Stealing the ball

[Adelaide Tiger]

Although I was chuffed that Cas finally managed to win at Saints I was less than thrilled with the amount of ball stealing that frustrates and halts the flow of a game.

The ref is always the fall guy as he is in the unenviable position that he HAS to give a decision once the ball is spilled by the attacker even if he has not seen the offence.  This is magnified in televised game where supporters can see if an incorrect decision is given.

So do we just accept it or should an alternative be found?  I accept that some ‘ball steals’ are just dropped balls and the result of good defence and the ref would still have to make a decision but last night there were a few deliberate ball steals.  So I suggest that a 5 minute sin bin is justified for a deliberate ball steal.

If we can clear the deliberate ball steals out of the game then it helps the officials and helps the flow of the game.

P.S. Before anyone types ‘this will end up with 9v9 in some games’ no it will not as players and coaches are bright enough to learn not to do it.

P.P.S I do however support the one on one ball steal which can instantly changed the momentum of a game.  The ball steal by Bentley on Turner with just a few minutes to go certainly raised the level of noise from the Saints supporters and could have been a game changer.

What do you think?

 

[BridBeachRL]

On 13/08/2021 at 12:04, Adelaide Tiger said:

Although I was chuffed that Cas finally managed to win at Saints I was less than thrilled with the amount of ball stealing that frustrates and halts the flow of a game.

The ref is always the fall guy as he is in the unenviable position that he HAS to give a decision once the ball is spilled by the attacker even if he has not seen the offence.  This is magnified in televised game where supporters can see if an incorrect decision is given.

So do we just accept it or should an alternative be found?  I accept that some ‘ball steals’ are just dropped balls and the result of good defence and the ref would still have to make a decision but last night there were a few deliberate ball steals.  So I suggest that a 5 minute sin bin is justified for a deliberate ball steal.

If we can clear the deliberate ball steals out of the game then it helps the officials and helps the flow of the game.

P.S. Before anyone types ‘this will end up with 9v9 in some games’ no it will not as players and coaches are bright enough to learn not to do it.

P.P.S I do however support the one on one ball steal which can instantly changed the momentum of a game.  The ball steal by Bentley on Turner with just a few minutes to go certainly raised the level of noise from the Saints supporters and could have been a game changer.

What do you think?

 

I know exactly where you are coming from unless the assistant has a clear side on few had the ball being knocked on or is it a ball steal is literally a flip of the coin type of decision. The commentators don't help with their standard sitting on the fence comment of "it's up to the ball carrier to have better control" the one on one is a big boost almost like 40/20 which both are options of gaining control that are hardly used in games (why who knows). In some situations the only way you could decide is by calling the tackle as complete when the 2nd person joins the tackle if the ball is spilled its a penalty. Its such a grey area and with the benefit of Super slow mo replays it's easy to say its a ball steal or knock on but a split second one view I personally wouldn't want to be calling it. 

[Agbrigg]

When I first started watching rugby league, ball stealing was not an issue. You either held it or you didn't. I think this rule encouarges lazy or poor ball handling. Scrap the rule totally and things will soon level out and players will quickly learn how to hold on to the ball.

You only have to look at union. All the stuff that goes on in the tackle you very rarely see a ball steal. Infact there are far more penalties for players not releasing the ball,than steals from the opposition.

[GUBRATS]

The one on one rule was fine , there was no need to change it , just go back to how it was 

[Harry Stottle]

The original any number in the tackle which was used for near 100 years was fine, and in tha time from the 50's up to about 15 years ago was a time when many forwards were ball handlers going into the tackle with the ball held in a "free arm" instead of the prominent up your jumper 5 drives of today, jeez we have lost a lot of skills in the modern game.

[Mr Frisky]

On 13/08/2021 at 12:04, Adelaide Tiger said:

Although I was chuffed that Cas finally managed to win at Saints I was less than thrilled with the amount of ball stealing that frustrates and halts the flow of a game.

The ref is always the fall guy as he is in the unenviable position that he HAS to give a decision once the ball is spilled by the attacker even if he has not seen the offence.  This is magnified in televised game where supporters can see if an incorrect decision is given.

So do we just accept it or should an alternative be found?  I accept that some ‘ball steals’ are just dropped balls and the result of good defence and the ref would still have to make a decision but last night there were a few deliberate ball steals.  So I suggest that a 5 minute sin bin is justified for a deliberate ball steal.

If we can clear the deliberate ball steals out of the game then it helps the officials and helps the flow of the game.

P.S. Before anyone types ‘this will end up with 9v9 in some games’ no it will not as players and coaches are bright enough to learn not to do it.

P.P.S I do however support the one on one ball steal which can instantly changed the momentum of a game.  The ball steal by Bentley on Turner with just a few minutes to go certainly raised the level of noise from the Saints supporters and could have been a game changer.

What do you think?

 

This really came to ahead about 2/3 years ago after the NRL were saying it was a great rule and it would transform RL - then a few teams exploited it and now the NRL want to get rid of it....

[Agbrigg]

5 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

The original any number in the tackle which was used for near 100 years was fine, and in tha time from the 50's up to about 15 years ago was a time when many forwards were ball handlers going into the tackle with the ball held in a "free arm" instead of the prominent up your jumper 5 drives of today, jeez we have lost a lot of skills in the modern game.

Correct. Some forwards back then could hold on to the ball with several tacklers around them trying to steal it, but still slip out a pass if the opportunity was there. Jim mills, Geoffrey grayson's,Denis Hartley etc

[Harry Stottle]

30 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

The one on one rule was fine , there was no need to change it , just go back to how it was 

That rule fell down for me when on numerous occasions a second player who lent no more weight to a tackle than a dirty fingernail was pinged for two in the tackle.

If any number in the tackle are allowed to steal the ball, there is no controversy or argument to be had, simple.

[Harry Stottle]

2 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

Correct. Some forwards back then could hold on to the ball with several tacklers around them trying to steal it, but still slip out a pass if the opportunity was there. Jim mills, Geoffrey grayson's,Denis Hartley etc

In the 70/80's at Leigh we had two great props in Alf Wilkinson and Derek Pyke - went to Widnes, who were absolute magicians at getting the ball away.

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

The original any number in the tackle which was used for near 100 years was fine, and in tha time from the 50's up to about 15 years ago was a time when many forwards were ball handlers going into the tackle with the ball held in a "free arm" instead of the prominent up your jumper 5 drives of today, jeez we have lost a lot of skills in the modern game.

A lot of rule changes that we see now are to fix previous rule changes that were made to either clean up the game or make it more exciting. Everytime we see rules changed there are unintended consequences, often negative. Things like the 40/20 are a reaction to taking away all the variety to the game.

I would actually love to see a couple of games played with rules from about 30 odd years ago just to see how it would go with today's athletes. Proper play the balls, ball stripping, striking for the ball at the play the ball, play the ball to yourself, half competitive scrums. Oh for a bit of competition for the ball and variety. The modern game is far too weighted to the attacking team and it is far too easy to make huge yards through 5 drives and a kick and little else.

[voteronniegibbs]

.

[Agbrigg]

41 minutes ago, Damien said:

A lot of rule changes that we see now are to fix previous rule changes that were made to either clean up the game or make it more exciting. Everytime we see rules changed there are unintended consequences, often negative. Things like the 40/20 are a reaction to taking away all the variety to the game.

I would actually love to see a couple of games played with rules from about 30 odd years ago just to see how it would go with today's athletes. Proper play the balls, ball stripping, striking for the ball at the play the ball, play the ball to yourself, half competitive scrums. Oh for a bit of competition for the ball and variety. The modern game is far too weighted to the attacking team and it is far too easy to make huge yards through 5 drives and a kick and little else.

Totally agree. It's something I have thought about. A special short spell of retro rugby league day a mini competition under old rules.

[Harry Stottle]

40 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

Totally agree. It's something I have thought about. A special short spell of retro rugby league day a mini competition under old rules.

Careful Aggers, us owd'uns ('s) will be getting accused from the younger one's who have ne'er watched a proper game of Rugby League of living in the past

[Barry Badrinath]

1 hour ago, Damien said:

A lot of rule changes that we see now are to fix previous rule changes that were made to either clean up the game or make it more exciting. Everytime we see rules changed there are unintended consequences, often negative. Things like the 40/20 are a reaction to taking away all the variety to the game.

I would actually love to see a couple of games played with rules from about 30 odd years ago just to see how it would go with today's athletes. Proper play the balls, ball stripping, striking for the ball at the play the ball, play the ball to yourself, half competitive scrums. Oh for a bit of competition for the ball and variety. The modern game is far too weighted to the attacking team and it is far too easy to make huge yards through 5 drives and a kick and little else.

Yup, raking  at the ptb.

I reckon that would help encourage players to put their foot on the ball to play it.

[Agbrigg]

11 minutes ago, Barry Badrinath said:

Yup, raking  at the ptb.

I reckon that would help encourage players to put their foot on the ball to play it.

Another one, stand square at ptb. If  tackled player allowed to tap and go ,you watch that wide gap of the two markers disappear instantly. 

[Agbrigg]

36 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Careful Aggers, us owd'uns ('s) will be getting accused from the younger one's who have ne'er watched a proper game of Rugby League of living in the past

I think what people must remember is that when all these old rules were in play it was winter rugby, mud bath pitches and less fit part timers. The well meaning tried to bring in new rules to make the game more entertaining. However I think it is now too predictable and boring and reliant too much on referee interpretation of too many incidents.

On modern pitches,  summer rugby, fitter players I think going back to some of the old rules would really freshen up the game. In my opinion it's incredibly stale at the moment and far to predictable

[Harry Stottle]

9 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

I think what people must remember is that when all these old rules were in play it was winter rugby, mud bath pitches and less fit part timers. The well meaning tried to bring in new rules to make the game more entertaining. However I think it is now too predictable and boring and reliant too much on referee interpretation of too many incidents.

On modern pitches,  summer rugby, fitter players I think going back to some of the old rules would really freshen up the game. In my opinion it's incredibly stale at the moment and far to predictable

100% this well put Aggers,

Interest in the game is waning, and it is the game itself that is creating the problem. It has all but lost it's flair, the rules are stifling, every club seems to be coached to play the same way just that some teams have bigger, faster and better player's, don't even get me going on all the 'feigned' injuries that happen to give the team a rest or disrupt the momentum of the opposition only for the injured player to make a rapid recovery, also there are very few if any players that speccies will go out of their way to watch, it all seems to be same as, same as from week to week in televised games.

I talk to people who I know were big stalwarts of the game who for those very reasons can't be bothered with it any longer and the apathy is catching I am getting to feel the same way, never in a million years would I have thought I would hear myself say that. Apparently Sky have told the governing body to get their house in order over the 2 year duration of the next contract, I do not blame them in the least, the quality of the product that Sky have been paying for over the years has diminished rapidly, why should they even pay the same for something that is not as good as it once was, unless the game does something and very quickly to improve the on-field offer I think it is in for a very rude awakening, and that will be both in attendances and whether Sky continue to reduce its offer or abandon it altogether, and it will be no ones fault but the game itself.

[Harry Stottle]

38 minutes ago, Agbrigg said:

Another one, stand square at ptb. If  tackled player allowed to tap and go ,you watch that wide gap of the two markers disappear instantly. 

Reduce the interchanges to a maximum of 4, field sports with high contact like Rugby League need fatigue to be a part of the game, it gives the play makers chance to Express themselves instead of being targeted with fresh bodies every 10 to 15 mins or so.

[John Rhino]

12 hours ago, Agbrigg said:

When I first started watching rugby league, ball stealing was not an issue. You either held it or you didn't. I think this rule encouarges lazy or poor ball handling. Scrap the rule totally and things will soon level out and players will quickly learn how to hold on to the ball.

You only have to look at union. All the stuff that goes on in the tackle you very rarely see a ball steal. Infact there are far more penalties for players not releasing the ball,than steals from the opposition.

That's because they go to ground ASAP, in other words a surrender tackle. Thenimmediately turn round to pass on the ball. There's no opportunity to ball steal.

Whereas in Rugby the tackled player usually tries to stay upright for asong as possible 

 

[yipyee]

Rugby league players go into contact with the ball carring arm and dont generally think of ball security as its never really been an issue. Union players are taught ball security from an early age.

Teams were coached to offload so defenders are coached to wrap up the ball. I have a sneaky feeling some players let go of the ball to make it look like a strip. I know this goes on at junior level.

Cas also had a few 'injuries' when pressure was building. I would like to see a football style rule where a player needing attention needs to leave the field. I would make them sit out for a set of 6 if the game has to stop for the injury and it wasnt a result of foul play.

[Harry Stottle]

11 hours ago, yipyee said:

Rugby league players go into contact with the ball carring arm and dont generally think of ball security as its never really been an issue. Union players are taught ball security from an early age.

Teams were coached to offload so defenders are coached to wrap up the ball. I have a sneaky feeling some players let go of the ball to make it look like a strip. I know this goes on at junior level.

Cas also had a few 'injuries' when pressure was building. I would like to see a football style rule where a player needing attention needs to leave the field. I would make them sit out for a set of 6 if the game has to stop for the injury and it wasnt a result of foul play.

There has to be something done to stop this playacting to give your team a rest or stifle the opposition's momentum.

A couple of seasons back whilst on commentary Luke Robinson was being very open and even congratulating himself when he told us he was the first player a few seasons ago who when the opposition had a prolonged attack in the Huddersfield 20 he would go down 'injured' to stop the play to rest his team and give them the opportunity to reorganise.

Now like the first Covid case spread, this tactic has become an 'epidemic' all teams do it, the televised Saints/Cas game took 58 mins to complete the second half and mostly through this 'tactic', the Leigh/Leeds game being a close contest in the first 40 took 52 mins to complete, again because of this tactic.

It will drive people away, it is the worst form of blatant cheating, boring and also time wasting for the fans.

Funnily enough I was thinking how lots of players were feigning the 'crusher' tackle but that seems to have gone out of favour now.

[fighting irish]

23 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

In the 70/80's at Leigh we had two great props in Alf Wilkinson and Derek Pyke - went to Widnes, who were absolute magicians at getting the ball away.

Tell the kids that these days, they'll never believe yer! 

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, fighting irish said:

Tell the kids that these days, they'll never believe yer! 

Because it is totally foriegn to lots of the youngster's these days.

There is one guy running about now albeit in the Championship so not as prominent as he once was who is probably the best we have had in the last 10 years, that being Adam Cuthbertson but he could still learn a few things from the forwards of yesteryear.

[fighting irish]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Because it is totally foriegn to lots of the youngster's these days.

There is one guy running about now albeit in the Championship so not as prominent as he once was who is probably the best we have had in the last 10 years, that being Adam Cuthbertson but he could still learn a few things from the forwards of yesteryear.

Yes, he manages to sneak the ball away a lot doesn't he?

My original comment was a spoof quote.

From the Monty Python ''Four Yorkshiremen'' sketch. 

[fighting irish]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

There has to be something done to stop this playacting to give your team a rest or stifle the opposition's momentum.

A couple of seasons back whilst on commentary Luke Robinson was being very open and even congratulating himself when he told us he was the first player a few seasons ago who when the opposition had a prolonged attack in the Huddersfield 20 he would go down 'injured' to stop the play to rest his team and give them the opportunity to reorganise.

Now like the first Covid case spread, this tactic has become an 'epidemic' all teams do it, the televised Saints/Cas game took 58 mins to complete the second half and mostly through this 'tactic', the Leigh/Leeds game being a close contest in the first 40 took 52 mins to complete, again because of this tactic.

It will drive people away, it is the worst form of blatant cheating, boring and also time wasting for the fans.

Funnily enough I was thinking how lots of players were feigning the 'crusher' tackle but that seems to have gone out of favour now.

I watched the Newcastle v Bradford game on Our League and there was a lot of disruption to the flow of the game.

There was a lot of ball stealing (which I put down to really poor attention to ball security, a schoolboy error) and more than the usual number of injuries requiring treatment.

It did mar my enjoyment of the game, I have to say.

I think, if anyone seems to be motionless, or lost consciousness, or have a disabling leg injury, they should get a cart on the field and stretcher them off immediately, for treatment on the sidelines. The game can then continue.

If it's an upper body, minor injury, then the player should leave the field of his own volition for treatment. Then the game can continue.

The medical team can judge (quickly) whether they want to make a substitution, or patch him up and get him back on.

This will cause minimal disruption to the game and increase spectator enjoyment.