A new tactic in Vogue?

[Tommygilf]

Leeds on several occasions took advantage of the new rule on stripping the ball whereby if 1 tackler is left then he can strip the ball, regardless of how many players had been previously involved. It happened often enough that I believe it was a planned tactic by Leeds rather than a happy ccoincidence. Wakefield, and indeed all of the other teams I've seen play this year, didn't employ it as a tactic and as a result possibly weren't prepared for it to be used against them.

Will we see more teams take advantage of this? It was supremely effective when deployed. It could be highly impactful in key moments and weaken other tactics (such as wingers driving the ball into the middles early in sets).

[Vambo]

Possibly but must admit that to me it looks ugly. Especially when the ball carrier is on the deck (even though the tackle itself isn't complete).

If everyone adopts the tactic then the game IMO will suffer from it.

[gingerjon]

11 minutes ago, Vambo said:

Possibly but must admit that to me it looks ugly. Especially when the ball carrier is on the deck (even though the tackle itself isn't complete).

If everyone adopts the tactic then the game IMO will suffer from it.

It has the potential to make the game very ugly indeed.

[YCKonstantine]

I didn’t realise there had been a rule change but I for one do not care for it one bit. 1 on 1 means 1 on 1 for me, not 3, 2 “let go” on 1.

[Tommygilf]

57 minutes ago, Vambo said:

Possibly but must admit that to me it looks ugly. Especially when the ball carrier is on the deck (even though the tackle itself isn't complete).

If everyone adopts the tactic then the game IMO will suffer from it.

Possibly, will be interesting to see how it develops.

Many people have suggested our games problem has been a lack of contest for possession, we'll see if they are right.

[DavidM]

Reading that thread title I thought we’d been mentioned in Vogue

[Tommygilf]

Just now, DavidM said:

Reading that thread title I thought we’d been mentioned in Vogue

Autocorrect lol what can I say

[Mrgameandwatch]

One thing I've always been interested in is where the one on one strip rule came from. Its been in place as long as I can remember, prior to the change referenced in this post.

 

Was there a period where ripping the ball was completely banned?

[WakefieldCityLoyal]

Can a player start to strip the ball before the other players drop off?  

[Tommygilf]

12 minutes ago, WakefieldCityLoyal said:

Can a player start to strip the ball before the other players drop off?  

Doubt it, bet that will become a point of contention at some point.

[redjonn]

for me its good to see more competition for the ball, the game does need to provide more variety...

Having seen it happen players will hold onto the ball more tightly and hence less likely to happen... the later game it was tried one or two times but the player carrying was much more aware and held on tightly than he would have previously..

for me I like it...

[John Rhino]

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Leeds on several occasions took advantage of the new rule on stripping the ball whereby if 1 tackler is left then he can strip the ball, regardless of how many players had been previously involved. It happened often enough that I believe it was a planned tactic by Leeds rather than a happy ccoincidence. Wakefield, and indeed all of the other teams I've seen play this year, didn't employ it as a tactic and as a result possibly weren't prepared for it to be used against them.

Will we see more teams take advantage of this? It was supremely effective when deployed. It could be highly impactful in key moments and weaken other tactics (such as wingers driving the ball into the middles early in sets).

To be honest I like the new rules, stripping the ball included. 

To add to your post, it was definitely a coached tactic as you could see the other players letting go, obviously from a call, at the same time 

[Bedfordshire Bronco]

3 hours ago, Vambo said:

Possibly but must admit that to me it looks ugly. Especially when the ball carrier is on the deck (even though the tackle itself isn't complete).

If everyone adopts the tactic then the game IMO will suffer from it.

I think it will reduce the number of offloads as ball carriers get more paranoid about losing possession. Not a good thing in my book 

[Southerner80]

Its a rule which brings an element of the other code into Rugby League. The strip is common in Union.

I think its an ok rule as contest for possession of the ball is a good thing and allows fast turnover of the ball and counter attacks. 

Some coaches will definitely be making stripping the ball in the tackle a tactic and ball carriers will have to be wary of players falling off before a strip is attempted.

[The Rocket]

57 minutes ago, redjonn said:

for me its good to see more competition for the ball, the game does need to provide more variety...

 

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Many people have suggested our games problem has been a lack of contest for possession,

If Rugby League wants to see more unpredictability, and that is what the `one-on-one` strip offers, they should change the rule with regards to the charge-down of kicks. If the charge down didn`t result in six more tackles we would see a lot more of them, we would see the ball on the ground more and the chaos that ensues either when a) a team can`t get it`s kick away on the last and play hot potato football, or b) when a team makes a successful charge down and gather the ball that rapid turn around in possession and the direction of play that occurs.

League is sometimes criticised because of that lack of contest of possession and the rapid back and forth that other sports have because of the contest for possession at every engagement, the one-on-one strip offers a little of this, like striking at the PTB used to, changing the charge down six-again rule could offer a little more.

[The Rocket]

8 minutes ago, Southerner80 said:

I think its an ok rule as contest for possession of the ball is a good thing and allows fast turnover of the ball and counter attacks. 

"Fast turnover and counter attacks" sums it very nicely, especially when defences are a little disorganised, haven`t had time to set.

We all know when the ball hits the deck unpredictable things happen, last week in the 60th minute of the Broncos/Titans game a pass out the back hit the ground and the Broncos defence seeing the ball on the ground abandoned their defensive structure to rush at the ball, Titans regathered and due the unstructured defence scored, there was a similar scenario in the Souths / Roosters game on friday.

I take the other posters point that it may lead to an apprehension to carry the ball more loosely in preparation for an off-load, but it can be only done one-on-one, if there is more than one tackler a player can still slip a pass and any attempt to grab at the ball will be penalised, of course in a one on one tackle it is much easier to free the arms and pass, the risk now in that scenario is that the tackler can reef the ball away, this might be the price we pay for a bit of unpredictability.

[zylya]

35 minutes ago, The Rocket said:

 

If Rugby League wants to see more unpredictability, and that is what the `one-on-one` strip offers, they should change the rule with regards to the charge-down of kicks. If the charge down didn`t result in six more tackles we would see a lot more of them, we would see the ball on the ground more and the chaos that ensues either when a) a team can`t get it`s kick away on the last and play hot potato football, or b) when a team makes a successful charge down and gather the ball that rapid turn around in possession and the direction of play that occurs.

League is sometimes criticised because of that lack of contest of possession and the rapid back and forth that other sports have because of the contest for possession at every engagement, the one-on-one strip offers a little of this, like striking at the PTB used to, changing the charge down six-again rule could offer a little more.

Yeah, agree on this - would be good to see a charge down not reset the tackle count.

[unapologetic pedant]

1 hour ago, The Rocket said:

 of course in a one on one tackle it is much easier to free the arms and pass

And it`s easier to slip out of a one-on-one tackle where the tackler is focussed on stripping the ball rather than effecting the tackle. It`s why defences don`t attempt legal ball-steals from close to their own goal-line.

[unapologetic pedant]

3 hours ago, WakefieldCityLoyal said:

Can a player start to strip the ball before the other players drop off?  

No.

[unapologetic pedant]

2 hours ago, Bedfordshire Bronco said:

I think it will reduce the number of offloads as ball carriers get more paranoid about losing possession. 

Only if ball-carriers are incapable of responding intelligently to the tactic. If they, and support players, are alert, it can increase the number of offloads, for the reason The Rocket cites. As in any contest, outcomes should vary depending on abilities and performance.

In RL in recent times, whenever a team achieve success in contests, it prompts calls to end the contests by changing the rules, rather than demands for oppositions to be more resourceful in response. 

[gingerjon]

9 hours ago, The Rocket said:

 

If Rugby League wants to see more unpredictabilitye.

I want to see skill rewarded. This rule, so far, completely fails to do that and takes us back to the messy rucks of the 1980s. Something jaded old men seem to want but which will be a complete turn off for most people watching.

[The Rocket]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

I want to see skill rewarded. This rule, so far, completely fails to do that and takes us back to the messy rucks of the 1980s. Something jaded old men seem to want but which will be a complete turn off for most people watching.

Changing the charge down six gain call isn`t going to be a game changer, defending teams already have the right to disrupt the kicker, generally kickers will be deep enough or have `blockers` to impede the path of defenders, if they don`t they should and if they haven`t they should be fair game and the defender should not be punished, with a six-again call against them if they get to block the kick. The onus would all go on the kicking team to get it right.

Charging down and gathering the ball before the kicking team will be skill in itself, I suspect teams would work in teams, one to charge down, one or two to be ready for the ricochet, as we know can go any where when a powerful kick comes off a player.

Any team attempting charge downs will also run the risk of leaving their defensive line short, especially if they have two wingers and fullback back for the kick and two attempting the charge down, this could result in a 8 man defensive line, players like Dufty, Papenhausen, Cook could be set loose on the last.

Look over all I don`t think it will have a massive impact on the game unless teams can pull it off, good last tackle kicks are too valuable for attacking teams not to adjust so that their kicker is `protected`, if the charge down is pulled off we will get that rapid turn around counter attack that is so good to watch.

 

[Rupert Prince]

13 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Possibly, will be interesting to see how it develops.

Many people have suggested our games problem has been a lack of contest for possession, we'll see if they are right.

Yes.  But it seems absurd to have to measure this on the margin of there being 2 defenders and then 1.  If you can strip the ball then let it be a simple yes or no. Its just putting another workload the the ref.

But the defender just has to defend it in the tackle on the assumption that the attacker will try to strip the ball.

It seems a confusion by the rule makers. One hand they want to see the play the ball go on and on with (often marginal) 6 again,and on the other they want to see this stopped by a vague stripping rule.

All of it pretty stupid to me.

[Tommygilf]

1 minute ago, Rupert Prince said:

Yes.  But it seems absurd to have to measure this on the margin of there being 2 defenders and then 1.  If you can strip the ball then let it be a simple yes or no. Its just putting another workload the the ref.

But the defender just has to defend it in the tackle on the assumption that the attacker will try to strip the ball.

It seems a confusion by the rule makers. One hand they want to see the play the ball go on and on with (often marginal) 6 again,and on the other they want to see this stopped by a vague stripping rule.

All of it pretty stupid to me.

I think like any attacking play its about catching the opposition off guard and taking advantage.

I also think it will reduce the number of players trying to con the ref into believing the ball has been stripped illegally to win a penalty.

[Rupert Prince]

14 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I think like any attacking play its about catching the opposition off guard and taking advantage.

I also think it will reduce the number of players trying to con the ref into believing the ball has been stripped illegally to win a penalty.

Your last point is a fair one... But I would still prefer either to allow stripping the ball, full stop - or not at all.

Preferably simply allow ball stripping. This still makes it less likely for the defender to try a con.