The stripping rule.... again

[adamkungl]

This threads probably been done a thousand times but f**k me that rule is frustrating. It's a lottery. 50/50 call each and every time.

What are your ideas for improving it?

Personally I'd go with one of

a) Free game. Allow stripping, have a greater emphasis on ball control. Downside is the possibility of far more conservative play with teams not wanting to offload due to the chance of a strip.

b) Change the rules with penalties so that only unsafe conduct or professional fouls can result in a kick for touch or kick for goal. Doesn't remove the problem but minimises the effect. Stripping rule aside there is definately a case for this anyway. Way to easy to piggy back your way into good field position through dubious crap like markers not square or a leg pull when standing up, and rewards milking too often.

I'm iffy on a) but have thought b) is a very good idea for a fair while now.

 

[Parra]

I'd go for A


Option B reminds me of the ELV's tried in rugby. It's all about the sanctions. Unfortunately, this sort of change is too much, despite the obvious positives.

 

[Eels Dude]

There's no easy solution. I think they at least need to allow 2 on 1 tackle strips legal, as opposed to just 1 on 1 at the moment. Any more than that then we'll just have gang tackles and a lil Alfie knocking the ball loose again which will mean death of the offload and second phase play. It's a tricky one though.

 

[adamkungl]

I'd go for A


Option B reminds me of the ELV's tried in rugby. It's all about the sanctions. Unfortunately, this sort of change is too much, despite the obvious positives.

I don't think it's that much of a change. You still get a penalty, I don't think it's a penalty that justifies a free 40 metres upfield though.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

Personally I think the current rule is fine.

 

[Marshall_magic]

I don't think it's that much of a change. You still get a penalty, I don't think it's a penalty that justifies a free 40 metres upfield though.

But if it happens, teams will strip the ball more often, (especially early in the count).

 

[mrpwnd]

Players get treated like little pancys nowadays.
Did the coach ever tell them to grow the f**k up and hold the ball?

 

[The Green Mushroom]

I'd take option A. If you can't keep hold of the ball while you are being tackled, you might want to reconsider your sport.

 

[Bgoodorgoodatit]

with regard to the first point i think the rule needs to stay but there needs to be more of an onus on the attacking player to retain possession of the ball when adjudicating penalties.

with the second point (i think ive read it on here at some point) but ive always favored the idea of the attacking team having the choice of either restarting the tackle count OR kicking for touch and resuming the tackle count. i think this would help negate the effect that penalties have on a game, which can only be a good thing.

 

[DaSuperHero2]

how about refs excercise their minimal right to common sense...

if a player has poor control or the ball in a position where control will be minimal with impact then its a knock on , if its in a stronghold position and a arm pulls it out penalise....

 

[Goldthorpe]

Option A - It's simple there is no grey areas.

 

[Iafeta]

There were two ordinary calls in that aspect - Minichiello was trying to push through the ruck, and Luck was holding onto the ball, what else was going to happen? And of course the blatant, White going for an offload, ball gets caught behind Ukuma Ta'ais back, and is somehow called a strip.

The rule should be if the referee is sure its INTENTIONAL. IE, you make a genuine raking motion. Not if your hands are tackling around the ball.

That wasn't the most ordinary decision of the night though, nor the most consequential, calling Rapira offside at marker when he stripped Friend one on one was incompetence of the highest order.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

If you're trying to hold on to the ball, it's a penalty.

If you're in any way looking to promote the ball or being loose with your carry, it's fair game.

 

[RHCP]

If option A was to be implemented, it would be gone by the end of the season. It would be much to easy for players to just gang tackle a bloke and rip the ball out of his grasp.

I think 2-on-1 should be allowed, if the second player isn't involved in the stripping of the ball. If a player is hanging around the bootlaces or isn't attacking the ball carrying arm, the second player should be able to strip the ball.

 

[Iafeta]

The problem I see with allowing 2 on 1's, is that good attacking players will be told to tuck the ball under the arm rather than look to promote it. Because if 1 guy is tackling you around the hips, and another guy is going for the ball, unless you're well balanced you're going to cough it up most times. You'd see a real lack of offloading and continuity in my opinion, and personally, I wouldn't want offloading to become less and less because its a great skill to have and it opens up the game.

I think the judgement just needs to be simplified. If you're going for a tackle, and you tackle around the ball, but are not raking at it, and the ball comes free it is not a penalty. If you are falling to the ground, and you've tackled around the ball, and you're not raking at it, it's not a penalty. Last night their ruling was basically that the ball had come free with arms around the ball. Well, of course. Players tackle around the ball to stop an offload. It's not an indiscretion. And that's why Robert Finch is not a good referee's manager, because he doesn't allow or coach enough use of common sense. It's black and white. Much like his dumb idea about the 10m advantage rule.

 

[Didgi]

Give minor penalties a 10m march upfield, major ones you can kick for touch.

Option A wouldnt work IMO.

 

[adamkungl]

I assume nothing will change and we'll continue whinging about this for years

 

[griff]

The solution is pretty simple actually. Leave the rule as it is. You just need to introduce the notion of "intent".

That is, if the ball comes lose but the tackler wasn't trying to strip the ball, play on.

We have a test of intent when the ball goes out of bounds. If the last person to touch it didn't intend to touch it, then it isn't considered out off them. Same thing with a knock on when it touches the hand of the tackler. It's a subjective judgement, but that allows the refs to use a bit of common sense.

 

[Iafeta]

The solution is pretty simple actually. Leave the rule as it is. You just need to introduce the notion of "intent".

That is, if the ball comes lose but the tackler wasn't trying to strip the ball, play on.

We have a test of intent when the ball goes out of bounds. If the last person to touch it didn't intend to touch it, then it isn't considered out off them. Same thing with a knock on when it touches the hand of the tackler. It's a subjective judgement, but that allows the refs to use a bit of common sense.

Which is the point with most of our rules, which Robert Finch and his gross incompetence has missed. He is training the referees on the black and white areas of the rulebook, without using common sense, without looking at intent. Players need to tackle around the ball to stop an offload, if the player still tries it and it comes free, unless the defender has intentionally raked the ball away, it is play on.

 

[Dr Crane]

what i don't understand is around the 60th minute the titans lost the ball and the warriors were given possession, but 15 minutes earlier the same scenario was a titans penalty.