An oldie

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Was in a table with people from different places and generations and i came across a situation that made me wonder. Half knew about this but the other half had absolutely no idea, which i found interesting.

Back in the day it was quite common for kickers to do torpedo/spiral/zeppelin kicks. Basically you kick the ball in a way in which the ball rotates along its longest axis. You've seen it.
This had some drawbacks and some advantages. The drawbacks were that it took a bit longer to kick the ball (you had to place the ball in your hands a certain way) and sometimes (not always but most of the time) you had to be more careful about how you kicked the ball and that could translated into less power (you kicked it a bit less hard to make sure you kicked it the right way. Again, not always). You could argue that concentrating in one thing (the spiral) takes focus away from other things (like precision of where the ball goes). Might be, not sure.

The advantages were mainly 2. The first was that the way the ball travelled minimized friction and that resulted in longer kicks (from the moment you kick till the ball hits the ground, given the same force when compared to a different style of kicking).
So here is the question: what specific characteristic does that type of kicking posses that could prove incredibly useful in some situations?

Without googling, do you know the answer?

Spoiler

The bounce is 10x more predictable (not 100% tho). The ball generally bounces straight ahead in the direction of the trajectory it had before it touches the ground.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Commentators always lose their minds whenever someone puts in a kick like that these days,
I did actually wonder why it wasn't popular anymore

 

[die_mole]

so that advantage is what the spiral kick is dead in American football. Once punters realized they could use the end over end as a flop wedge they no longer had to worry about kicking to the side line.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I'm speculating a bit but think what killed them was the penalty/lineout and who throws the line out change in the rules.
When the rules were penalty for team A--> Team A kicks it, finds touch --->team B throws in the line out, the choice team A faced was the following

- go really long and i find touch. Line out, their throw in but i gained meters
vs
- go really long and miss touch. They counter but from far back as i gained meters.

You had incentives to try and go long, really long. The cost of missing touch was not that high. The purpose was territory as you would lose possession anyway (unless the receibed dropped the ball, course).

But when they changed the rules about who throws the ball in at the line out, that became a very, very different equation. In 99% of the situations you would chose to sacrifice 10-15 in the distance of the kick if that meant you kept possesion.

That changed how important the distance of the kick was. Less important ---> les incentives to use a type of kick from penalties that maximizes distance.
Also, half the times you want the bounce to be unpredictable, so it's a situational thing. It's a tool that might come in handy in some situations, key word being 'might'.

Am i making myself clear? Been a long time since those days.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

This is a good example. Watch how it bounces. Not before. It is hard to predict height, but the ball keeps the line horizontally. It doesnt do any 'silly' sideways movement. It does move sideways but WAY less than with a 'normal kidk', and generally only after it loses most of its momentum.
If you can better predict where the ball is going to be you approach the chase differently too. Again, depending on the circumstances, but you get the point.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I'm speculating a bit but think what killed them was the penalty/lineout and who throws the line out change in the rules.
When the rules were penalty for team A--> Team A kicks it, finds touch --->team B throws in the line out, the choice team A faced was the following

- go really long and i find touch. Line out, their throw in but i gained meters
vs
- go really long and miss touch. They counter but from far back as i gained meters.

You had incentives to try and go long, really long. The cost of missing touch was not that high. The purpose was territory as you would lose possession anyway (unless the receibed dropped the ball, course).

But when they changed the rules about who throws the ball in at the line out, that became a very, very different equation. In 99% of the situations you would chose to sacrifice 10-15 in the distance of the kick if that meant you kept possesion.

That changed how important the distance of the kick was. Less important ---> les incentives to use a type of kick from penalties that maximizes distance.
Also, half the times you want the bounce to be unpredictable, so it's a situational thing. It's a tool that might come in handy in some situations, key word being 'might'.

Am i making myself clear? Been a long time since those days.

I never knew that was a rule!

I remember ROG used to like them, particularly on wet days where if he found grass the ball would skid and usually find touch. He also liked the spiral bomb which was a nightmare for 15s. Can't remember any 10 since use them regularly.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

He also liked the spiral bomb which was a nightmare for 15s. Can't remember any 10 since use them regularly.

George Ford has used them really successfully for Tigers - last season especially

 

[die_mole]

keeping your kick on PKs and pre bind on lineouts came at the same time (or near enough). You would win over a quarter of the other teams lineups so getting the ball into touch on a PK was always important. There are certain commentators that always love to mention when a torpedo kick is made.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

Commentators always lose their minds whenever someone puts in a kick like that these days,
I did actually wonder why it wasn't popular anymore

i think basically an end over end punt is just a lot more accurate, generally a pretty straight kick in the direction you kick it, a torpedo can get a pretty noticeable curve on it

if you look at aussie rules they all do end over end because they're kick passing to hand and manage to get goals from "impossible" angles

 

[Umaga's Witness]

In New Zealand nick evans was basically the reason for the transition from players doing spiral kicks to not any more. Nick evans had played Aussie rules and he was getting his kicks away quicker and getting very good distance on them.

Dan carter used to do spirals when he started but nick evans had an advantage over carter because carter was getting charged down a lot. So carter stopped doing spirals most of the time.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

In New Zealand nick evans was basically the reason for the transition from players doing spiral kicks to not any more. Nick evans had played Aussie rules and he was getting his kicks away quicker and getting very good distance on them.

Dan carter used to do spirals when he started but the evans had an advantage over carter because carter was getting charged down a lot. So he stopped doing spirals most of the time.

still think evans was a huge loss to NZR...if he had concentrated on 15 rather than thinking he could displace DC at 10 we would have won in 07