Bomb Limit

[zaibatsu]

Ok so I have seen a lot of people complaining about the amount of bombs in the game at the moment, (not just on forums but in footy discussions in general), and its making the game so predictable and boring in my opinion.

The tactic is dull and purely based around luck and desperation, I'd much rather see more running on the last tackles or at least something other than "put it up and hope" lottery plays.

So heres my idea, limit bombs to 3 per side per half, a total of 6 per side per game... Much like powerplays in cricket...

It would force teams to use other options in attack and I think would provide some more entertaining football.

Thoughts?

 

[Meth]

no

too hard to police- what constitutes a bomb? how high etc

also, if there's a fullback or winger who is shaky under the high ball, attacking teams should be able to bomb him mercilessly

 

[Firey_Dragon]

What happens if you're on the 5th tackle and on the half way line? You're forcing teams to kick long for the sake of it and not put in an attacking kick?

a. It's impossible to police
b. It's not practical, there is no one glove fits all solution
c. The bomb is still a key attacking weapon when at long range
d. The bomb gives attackers more time to get up the field and put pressure on defenders

 

[Noa]

The mid-field bomb youve seen alot of this year is a tactic they use in the NFL. There looking for hang time to allow the line to get to the man as he catches it.

If he drops it fine, but its desinded to restrict metre gainage. Dont really know what you can do about it. Allowing the kicker to be untouched hasnt helped the situation.

Just another example of why coaches should have NO say whatsover in rule changes

 

[Game_Breaker]

I agree, it does seem like a roll of the dice play and I'd like to see less of it


But limiting it is not the way to go, eventually teams will learn to defend against it alot better, and it wont be used as much

 

[typicalfan]

I like the bomb. It is one of the rare occasions where people are contesting for possession.

It is a roll of the dice play but so what? So is running the ball on last tackle.

 

[Non Terminator]

No way. Dislike.
It's just like saying let's take out what a team can attack really well at, just for the sake of a bit more entertainment.
A bomb is an edge of the seat contest, chasers vs defenders.

 

[Chook Norris]

hard to police, i don't think we should introduce any limiting of anything other than the tackle count

 

[Slackboy72]

Lucky the rooters fans like it...

 

[Danish]

Seriously you talkin sport listeners need to get some new material.

If a team has earned themselves the field position to put up a bomb then they can go for their lives.

 

[ElectricEelMan]

You can't put limits on 'bombs'
Instead you would have to penalize teams who bomb some other way like any defensive team who catches a bomb gets to start their tackle count on half way ... but then again what constitutes a 'bomb'

I don't like the bomb. Teams are so relying on it, it's like it is their entire game plan: '5 one out tackles up then put up a bomb and just hope. Repeat ad nauseum '

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Interesting discussion worth having on your next overseas or interstate flight.

 

[Bobby DIGital]

But what would Anasta & Mitchell Pearce do with their lives?

 

[miccle]

1. It's not always a gamble. It's a calculated risk, like everything, but the best exponents of the bomb can do it well on a consistent basis.

2. As has been stated before, if any member of an opposition's back three is shaky under the ball, target it.

3. Running the ball on the last, chip'n'chase and other plays are just as much of a risk or gamble. That's what attacking football is about.

Finally, we signed Israel Folau for a reported $400,000 a season. His worth halves if this rule was introduced and I doubt he'd volunteer for a paycut :lol::lol:

 

[coach]

Will not work. Impossible to police. What constitutes a bomb?

 

[aqua_duck]

Lucky the rooters fans like it...

course they would its their plan A, B, C and D in attack. If they got rid of the bomb Matt Utai would be a 1st grade quality winger again

 

[Danish]

course they would its their plan A, B, C and D in attack. If they got rid of the bomb Matt Utai would be a 1st grade quality winger again

Funnily enough we have scored very few tries from kicks this year.

 

[Peppers]

I agree the bombs are a bit boring. How about instead of banning the bomb we reward the defending team for defusing them. There is two options here:

1) If a ball is caught on the full inside the twenty then they get a 20 restart straight up (to get around the problem of this applying to catching long clearing kicks on the full the defenders still have the option of running it back)

2) Outside of a knock on, the defending team can defuse a bomb anyway they see fit - knock it dead, ground it, be tackled in goal and still get their 20 restart.

 

[Dr Crane]

i love the bomb - will he catch it, will he drop it? it puts pressure on the defending fullback/wingers and makes them actually do their job.

plus if we restrict the bomb we'll see more grubber kicks rolled into the in goal for the sake of a repeat set with minimal chance of scoring.

 

[BeeeeeRad]

But what would Anasta & Mitchell Pearce do with their lives?

Scared the demons might came back to haunt Manu again this week?