team spends an off season both training to execute it and also defend it. Offloads by forwards will essentially disappear.

That will really add to the excitement and contest.

And hate to spoil it for you, but the teams who’ll benefit and exploit it best will be the storm and roosters (Melbourne are lords of the wrestle, and we are kings at controlling the ruck). So keeping this rule will actually benefit my team long term

 

[TheRam]

The coaches hate it so it has to be great for the game. Keep it.

 

[TheRam]

I agree with him.
I would however also bring in rules that essentially outlaw 3 man tackles. For example if you need 3 in the tackle the tackle does not count against the set of 6 tackles it is just a play the ball/ "continuation".
Every three man tackle in the game now is an eye sore disgrace. The worst being those hyena tacklers that circle in behind to get at a guys legs while he is being strangled. (most of Cam Smiths tackles).

Or maybe a better rule would be the one Mark Coyne was thinking of bringing in which is the 3rd tackler can't tackle below the shorts. It would force and reward great leg tackles in the game again and stop this wrestle slow dance up top, with the 3rd man coming in just as the ref calls held, to bring the ball carrier down on his back. If you can't come in for a tackle around the legs as 3rd man, then there is nowhere else to bind/go to tackle the player, thus giving the momentum to the attacking player.

Coaches would absolutely hate this rule. Which only means it would be sensational.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Not really. Now, as soon as there is only one defender in the tackle it’s regarded as one on one. If you remember previously, if a tackler(s) fell off, it was still regarded as a multiple man tackle unless everyone dropped off and the ball carrier was engaged again further down field.

I understand the rule, the problem is determining the moment the ball is stripped. Did it happen after the other players peeled off or before.

 

[nick87]

It will be fun next year once every team spends an off season both training to execute it and also defend it. Offloads by forwards will essentially disappear.

That will really add to the excitement and contest.

And hate to spoil it for you, but the teams who’ll benefit and exploit it best will be the storm and roosters (Melbourne are lords of the wrestle, and we are kings at controlling the ruck). So keeping this rule will actually benefit my team long term

Ill take my teams chances with it, all the same

 

[Danish]

Ill take my teams chances with it, all the same

Hey I’m all for you continuing to bamboozle the also rans with your cheap parkour tricks.

When it starts winning you games against actual opposition I’ll start to worry

 

[Canard]

LU for a decade:" There's no contest for the ball anymore!"

The stripping rule gets refined to allow a contest for the ball : " Scrap this rule NOW!!"

Anytime a Roosters coach objects to something, you know it's because it's good for the game.

 

[nick87]

When it starts winning you games against actual opposition I’ll start to worry

Your rooster fan brethern are already worried though.

 

[T-Boon]

It will be fun next year once every team spends an off season both training to execute it and also defend it. Offloads by forwards will essentially disappear.

That will really add to the excitement and contest.

And hate to spoil it for you, but the teams who’ll benefit and exploit it best will be the storm and roosters (Melbourne are lords of the wrestle, and we are kings at controlling the ruck). So keeping this rule will actually benefit my team long term

Don’t make out like the Roosters have some great innovative coaching staff. They just steal all the best players.
They aren’t going to work things out next year they will just swap Aubusson for Semi Radradra.