Ever since the introduction of the four tackle rule, the eight tackle rule, and the current six tackle rule, the ‘bomb’ has been used by teams that cannot crack the defence near the try line.
Perfected by the likes of John Peard and John Dorahy, the bomb – formerly called an ‘up and under’ – became the attacking weapon of choice in an era when attacking time and options were lost due to limiting of possession.
It remains in use today, very much for the same reasons.
Current sports commentators refer to it as a lottery: when a team decides to use the bomb, they are rolling the dice.
If it is a gamble, then who has the most favourable odds?
My contention is that a bomb contested by the attacking side fouls the defending player’s attempt to catch the ball, often resulting in a call of ‘knock-on’.
The attacking players, meanwhile, only have to get their hands somewhere into the contest, and “lady luck” does the rest.
But there is rarely, if ever, any such ‘luck’ for the defending side.
If the ball is not caught cleanly by the defender, the attackers are there in numbers to pick up the ball, score, or get six more tackles. Whereas the defenders cannot crowd into the same area in order to defend without exposing their portion of the try line against that possibility.
And if the defender does cleanly catch the ball in the field of play, he is often monstered back in goal. So by regaining possession, the defending team loses it by way of a goal-line dropout.
To me, this is not a fair contest – it is heavily weighted against defenders.
In my opinion, a solution would be a rule change so that any bomb contested by the attacking side that comes down within 10 metres of the defenders’ try line cannot be called a knock-on against the defender.
Interference can be called against the attacker if he doesn’t either secure possession or pass/bat the ball to his support players.
That way, there is equal advantage and disadvantage to both sides if the ball is dropped during the contest.
Also, a successfully caught contested bomb by a defending player in that same zone should lead to a 20 metre tap restart. That way, there is less disadvantage if a bomb is defused just near the try line.
Finally, bombs that come down in-goal should be contested by only one player from each side, and any ball dropped during such contest should be ruled a knock-on or interference against the attacking side.
What do you think Roarers? Does this finally even up the odds on a fifth tackle bomb?
The Barry
Roar Guru
Is there any game in the world that has as many suggested rule changes on a weekly basis as rugby league has ? I doubt it. Bombs, interchange, kicking the ball dead, shoulder charges, wrestling, scrums, golden point. I'm sure I've missed plenty. The bomb is exciting and the rules are exactly the same for both teams. This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. This suggested rule change opens up another whole can of interpretation for refs. When does a kick become a "bomb". A lot of the kicks now are those mid-height cross field kicks - are they bombs ? When does a chip become a bomb ? How do you define two players contesting the ball. We know how well and how consistently refs deal with interpretation. In terms of attacking kicking game I miss the early 2000s when guys like Johns and Brent Sherwin (among others) added a whole element of new kicks to the game - things like banana kicks and those curling grubbers that hugged the dead ball line.
Dayer
Guest
I don't like your idea because I like it the way it is but a big points change would be the way to go, change the try from 4 points to 2 point "bomb" try.
Hoy
Roar Guru
I know what you meant, and I went the other direction completely. I hate blocking. I hate that players get away with it so obviously now. Players are changing lines, bumping other players etc. I agree with you though. While it can take skill to kick across field and land it on a certain spot (skill or lots of practice) it is really very boring watching two teams lumber upfield so they can get into the others 20 metres, and just kick to the corners and hope.
mushi
Guest
I wonder how often a player is driven back in goal? Seems like we are trying to get a solution to a pretty rare problem.
mushi
Guest
No way. That would have been 35% of sets last week no way in hell were 35% of sets last week all one out runs that ended with an attacking bomb.
MG Burbank
Roar Guru
Nice try on this one but alas, the tip-forward thing can't work. We should not make our game in any way similar to Aussie Rules. But I appreciate the effort- I've tried to solve the bomb issue, thinking about maybe reducing tries to 3 that are scored from bombs but it's too difficult to hand the refs that kind of power and discretion. I think this is one we may have to live with.
Mella
Guest
alright I could modify that to say one out run into a position where bombing the ball remains a good last play option, which is more like out to 30-35 meters from the try line. Come on that happens 20 times a game, its rugby league at its worst.
Rellum
Roar Guru
I meant the defenders get given more latitude so they can protect the fullback trying to diffuse the bomb. I can't stand tries from the old up and under.
Tony Archers Maroon Underwear
Guest
Good ideas, but personally I dont see the need for change here myself. However if there were, I like the suggestion that if the defending team takes the ball from any kick on the full in the 10m area the team can take a quick 20m restart as with in goal takes. Could result in some dramatic counter attacks. Id rather see the administrators look at other areas of the game first though.
Luke M
Guest
I don't necessarily agree with the solution but there is definitely a problem here. It wont be long until the bomb becomes a grey area with a whole set of fuzzy rules, like we have now with what used to be a tackle and play the ball.
mushi
Guest
It's pretty tough to one out run into the opponent's 20m.
Mella
Guest
I disagree, the skills I love in league are passing movements that open up defenses. What I dislike about the game is teams taking no risks playing boring one out running league to get in the 20m zone and put up a kick. The in-goal mark should be brought right up to the 20m line, that would be a good start.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
"Up there Cazaly"
Hoy
Roar Guru
I would go the other way. I hate the blockers and the obviously deliberate blocking that goes on now. Why do the refs have to be lenient? Any more lenient, and it would never ever get called. As it is, it is only very rarely called a penalty. I also noticed recently the tactics as Jaybob says, teams are taking fullbacks out completly. Barba is one. I have seen him flattened early for about 3-4 weeks in a row recently, and not much is done about it. I would prefer teams creat tries from any other way than kicks. It is tired and mostly predictable.
tonysalerno
Roar Guru
I think things are good as they are now...
Rellum
Roar Guru
I would rather see Refs being very lenient on players blocking chasers.
Brett
Guest
Of course it's an advantage to the attacking team, that's WHY they do it! What a stupid thing to say.
Pogo
Guest
How about just give the defending team a tap restart if they catch a bomb on the full less than 10m out from the line.
PGNEWC
Guest
Agree with most of the points of Mushi and Eagle but i think it is unfair when the Defender catches the Ball in the Field of play on the full and is pushed back into the in goal so that the attackers get another set. Surely in this instance the defender is in a similar situation when defusing a bomb in goal and is not rewarded for such. In my opinion the Defender should play the ball where he caught it.
Jimbo Jones
Guest
Is there any data out there on how many bombs are made in each game, and how many are successful? It would be interesting to see what the % of tries/restarts/opposition ball is, and also to see which teams (and kickers) are the most effective. I am guessing that the number of tries off bombs as a percentage would be quite low, which to me means that a rule change is not neccessary. Also why shouldnt the odds be heavily stacked against the defending team? If an attacking team is good enough to make enough meters to be camped in the 20m zone, then the defending team deserves to have the odds stacked against them.