Bombs and grubber tries -reduce Points ?

[perverse]

whoever suggested "any player bats it over the dead ball line = 20 metre restart" should be shot. we tried that already post-super league with the "leg over the dead ball line and bat it out" rule and it was a complete failure - and rightly so. it was a ridiculous rule that took any pressure away from the defensive side.

silly, silly idea.

scoring from kicks is fine.

 

[Coaster]

whoever suggested "any player bats it over the dead ball line = 20 metre restart" should be shot. we tried that already post-super league with the "leg over the dead ball line and bat it out" rule and it was a complete failure - and rightly so. it was a ridiculous rule that took any pressure away from the defensive side.

silly, silly idea.

scoring from kicks is fine.

Your confusing the foot over the deal ball rule, which was off any play including grubbers, to what we are suggesting which is the ball must be batted over the dead ball from a ball which hasnt touched the ground.

Teams can still create pressure through grubbers, and trapping teams in the in goal, none of that would change, the only change would occur when a ball is kicked into the air near an oppantants try line, the defenders could hit the ball dead, giving them a 20m restart.

 

[perverse]

Your confusing the foot over the deal ball rule, which was off any play including grubbers, to what we are suggesting which is the ball must be batted over the dead ball from a ball which hasnt touched the ground.

Teams can still create pressure through grubbers, and trapping teams in the in goal, none of that would change, the only change would occur when a ball is kicked into the air near an oppantants try line, the defenders could hit the ball dead, giving them a 20m restart.

it's still a sh*t rule. i don't see what is wrong with scoring off kicks - it is a good skillset to have in a team. anything that takes pressure off the defensive team on the own line is a terrible idea. you're SUPPOSED to be under pressure when defending your line.

reducing the number of ways teams can score tries will only make our game duller.

the problem of having less ball players in our game has nothing to do with scoring off bombs... it has everything to do with the ruck and the 10m rule - which are of FAR greater concern than this petty wish for it to be more difficult to score from bombs because one or 2 teams are better at it than the others.

for the record i'm a knights fan - and we've only scored 3 or 4 tries in this whole year from kicks - and the roosters beat my mob yesterday solely through kicking, so there is no bias here whatsoever. honestly, i think anyone suggesting changing these rules regarding kicks is absolutely braindead.

 

[The Survivor]

If a team is good enough to score tries from kicks then good on them. Why change it? It's just another part of the game. It should be left alone.

 

[*Paul*]

i don't see what is wrong with scoring off kicks

As I see it, that's not the problem, it's beforehand, when teams show little enterprise knowing there's a "soft" option at the end of the set.

I don't mind tries from kicks either, as long they're not the primary aim. And if you make tries from kicks too hard, they'll resort to bargeovers.

The kick-and-hope ones aren't real special though, wouldn't miss them.

 

[perverse]

As I see it, that's not the problem, it's beforehand, when teams show little enterprise knowing there's a "soft" option at the end of the set.

I don't mind tries from kicks either, as long they're not the primary aim. And if you make tries from kicks too hard, they'll resort to bargeovers.

The kick-and-hope ones aren't real special though, wouldn't miss them.

how is taking the kick a soft option? because there are many teams who can't defend it and only a couple who are superb at using it? this is madness.

if you have a team that is built to take that option, then it SHOULD be your primary aim to get the ball in the air at the end of the set. it is absolutely ridiculous that this is seen as a problem. i'm bewildered. i honestly can't believe it. it is part of our game. just like a team can be built around big forwards to barge your way through the middle of the field, a team can also be built to take high kicks etc. if you've got an exceptional team then you have all of the above. this is one of the greatest assets our game has - that there are so many ways to beat your opponent.

 

[MSIH]

If a team is good enough to score tries from kicks then good on them. Why change it? It's just another part of the game. It should be left alone.

What a surprise, a Roosters fan who doesn't mind tries from kicks. The day you score through the hands is the day Jesus comes back.

 

[the beavers]

i agree with perverse
sorting out the ruck will encourage more tries through the hands
then kicking wont be used ad nausium
if a team can score from a kick then fair play.....but as said before what i would like to see irradicated is the unimaginative play in the 5 tackles previous especially when in attacking zones.......but agin sorting out the ruck would help improve this

 

[voltron]

i think things will get too complicated then
because what happens if the team on the line has the ball
they drop it
in the confusion it comes off a players foot and then a try is score
then is it a lesser try?
what if you kick it, and the guy bats it back, someone picks it up and scores
wat if same scenario and they pass a couple of times before they score?
what if its a chip kick from further up the field?

i think making the restart off catching the ball off the full to be larger is a good way to discourage it
so make it 30m or something
if we really need to discourage it
personally i think either way is fine.
nothing wrong with it

 

[*Paul*]

how is taking the kick a soft option.. i'm bewildered. i honestly can't believe it.

1. Get possession
2. Five dummy half/one off runs to kicking range.
3. Put high kick up. Doesn't matter too much where it lands.
4. Hope for mistake, and pick up crumbs.

Simple enough?

If you watched the game in the early 80s, this was quite the common tactic, and lead in part to the defusing the bomb rule. Dreary stuff indeed.

We're not at that stage again, but the kick and finger cross is still with us, and what the OP was geting at - or least what I was getting at.

 

[perverse]

1. Get possession
2. Five dummy half/one off runs to kicking range.
3. Put high kick up. Doesn't matter too much where it lands.
4. Hope for mistake, and pick up crumbs.

Simple enough?

If you watched the game in the early 80s, this was quite the common tactic, and lead in part to the defusing the bomb rule. Dreary stuff indeed.

We're not at that stage again, but the kick and finger cross is still with us, and what the OP was addressing.

that's where you nailed it. point 2 is our problem, not points 3 and 4. actually i don't think you quite understand the skill level required to put up a genuinely threatening bomb. it very very much matters where it lands. if it goes into the in goal on the full, chances are that the defending winger will get there first and defuse it for a 20m restart. too short and the defense is likely to slide and force you into touch. the perfect bomb lands just barely in the field of play - forcing the defending winger to contest the ball in the field of play. not an easy thing to achieve.

either way though, there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of this. the fact that so many bombs are hitting the ground is only indicative of the relatively poor skill level of the majority of defending wingers under the high ball. i hate to reference fumbleball, but most bombs put up in league a fumbleball player would take with their eyes shut.

but back to point 2 - something definitely needs to be done about the 1-out crap that is going on in order to gain maximum yards. there are a few teams out there that don't play this style of football (the knights for example like to throw it around at the moment), however it is certainly the minority. if we want to keep the game exciting, we have to address the rules around the ruck, not the rules involving kicks in the opposition 20.

 

[Champ]

Just make a rule that all outside backs have to be shorter than 4 foot.

Great idea, it would be good to see Leon Bott back in the nrl

 

[lockyno1]

Best way would be to prevent dummy half runs. If a dummy half is caught with the ball, it should be a changeover. I don't have a problem with the kick tries, but the rather boring sets of six that every club is doing is killing the game, unfortunately this has come from the Storm, who are brilliant at what they do, but are EXTREMELY boring to watch. 5 tackles, kick to Folau may look ok but it is boring to watch.

 

[skeepe]

how is taking the kick a soft option? because there are many teams who can't defend it and only a couple who are superb at using it? this is madness.

if you have a team that is built to take that option, then it SHOULD be your primary aim to get the ball in the air at the end of the set. it is absolutely ridiculous that this is seen as a problem. i'm bewildered. i honestly can't believe it. it is part of our game. just like a team can be built around big forwards to barge your way through the middle of the field, a team can also be built to take high kicks etc. if you've got an exceptional team then you have all of the above. this is one of the greatest assets our game has - that there are so many ways to beat your opponent.

I agree. :shock:

Had to happen eventually I guess.

More to the point though, I often feel like I'm the only one who doesn't think that the game is in crisis. I think the football on the field is as great as it's ever been, why oh why are so many people agitating to change every single aspect of it?

 

[lockyno1]

It is boring though Skeepe. 5 dummy half runs then a pot luck bomb is not good to watch. Do we want crowds to increase or not. We need to make the game more entertaining. Get rid of the boring dummy half runs.

 

[Marshall_magic]

Yeah, lets take the kicking out of FOOTball. Stupidest idea ever brought up on these forums.

 

[lockyno1]

Don't take the kicking out, just take the other parts out, dummy half runs. Another idea I have had for a while is a "Super try". If a team scores a try from their 22 to the goaline in one play, then it should be a 8 point try (6 for the try, 2 for the kick). What do you guys think?

 

[NthKnight]

Locky01 who let you out of the asylum?

Deadset you come up with some crap on these forums. Do you really think that taking out dummy half running and "super trys" are good ideas.

I agree with Skeepe on this one. RL is a better specticle today then it ever has been and I cant say that Ive ever been bored when watching a game all season. Seems to me that all this critisism is coming from supporters of teams who arnt so good at scoring trys from bombs. Sour grapes and tall poppy syndrome come to mind.

 

[perverse]

I agree. :shock:

Had to happen eventually I guess.

no really.. i agree with you. the doomsayers are starting to give me the sh*ts with their wanting to change everything. yes, there are certain undesirable aspects of our game... but the product itself, the football on the field, is still excellent by and large.

 

[lockyno1]

Locky01 who let you out of the asylum?

Deadset you come up with some crap on these forums. Do you really think that taking out dummy half running and "super trys" are good ideas.

I agree with Skeepe on this one. RL is a better specticle today then it ever has been and I cant say that Ive ever been bored when watching a game all season. Seems to me that all this critisism is coming from supporters of teams who arnt so good at scoring trys from bombs. Sour grapes and tall poppy syndrome come to mind.

Dummy half running is what is wrecking the game. It is boring. You have 5 one out plays and then a kick. It is the same every single set. That is very boring. Brisbane score enough from kicks and I hate it then. I don't see why having a turnover if the dummy half is caught with the ball is a bad idea.