Jump to content

Stealing the ball.


Recommended Posts

it  was never a problem when you could pinch the ball the onus was on the the player to make sure he kept hold of it,go back to that and problem solved.

Through the fish-eyed lens of tear stained eyes
I can barely define the shape of this moment in time(roger waters)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply
8 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Players, tactics, and defensive technique were different then. 

These days, every tackle would see two men hold the attacker up, third one come in and steal the ball. Nobody is going to promote the ball in that situation. 

So you are guessing, there is absolutely no evidence to say they would disappear overnight. Most offloads currently happen before that 3 man scenario you describe anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Players, tactics, and defensive technique were different then. 

These days, every tackle would see two men hold the attacker up, third one come in and steal the ball. Nobody is going to promote the ball in that situation. 

I'm sure the players would adapt and the skills of Knocker Norton, Harry Pinner and Mal Reilly may just reappear.

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

That scenario wouldn't happen now because they cant steal the ball in that situation. 

That doesn't even make sense. 3 men in the tackle always happens. It was your scenario. More people attracted to try and steal a ball can create opportunities elsewhere.

Every RL rule change has unintended and unforeseen consequences and its ludicrous that you think you know exactly what will happen with a change of rules, no one does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Of course it makes sense, three men in the tackle does happen, but they don't try and steal the ball because they aren't allowed. If they were, they would, and to counter that attacking players would have to prioritise ball security over getting their arms free.

Its ludicrous that you think giving and advantage to the defensive side by allowing them to steal the ball wouldn't give an advantage to the defensive side. 

They rarely try to get there arms free in a 3 man tackle as it is and as is are scared of losing the ball due to a loose carry being given.

In your opinion its an advantage. Others would see it as just restoring parity and making things even again after numerous rule changes giving advantage after advantage to the attacking team and removing any competition for the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

that's just wishful thinking, defensively the game has moved forward massively in the last 30 years or so, not just in terms of fitness but the efforts put in to wrestling, defensive techniques have moved on, tactics have moved on. 

Giving the defence an advantage in being able to steal the ball isn't going to help the attacking side. 

Defensive techniques would have to change yet again to subdue the change and the defensive part of our game can be as pleasing as the attacking part in fact the attacking part of the game today has become to predictable and so sterile.

 

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Damien said:

That doesn't even make sense. 3 men in the tackle always happens. It was your scenario. More people attracted to try and steal a ball can create opportunities elsewhere.

Every RL rule change has unintended and unforeseen consequences and its ludicrous that you think you know exactly what will happen with a change of rules, no one does.

Not all changes have been for the better of the game.

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

that's just wishful thinking, defensively the game has moved forward massively in the last 30 years or so, not just in terms of fitness but the efforts put in to wrestling, defensive techniques have moved on, tactics have moved on. 

Giving the defence an advantage in being able to steal the ball isn't going to help the attacking side. 

Just a thought, how comes Jake Conner seems to be getting the ball out reminiscent of the three I mentioned

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Defensive technique wouldn't want to subdue the change, they would want to exacerbate it. Attacking play would want to subdue it and the only way for them to do that would be to not promote the ball for an offload as they would be more likely to see it pinched or to drop to the floor quickly to complete the tackle. Im not sure why either of those things would make for a better game. 

One way is boring the other gets the crowds on their toes in anticipation.

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, scotchy1 said:

 Because the defensive side can't steal the ball now. 

So ball stealing would enhance players ability to off load under pressure and in turn would bring more excitement into the game. Do you remember when and why they changed the law on ball stealing.

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

And see offloads pretty much disappear overnight.

Not really in the NRL players are allowed to steal the ball with more than one in the tackle if players are attempting to offload or to score a try. That hasn’t killed offloading over there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

 Of course it is an advantage. Compared to now you are giving the defending team an advantage then for some reason pretending it wont give them an advantage while also arguing it should be done to give them an advantage. 

I don't think it is an advantage. For most of the games history it was allowed so your comparison to now is a little selective. As things stand now it is giving the attacking team an advantage, compared to what happened before, so obviously any deviation from this is less of an advantage. I have played under both and really don't see the advantage. The game now certainly favours the attacking team far more than at any time in its history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

Both of those ways seem pretty boring to me. I don't want to watch forwards dropping to the floor and I do want to watch Ali Lauitiiti's and David Solomona's running around with the ball in one hand throwing it about in the tackle. 

I'm sure back in the day we had more forwards capable of throwing the ball around in the tackle, James Graham has made a living out of it in the NRL

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

No, ball stealing would make the risk/reward ratio for offloading too high. Teams would forego the offload to keep possession. We would see many fewer offloads, it would be deprioritized as a skill, players wouldn't be as good as it and we would lose an exciting part of the game. 

Yet again you don't know any of that and keep stating it as fact. Also I see its now gone from offloads disappearing overnight to fewer, which is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

No, ball stealing would make the risk/reward ratio for offloading too high. Teams would forego the offload to keep possession. We would see many fewer offloads, it would be deprioritized as a skill, players wouldn't be as good as it and we would lose an exciting part of the game. 

I beg to differ, I find the game today more biff bash and stereotype than it was.

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

Its obviously an advantage from where we are now. My comparison isn't selective, im not sure why we would compare it to the game in 1912 instead of today that makes no sense. 

People are allowed different opinions Scotchy, this is a forum after all. You don't decide the rules for debate no matter how much you try to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

The idea that coaches would want players to take a much higher risk for the same reward is preposterous. 

Come on, you didn't answer the question. Which is it, will offloads disappear like you initially said or just reduce like your later posts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Marauder said:

Why do the NRL players like the British style when they come here to play.

That's an interesting observation actually. Players like Graham, Bateman, Burgess etc constantly get praised for their offloading, passing and creativity and it is obviously encouraged by their coaches. That does give the impression that it is something not encouraged from within the domestic development system and players not having the skills to carry it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

But that is down to improvement in defensive techniques. You put the strength and conditioning training, tactics and defensive technique of today in the game 20/30/40/50 years ago and the attacking players of those days wouldn't be able to do what they did. 

Would today's player last 80 minutes back in those days and wouldn't be today's players with the strength and conditioning playing against today's players with the same strength and conditioning.

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I haven't at any stage said you aren't allowed your opinion. Just that it makes absolutely no sense, when discussing a possible change, to compare the outcome to a different era to the one which you changed it from.

You do realise that this discussion started with a comparison to a different era and a time when you could actually steal the ball don't you? As such its ludicrous to pick and choose comparisons to suit only your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

Yes they would and the effect would be to create the game we see today. This is where the innovations and development in those areas long with technique and tactics have led us. 

Ask Big Jim Mills and his kind what they would.

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.

http://www.pitchero....hornemarauders/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.