Jump to content

Ball steal rule to be axed at the end of this season.


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

I’d be interested to know if it’s reduced the number of offloads by forwards

And that`s the key isn`t it, would people still want it scrapped if there was an actual increase in off-loads. Having the rule I think has evened up the contest between the tackler and the tackled, sometimes the tackler will break free, turn and off-load, occasionally there will be a steal and sometimes if the player struggles with the tackled player too long for the ball the referee will reward six-again. Generally I think it works pretty well and is all about timing.

But of course it is up to the referee to officiate it correctly, no one wants to watch two blokes wrestling for the ball for too long, benefit of the doubt has to go to the ball-carrier and if the other bloke won`t let go, six-again.

We saw a lot of unsuccessful attempted steals by Queensland last night, particularly in the first half, and I don`t think it detracted from the flow of the game. When Cleary successfully pulled one of it was more of a shock tactic rather than a wrestle for the ball, where he sort of just grabbed the ball and reefed it off the opposition player.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, paul hicks said:

to be of any use in looking at new rules to be applied in the upper leagues it really should be done at a good professional standard  so that really only leaves super league, the championship, challenge cup and perhaps the 1895 cup.

gone are the days of county cups john player ect trophies the the bbc 2 trophy. indeed even the old reserve league is not around .

 

good comment, you need consistency to trial new laws / rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

Yes.  Was this a law introduced into the NRL?  Is it an international rule?

The NRL changed the ball-stealing law before the start of the 2018 season. 

The fact that something can work perfectly well for 3 and a half years in the NRL, yet cause widespread consternation when introduced over here, not least on this forum, and is now being considered for reversal after a few months, raises disturbing questions about UK RL.

The old rule and its application were more fraught and arbitrary than some posters seem to remember. How many times did we see a clean one-on-one strip penalised simply because other defenders were roughly in the vicinity?

I don`t understand why so many think the old rule makes sense.

When a tackler effects a brilliant one-on-one strip, should that really be illegal because another defender laid a hand on the ball-carrier earlier in the same play? And when a ball-carrier breaks clear of two tacklers, at what point is either of those tacklers subsequently entitled to independently steal the ball in that play? - one second later, two seconds later, when the ball-carrier has run five metres, ten metres? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, voteronniegibbs said:

good comment, you need consistency to trial new laws / rules

The RFL have been trialling the rollball across all UK competitions for several years. Despite the rulebook and their own guidelines still declaring it illegal.

Some players still use a PTB, many have adopted the rollball. The officials allow either. The only consistency is dishonesty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Well informed rumour, I’d say. I’m not hugely against this ball steal rule but it’s quite an ugly, spoiling tactic when deployed.

I’d be interested to know if it’s reduced the number of offloads by forwards. 

When we had the magician forwards who were genius with the slight of hand at offloading any number of opposition player's could be involved in the 'stealing' of the ball, it is a forgotten or a coached out skill these days, in modern players I would say only Cuthbertson at Leeds could get anywhere near to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its about time the RFL saw sense over this. The ball steal rule was a stupid NRL concept that we just blindly copied. Am I right in thinking the Aussies also wanted the international rules changed to include it as well but never got it approved by the international committee ?

As others have said already it promoted safety first rugby and took away the offloading forwards. Players like Lauititi would have been completely nullified playing under this rule

St.Helens - The Home of record breaking Rugby Champions

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, unapologetic pedant said:

The NRL changed the ball-stealing law before the start of the 2018 season. 

The fact that something can work perfectly well for 3 and a half years in the NRL, yet cause widespread consternation when introduced over here, not least on this forum, and is now being considered for reversal after a few months, raises disturbing questions about UK RL.

The old rule and its application were more fraught and arbitrary than some posters seem to remember. How many times did we see a clean one-on-one strip penalised simply because other defenders were roughly in the vicinity?

I don`t understand why so many think the old rule makes sense.

When a tackler effects a brilliant one-on-one strip, should that really be illegal because another defender laid a hand on the ball-carrier earlier in the same play? And when a ball-carrier breaks clear of two tacklers, at what point is either of those tacklers subsequently entitled to independently steal the ball in that play? - one second later, two seconds later, when the ball-carrier has run five metres, ten metres? 

Don't know how you can say that.

Three players tackle and correctly unsettle a player as they bring him down.  They then choreograph 2 players letting go and the 3rd then takes advantage.   There is nothing 'clever' about that, only being cute. On the other hand 2 opposing players competing each other is something to appreciate. 

Furthermore, there are other aspects of the game besides offloads. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shame . I don’t understand why it’s seen as a completely stupid rule . It’s a good way of trying to wrestle back possession , you as a ball carrier are allowed to keep hold of it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, DimmestStar said:

Please get rid of golden point while we're at it.

And bring back actually playing the ball with the foot.

Rugby Union the only game in the world were the spectators handle the ball more than the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d get rid of the 7 tackle rule from kicks that go dead  . I find it ridiculous . It was brought in to stop a specific deliberately negative tactic , as highlighted by an infamous St George v Melbourne game , wherein St George tried to negate the impact of Slater by belting the ball dead . But i don’t think it was properly thought through . Very good kicks can roll dead , often marginally . Commentators say ‘ great kick ... oh nearly ‘ . Players are more likely to take the tackle on last play .  It’s a harsh penalty for a slightly mis judged attacking kick or just bad luck due to a bounce 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it`s a 'very good kick" it wouldn`t have rolled dead. The really good kickers don`t often get it wrong.

Warren Ryan always coached his kickers to aim for the try line, not the dead ball line, if it rolls a bit further then it won`t matter. Pretty sound advice if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, DavidM said:

I’d get rid of the 7 tackle rule from kicks that go dead  . I find it ridiculous . It was brought in to stop a specific deliberately negative tactic , as highlighted by an infamous St George v Melbourne game , wherein St George tried to negate the impact of Slater by belting the ball dead . But i don’t think it was properly thought through . Very good kicks can roll dead , often marginally . Commentators say ‘ great kick ... oh nearly ‘ . Players are more likely to take the tackle on last play .  It’s a harsh penalty for a slightly mis judged attacking kick or just bad luck due to a bounce 

But if we removed conceding the 7 tackle set, how would you deter the negative tactic of deliberately kicking the ball dead? It's the better of two evils for me.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dunbar said:

But if we removed conceding the 7 tackle set, how would you deter the negative tactic of deliberately kicking the ball dead? It's the better of two evils for me.

I never thought there was such a level of deliberately kicking the ball dead to warrant a complete rule change . I thought it was an overreaction that’s had a big impact in terms of kicking in general . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rupert Prince said:

Three players tackle and correctly unsettle a player as they bring him down.  They then choreograph 2 players letting go and the 3rd then takes advantage.   There is nothing 'clever' about that, only being cute. On the other hand 2 opposing players competing each other is something to appreciate. 

I can see your argument, this isn`t a black and white consideration. I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages when an obligation to be "clever" or "cute" is correspondingly placed on the ball-carrier.

If the RFL want to take a stand against a more recently introduced NRL rule they should challenge the replacement of scrum with handover after the ball crosses the touchline. It`s academic at the moment, with no scrums at all over here, but long-term this change is unequivocally detrimental with no redeeming aspects whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dunbar said:

But if we removed conceding the 7 tackle set, how would you deter the negative tactic of deliberately kicking the ball dead? It's the better of two evils for me.

Restart on the 30m?

Rugby Union the only game in the world were the spectators handle the ball more than the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Bod said:

The ball steal requires not one bit of skill and should be removed from the game.

Apart from the skill to rip the ball away from someone who doesn’t want to let it go , and have the smarts to do it and guts to go for it . Get it wrong and minimum you’re giving away 6 more 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dunbar said:

But if we removed conceding the 7 tackle set, how would you deter the negative tactic of deliberately kicking the ball dead? It's the better of two evils for me.

I would have thought that a tap on the twenty and six tackles would be enough of a deterrent to discourage most players/coaches from kicking the ball dead, deliberately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t see anything wrong with the rule. There has never been one occasion of a successful ball steal, where I thought “hmm that’s a shame, he really had great ball control there and didn’t deserve to have it  stolen”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's to be ruled out for next season, it can also be ruled out with immediate effect.

Its a team skill to steal the ball under the rule: spot the opportunity and then execute it. I see nothing wrong with it, in fact, with one reservation.  It introduces an  unnecessary level of complication in the refs decision-making and creates an opportunity for endless inconclusive  argument on here.

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.