RugbyRebels

Much talk recently about George Ford's spiral bomb.

For all of us un-initated perhaps the aficionados here could explain :-

. what exactly is a spiral bomb
. how does it differ from a regular up and under
. how do you hold the ball to kick it
. how do you kick it
. what are the flight characteristics on the way up and the way down
. does the ball really follow a spiral trajectory (which would be something like the shape of a bed spring) or is spiral just a poor description here.

The spiral kick is a way of kicking the ball so that it spins in the air. Has been used to generate more distance on a lower trajectory. In terms of the spiral bomb it's kick upwards but the spiral effect wears off and then the ball dies in mid air and falls in a way you wouldn't associate with the normal arc of a kick. Makes it very difficult to guess where it's coming down, particularly if the weather is poor and there's a bit of wind which makes the ball move around in the air quite a bit as the force that drove it into the air is gone.

Hope that makes sense.

hold ball so it's slightly pointing down and at a slight angle, i.e. pointing to 150 and 330 degrees on a circle, not pointing straight forwards/back (those angles are for a right footed kicker, it'd be 30 and 210 degrees for a lefty), and put your boot through the ball. if you connect dead on centre it will not spiral but you'll get the same wobble in the air, if you connect slightly off centre you'll get a spiral. you don't need to slide off contact to get the spiral, it's really more about being just off centre on connection and really getting through the connection.

basically it's a pain in the arse to read, but that holds for the kicker and the catcher, really not easy to determine where it'll come down. and it's the being much harder to read where it's coming down which is the differentiation to a regular up and under

this isn't the kick to be sure it'll come down in the 5m channel or right on try line

Spiffy wrote:Much talk recently about George Ford's spiral bomb.

For all of us un-initated perhaps the aficionados here could explain :-

. what exactly is a spiral bomb
. how does it differ from a regular up and under
. how do you hold the ball to kick it
. how do you kick it
. what are the flight characteristics on the way up and the way down
. does the ball really follow a spiral trajectory (which would be something like the shape of a bed spring) or is spiral just a poor description here.

You hold the ball horizontally (point to point horizontals to the foot) and hit it with the outside of the boot to get a spiral on the way up, which then it oscillates on the way down, usually moving away (back towards the kicker) from the receiving player. Basically it moves lots on the way down from a fairly simple trajectory on the up motion. You generally have to hold the ball longer to set the kick to get it in the right position and execute.

A spiral kick is to an end-over-end kick what a spin pass is to an end-over-end pass; it's the same essential thing, but the ball rotates about its long axis rather than the short axis; which creates a very different aerodynamic.
A spiral kick goes further due to that aerodynamic typically after the peak of its parabola, but is much harder to control as it's harder to hit it sweetly, and at some stage the spiral stalls, and loses its aerodynamics - so it goes over but with less predicability - which is why it droped out of favour in what? the early 90s?

Used as an up and under is a new thing I don't recall seeing particularly before this season (or since from anyone less skilled out of hand than George Ford). He's keeping the ball infield with it, so the accuracy matter much less, and he's actively wanting the spin to stall abut 2/3 of the time.
If the spin doesn't stal, it goes so where in the region of 10-15m further than it looks like travelling if estimated at the peak of its parabola, so the FB is taking the ball whilst backpedalling - but will probably be able to call a mark.
If the ball loses its spin and stalls, it drops like a stone from that point, dropping earlier than expected if estimated from the peak of the parabola, meaning that the chaser has a much better chance of gathering, and the defending FB is having to make last-second changes to his estimate of landing place, the angle of the ball coming down, and his timing of any jump.

Mis-hit the kck though, and it can go way off track, so he needs to keep the ball infield, and not ping the corners, or he risks going out on the full.

At point of contact, you want the ball pointing slightly out to in, and almost parallel to the ground, you hit about a third of the way along the ball, ahead of the point, with the outside of the top of your foot, swinging out to in and imparting spin with a broad contact point.
It takes a little longer to set yourself for the kck, so need to stand a little deeper I guess, or risk being charged down - Leicester fans would be able to confirm if this guess is accurate or not.

Think of it like a banana kick in football, except that most of the curve is fighting against gravity, and comes in the second half of the flight

It's the only thing worth talking about if you're a No. 8 from 2003 commentating on a Leicester game. Apparently.

I do get that it's all about putting spin on the ball, as rifling puts spin on a bullet. But spin does not mean the same thing as spiral. A spiral is not something that revolves about its own axis. A spiral movement follows a pattern like the coil of spring or DNA helix or corkscrew. So the spiral bomb is not well named, though we know what it means and the name will not change. A real spiral would be a ball dropping while moving around in circles like something caught in the eye of a tornado.
I do not think we talk about spiral passes, but rather spin passes. So why not spin bombs.
This all goes back to the old days when the term spiral kick was often used to describe a long, spinning touch finder (but still no real spiral involved.)
OK - maybe I'm just talking semantics here, but it's a long boring Sunday, so why not.

Jesus christ, thank fark I missed that game then.

morepork wrote:Jesus christ, thank fark I missed that game then.

It was actually a very good running rugby game - the commentators just wouldn't shut up about the 3-4 beautiful high bombs that Ford put up.

Puja

Spiffy wrote:I do get that it's all about putting spin on the ball, as rifling puts spin on a bullet. But spin does not mean the same thing as spiral. A spiral is not something that revolves about its own axis. A spiral movement follows a pattern like the coil of spring or DNA helix or corkscrew. So the spiral bomb is not well named, though we know what it means and the name will not change. A real spiral would be a ball dropping while moving around in circles like something caught in the eye of a tornado.
I do not think we talk about spiral passes, but rather spin passes. So why not spin bombs.
This all goes back to the old days when the term spiral kick was often used to describe a long, spinning touch finder (but still no real spiral involved.)
OK - maybe I'm just talking semantics here, but it's a long boring Sunday, so why not.

Used to be called a torpedo kick, nothing to see here.

Maybe Ford would be better allocating the 'spiral-bomb' practice time to other facets of his skill-set. For example, not getting passes intercepted.

Puja wrote:

morepork wrote:Jesus christ, thank fark I missed that game then.

It was actually a very good running rugby game - the commentators just wouldn't shut up about the 3-4 beautiful high bombs that Ford put up.

Puja

Thats because KBA is so *last week and the spiral bomb is the latest craze for this week...

*this may well be because the commentators have discovered its been around in the AB's environment since the 80's and its nothing new. Before them it was Villepreux and his "families" in the life of the ball.

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

Puja wrote:

morepork wrote:Jesus christ, thank fark I missed that game then.

It was actually a very good running rugby game - the commentators just wouldn't shut up about the 3-4 beautiful high bombs that Ford put up.

Puja

Thats because KBA is so *last week and the spiral bomb is the latest craze for this week...

*this may well be because the commentators have discovered its been around in the AB's environment since the 80's and its nothing new. Before them it was Villepreux and his "families" in the life of the ball.

Now that dates you - they finished playing about 50 years back didn't they?

Oakboy wrote:Maybe Ford would be better allocating the 'spiral-bomb' practice time to other facets of his skill-set. For example, not getting passes intercepted.

Poor old Ford did throw an unfortunate intercept, but he also bossed that game with a very nice display of all-round fly half skills. I do not know if he is in serious contention for the Lions but I'd have him ahead of Farrell for skills and of Russell for reliability. He does not seem to be appearing on any squads proposed by the pundits.

Spiffy wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Maybe Ford would be better allocating the 'spiral-bomb' practice time to other facets of his skill-set. For example, not getting passes intercepted.

Poor old Ford did throw an unfortunate intercept, but he also bossed that game with a very nice display of all-round fly half skills. I do not know if he is in serious contention for the Lions but I'd have him ahead of Farrell for skills and of Russell for reliability. He does not seem to be appearing on any squads proposed by the pundits.

I think the idea that he concedes 15 metres at the gainline every time he makes a tackle has spread a long way among supporters and pundits. You'd assume the Lions coaching team are a bit more clued up than that though. I think he's class but he's spent an awful lot of his time on the field recently just hoofing the ball away, often to little effect.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Spiffy wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Maybe Ford would be better allocating the 'spiral-bomb' practice time to other facets of his skill-set. For example, not getting passes intercepted.

Poor old Ford did throw an unfortunate intercept, but he also bossed that game with a very nice display of all-round fly half skills. I do not know if he is in serious contention for the Lions but I'd have him ahead of Farrell for skills and of Russell for reliability. He does not seem to be appearing on any squads proposed by the pundits.

I think the idea that he concedes 15 metres at the gainline every time he makes a tackle has spread a long way among supporters and pundits. You'd assume the Lions coaching team are a bit more clued up than that though. I think he's class but he's spent an awful lot of his time on the field recently just hoofing the ball away, often to little effect.

I find him frustrating to watch. It's almost as if he only ever risks 70-80% of his skill capacity. I've never queried what he CAN do, just what he DOES do. He was managing most aspects of that game while hardly appearing to break sweat. I think he turns the concept of 'playing within himself' into an art form. He and Youngs had sufficient decent ball to take that game by the scruff of the neck.

I'm not interested in the Lions but I could understand Gatland picking Biggar, for example, ahead of Ford. You need 100%ers against SA.

Oakboy wrote:

Doorzetbornandbred wrote:

Puja wrote:
It was actually a very good running rugby game - the commentators just wouldn't shut up about the 3-4 beautiful high bombs that Ford put up.

Puja

Thats because KBA is so *last week and the spiral bomb is the latest craze for this week...

*this may well be because the commentators have discovered its been around in the AB's environment since the 80's and its nothing new. Before them it was Villepreux and his "families" in the life of the ball.

Now that dates you - they finished playing about 50 years back didn't they?

Nah, hes still promoting it. Im on a coaching course at the moment with Olivier Magne and he has worked for Pierre and his coaching business. I think its more a case of people trying to reinvent the wheel.

Do a bomb bro.

Oakboy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Spiffy wrote:Poor old Ford did throw an unfortunate intercept, but he also bossed that game with a very nice display of all-round fly half skills. I do not know if he is in serious contention for the Lions but I'd have him ahead of Farrell for skills and of Russell for reliability. He does not seem to be appearing on any squads proposed by the pundits.

I think the idea that he concedes 15 metres at the gainline every time he makes a tackle has spread a long way among supporters and pundits. You'd assume the Lions coaching team are a bit more clued up than that though. I think he's class but he's spent an awful lot of his time on the field recently just hoofing the ball away, often to little effect.

I find him frustrating to watch. It's almost as if he only ever risks 70-80% of his skill capacity. I've never queried what he CAN do, just what he DOES do. He was managing most aspects of that game while hardly appearing to break sweat. I think he turns the concept of 'playing within himself' into an art form. He and Youngs had sufficient decent ball to take that game by the scruff of the neck.

I'm not interested in the Lions but I could understand Gatland picking Biggar, for example, ahead of Ford. You need 100%ers against SA.

39% possession, 14 penalties tells a tale.

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
I think the idea that he concedes 15 metres at the gainline every time he makes a tackle has spread a long way among supporters and pundits. You'd assume the Lions coaching team are a bit more clued up than that though. I think he's class but he's spent an awful lot of his time on the field recently just hoofing the ball away, often to little effect.

I find him frustrating to watch. It's almost as if he only ever risks 70-80% of his skill capacity. I've never queried what he CAN do, just what he DOES do. He was managing most aspects of that game while hardly appearing to break sweat. I think he turns the concept of 'playing within himself' into an art form. He and Youngs had sufficient decent ball to take that game by the scruff of the neck.

I'm not interested in the Lions but I could understand Gatland picking Biggar, for example, ahead of Ford. You need 100%ers against SA.

39% possession, 14 penalties tells a tale.

True, but keeping possession more generally and competently is down to how the game is played, isn't it? Kicking the ball to the opposition, for example is bound to skew possession statistics. In Ford's case why would he ever do that when he is arguably one of the most accurate kickers to play the game? His kicks to bounce into touch can be magnificent. Of course, the head coach influences tactics but he was/is a lineout technician so why is contesting opposition throws deep in the opposition half no longer a regular plan? I'd really appreciate your opinion on that.

The other day Isiekwe demonstrated why the old-fashioned tactic still has merit. It was a Croft-like performance.

On the penalty bit, I'm no statistician but might the style of play (especially the kicking free-for-alls) be having a big influence?

Oakboy wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I find him frustrating to watch. It's almost as if he only ever risks 70-80% of his skill capacity. I've never queried what he CAN do, just what he DOES do. He was managing most aspects of that game while hardly appearing to break sweat. I think he turns the concept of 'playing within himself' into an art form. He and Youngs had sufficient decent ball to take that game by the scruff of the neck.

I'm not interested in the Lions but I could understand Gatland picking Biggar, for example, ahead of Ford. You need 100%ers against SA.

39% possession, 14 penalties tells a tale.

True, but keeping possession more generally and competently is down to how the game is played, isn't it? Kicking the ball to the opposition, for example is bound to skew possession statistics. In Ford's case why would he ever do that when he is arguably one of the most accurate kickers to play the game? His kicks to bounce into touch can be magnificent. Of course, the head coach influences tactics but he was/is a lineout technician so why is contesting opposition throws deep in the opposition half no longer a regular plan? I'd really appreciate your opinion on that.

The other day Isiekwe demonstrated why the old-fashioned tactic still has merit. It was a Croft-like performance.

On the penalty bit, I'm no statistician but might the style of play (especially the kicking free-for-alls) be having a big influence?

Ford did kick to touch a bit though and we did attack their lineout. It was quite successful, but Bath responded by throwing a bunch of short ones to the front.

39% possession speaks to two things: 1) Bath were a pretty good side and kept the ball in attack for long periods, and 2) This Leicester side is very far from the finished article and our multi-phase attack needs a lot of work, so it's in our interests not to have possession too long.

Puja