Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One on one stripping

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by ROC181 View Post

    Yeah Manu got stripped on the ground by Croker and a minute later Manu inflicted some justice on Croker so all good!
    Didnít he what! I love the way the ground announcer came accross the PA at full time to announce that Croker couldnít stay on field after the game because we was quite unwell from the hit. Awesome!
    Build the wall. Keep the Drug Lords out!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by rented tracksuit View Post
      Didnít he what! I love the way the ground announcer came accross the PA at full time to announce that Croker couldnít stay on field after the game because we was quite unwell from the hit. Awesome!
      A missile on Crockerís ribs.

      Comment


      • #33
        The best ever.
         

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by ism22 View Post

          It's almost as if this was a strategic call cooked up by game management and Storm management. I know it isn't but it's just such a dodgy piece of work...
          Dodgy is the Storm's new crusher tackle of the head from side on which apparently isn't a crusher. Disgusting.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Team Evil View Post

            Dice you are 100% correct. The NRL's initial intent was great but some coaches have exploited the rule and now it is a shambles.
            You should only be able to strip the ball if all the players have come off the tackler (IE a clean break) then a tackler should be able to strip the ball (one on one)
            Bingo. There were 1 or 2 cases where this happened and resulted in an absurd (but correct) decision.

            Forget who did it but it happened once. There was a 1-on-1 tackle, a 2nd defender tapped the tackler on the back to check whether he was needed, the tackler said 'NO DEFEND THE LINE'... tackler slipped the tackle, ran 10-15m and when the 2nd tackler made a completely separate strip... boom... penalty.

            Either the rule change was horribly drafted or the NRL is misinterpreting its own rules.

            Originally posted by rented tracksuit View Post
            Didnít he what! I love the way the ground announcer came accross the PA at full time to announce that Croker couldnít stay on field after the game because we was quite unwell from the hit. Awesome!
            LOLz and that's what wins games...
            Last edited by ism22; 08-14-2019, 09:09 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              If the shoe was on the other foot we would have a thread on here about how the opposition is only complaining because we take advantage of the rule.

              Comment


              • #37
                The solution is simple.
                Any tackle that involves more than one player is deemed a gang tackle regardless if defenders peel off.
                Only one on one tackles permit stripping of the ball.

                Comment


                • #38
                  That makes too much sense and not enough room for misinterpretation Eddie , come on ..lol

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Rooster89 View Post
                    If the shoe was on the other foot we would have a thread on here about how the opposition is only complaining because we take advantage of the rule.
                    So you also must be in the view that because Robbo didn't think of it, he is complaining?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by eddie View Post
                      The solution is simple.
                      Any tackle that involves more than one player is deemed a gang tackle regardless if defenders peel off.
                      Only one on one tackles permit stripping of the ball.
                      Bingo. The issue was that ostensibly 1-on-1 strips were getting called group tackles due to poor drafting of the rule. Changing the drafting to something that allows strips during group tackles was not the intention. Thus, it's a dud amendment.

                      As a lawyer I'd be thrown in front of a disciplinary tribunal if I was paid $$$ to re-draft a set of terms & conditions and my drafting of a small, obscure, rarely used section resulted in widespread, unintended rorting of their intent. I mean what if it was a Coles contract or something and it was like 'we will issue a refund so long as it the money exited their account regardless of ANYTHING ELSE that hashappened'... then people are like 'yo I know I've already disputed this and received a refund through my CC company + eaten the food + received 10 refunds from you but you said ANYTHING ELSE so gimme my refund!!!' It's that fukking stupid. Furthermore, to assume that's how you'd interpret it in context is even more stupid!!!

                      Beyond Greenburg and the refs (and assuming a correct application of the rules is allowing this new tactic)... who drafted the amendment? Also, why wasn't it corrected early on to prevent the floodgates from opening.

                      Originally posted by ROC181 View Post

                      So you also must be in the view that because Robbo didn't think of it, he is complaining?
                      It's not THAT hard to make up a 'peel off boys' call. I suspect Robbo's quite strategically complained (with Nick's permission) because he has a plan for the finals.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by ism22 View Post

                        Bingo. The issue was that ostensibly 1-on-1 strips were getting called group tackles due to poor drafting of the rule. Changing the drafting to something that allows strips during group tackles was not the intention. Thus, it's a dud amendment.

                        As a lawyer I'd be thrown in front of a disciplinary tribunal if I was paid $$$ to re-draft a set of terms & conditions and my drafting of a small, obscure, rarely used section resulted in widespread, unintended rorting of their intent. I mean what if it was a Coles contract or something and it was like 'we will issue a refund so long as it the money exited their account regardless of ANYTHING ELSE that hashappened'... then people are like 'yo I know I've already disputed this and received a refund through my CC company + eaten the food + received 10 refunds from you but you said ANYTHING ELSE so gimme my refund!!!' It's that fukking stupid. Furthermore, to assume that's how you'd interpret it in context is even more stupid!!!

                        Beyond Greenburg and the refs (and assuming a correct application of the rules is allowing this new tactic)... who drafted the amendment? Also, why wasn't it corrected early on to prevent the floodgates from opening.



                        It's not THAT hard to make up a 'peel off boys' call. I suspect Robbo's quite strategically complained (with Nick's permission) because he has a plan for the finals.


                        No I'm just trying to gauge the view of the poster who said that if the shoe was in the other foot stuff. To Him, does that mean Robbo is whinging because we aren't doing it too?? ...I agree with Robbo that it isn't fair that one player has to deal with 3 or 4 other players to try and hold the ball...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Heard Gus on the radio saying, it will be coached out of the game before the start of next season.
                          I never was a fan of the origional stripping rule to begin with, but I think everyone accepted it, I don't know why the Nrl thought it needed tweaking.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by eddie View Post
                            The solution is simple.
                            Any tackle that involves more than one player is deemed a gang tackle regardless if defenders peel off.
                            Only one on one tackles permit stripping of the ball.
                            100%

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by ROC181 View Post

                              So you also must be in the view that because Robbo didn't think of it, he is complaining?
                              Not at all. Biggest I hold different opinions in different regards.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Rooster89 View Post

                                Not at all. Biggest I hold different opinions in different regards.
                                I didn't get what you just said but from what I gather from your previous comment is that those that are complaining about these tactics wouldn't be complaining if we were doing it successfully, therefore we are hypocrites.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X