New use for bribe

[dreamscreator]

An idea to give another use for bribes.

If an opponent break armour fouling one of your players you can use a bribe and the referee sent off the opponent player.

You need to roll D6 with 1 the bribe fail.

[harvestmouse]

Does the game need to tone down fouling even more?

[Twelfman]

I like it, sounds funny. Maybe on a 1 the guy being fouled is sent off for 'diving'

[dreamscreator]

Does the game need to tone down fouling even more?

It's the opposite. With this rule you will think twice if you want foul someone who has a bribe.

I like it, sounds funny. Maybe on a 1 the guy being fouled is sent off for 'diving'

That idea is ace!

[Darkson]

Does the game need to tone down fouling even more?

It's the opposite. With this rule you will think twice if you want foul someone who has a bribe.

If you make people "think twice if you want foul someone who has a bribe" then you've toned it down - you've made fouling worse.

[dreamscreator]

Does the game need to tone down fouling even more?

It's the opposite. With this rule you will think twice if you want foul someone who has a bribe.

If you make people "think twice if you want foul someone who has a bribe" then you've toned it down - you've made fouling worse.

Ah, I missunderstanding the meaning of the sentence.

Anyway, usually goblins use bribes and for stunty I don't think is a bad idea cover a bit more the team. And if someone buy a bribe for 100k have another option I don't think is a bad idea.

[stashman]

Setting up 12 players on a drive.

Referee sees it and roll a d6, on a 2+ its ok.

On a roll of 1 the referee sends of a random player

[dode74]

Setting up 12 players on a drive.

Referee sees it and roll a d6, on a 2+ its ok.

On a roll of 1 the referee sends of a random player

2 random players

[Mori-mori]

An idea to give another use for bribes.

If an opponent break armour fouling one of your players you can use a bribe and the referee sent off the opponent player.

You need to roll D6 with 1 the bribe fail.

Don't think it will really work that well. Usually your opponent will use a cheap player for the foul anyway, it's the core idea of fouling. And as you are spending your bribe, it's actually the same as if you would try to foul this cheap player yourself (what you wouldn't do, ofc, because of the said above). Even worse, as during foul you have only 30% of chance to waste your bribe (when actually caught), and here it's 100%. For removing a cheap, disposable player. Doesn't really seem like a deal

Edit:
...but if we modify your rule so that bribe you pay to referee is only used 1/3 of time (like, you can promise him a bribe, but then "forget" your promise, after he will do his part of a deal; may work, or may not, and he will happen to be an assertive dude with a lot of friends), it may actually start to bear.. at least a bit of sense. You still risk wasting your bribe while trying to remove a cheap player, but it may serve as a deterrent for your opponent.

[Mori-mori]

Minding said above, perhaps a better approach would be not to allow you to remove the actual fouler, but to remove anybody you chose who was participating in that foul (including those who lend assists); or, even better, any opposing player adjusted to your player being fouled (even if he can't provide assists to a fouler due to tackle zones). Now it really can be worth it, as assists are used most of the time, and they are usually some players that happen to be around, not specifically chosen. Now you can just leave your original idea of spending the bribe for it "as is", as it may be enough threat to your opponent already (he often will have valuable players standing nearby the foul target).

Edit:
I didn't think it through at all. If implemented this way, in case both coaches have bribes, they won't be able to foul each other out of fear that any player they use for assist will be ejected, and this doesn't make any sense. Though it's a problem which exists already in topicstarter's proposal. Per his words, it should discourage coach who has no bribes from fouling the coach who has them. But what about situation when both coaches have bribes? It rarely will happen, but possible. It will probably end in a stalemate when both are afraid to foul first, because foul has only a slight chance to remove a player, while this mechanic gives ~90% chance to remove fouler.