Is the field goal a blight on the game?
Roar Guru By The Crowd, 18 Jun 2007 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
Gatesy writes:
Phil Kearns said on Saturday night that the field goal is a ‘blight on the game’.
Here are the Pros and Cons as I see them.
Against:
Rugby is essentially a team game. At least in our part of the world we see it as a running game, with the principal focus on scoring tries, by running at, and beating, the defensive line. A field goal, or even an attempt at one, is a sort of admission of defeat, that you can’t break the defensive line.
It is also an individual skill, rather than a team skill that gets the points.
For:
It is a way of punishing the defending team for being caught in the red zone.
It is often the culmination of a good team effort to drive the ball downfield to a kickable position
It is there, so let’s use it. It seems to me that we could look at the whole question of kicks. Why, for instance do you need to convert a try?
If the try is the result of a great team effort, though it might be scored in the corner, why should that be harder for the kicker than if it was scored under the posts?
Should a conversion be worth two, should a penalty be worth three, and should a field goal be worth anything, or something less than three?
Rugby is meant to be a series of contests. Is the field goal a contest, or is it merely the fair result of some other contest?
What do others think?
Recommend this story.
We're hiring. Find out more.
- Explore:
June 19th 2007 @ 2:59pm
slomo said | June 19th 2007 @ 2:59pm | Report comment
Further to one of the posts in this thread about league games not ever being won as a result of a penalty, with the greatest of respect to the poster, who gives a flying rat’s backside what happens in league.
June 19th 2007 @ 3:10pm
Bob McGregor said | June 19th 2007 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
No, the field goal is not a blight on the game, but the value for same is too high compared to a penalty which results from a deliberate infringement. Perhaps a field goal should be worth 2 points – on par with a conversion, while all current scoring values should be maintained.
Galling as it was for the Wallabies to lose so late in the game, we only had ourselves to blame. Unfortunately aimless kicking by Larkham, poor hands by Gregan and Lote Tuqiri going off his feet over tackled player instead of going for ball in final 7 minutes of the game cost us the match. However, we may still have won if the video replay of Larkham’s disallowed try was looked at. But that is clutching at straws as Rugby Referees are “so good” they don’t make mistakes in the lead up move to a try and the IRB will never change it’s stance on video evidence – unlike Rugby League – who do and make far less poor decisions. Giteau protested he did not touch the ball – as confirmed by the video – was tackled without the ball [penalty try?] . The video suggested the Boks winger got a sliding soccer tackle kick at the ball between Giteau’s legs and propelled it
over the try line where Larkham grounded it. But video in Rugby can only rule on the grounding of the ball or whether the player was put in touch in scoring. Much as it galls me to say it, Rugby League’s Video replay of the whole movement, prior to a disputed try, is far superior to Rugby’s mish mash! When will technology catch up with Rugby?
June 19th 2007 @ 3:11pm
Lachlan said | June 19th 2007 @ 3:11pm | Report comment
Slomo,
With the same respect to you sir, the people who like watching sport where some sort of ball-in-hand action takes place on the field are the same people who like to watch league. They also like to watch Union when it’s not ridiculously turgid and way laid with scrumsetting and whistleblowing.
With respect, I bet you love all the “action” of cricket, too.
June 19th 2007 @ 3:28pm
Paulmc said | June 19th 2007 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
Slomo
Not innovation – possible history!
June 19th 2007 @ 3:36pm
Ralph said | June 19th 2007 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
If points are awarded because of skills then that first shot Steyn did from almost of the side line should have been 5 points!
It was a heck of hit.
June 19th 2007 @ 3:59pm
tim said | June 19th 2007 @ 3:59pm | Report comment
slomo, i have never been an avid league follower. rugby union has been my number one sport my whole life. what i don’t understand is why a minority of union followers like yourself feel the need to trash talk league all the time. your comments on league are tired, repetitive, and boring. what do they achieve? to further alienate potential rugby followers who hear comments like that and then think all union supporters are jealous arrogant whingers? i think your mind is in slow-mo.
June 19th 2007 @ 5:29pm
slomo said | June 19th 2007 @ 5:29pm | Report comment
Lachlan, I don’t much care what other people like; you and everybody else have the right to like whatever you want. But what I (and most rugby people on the planet outside of Australia) will not tolerate is any attempt to alter the game to fit one particular country’s convenience. As to whether I like or dislike cricket, so what? Non sequitur.
June 19th 2007 @ 5:32pm
slomo said | June 19th 2007 @ 5:32pm | Report comment
Tim, I’m not trash talking league. I just don’t like it; I find it boring, one dimensional and predictable. However, I absolutely respect the right of anyone, yourself included, to like it as much as you want. What I think is not a universal truth, but it is my truth. I thought that this forum was intended for just that, to state our personal opinions. You’ve got mine.
June 19th 2007 @ 6:09pm
Timothy said | June 19th 2007 @ 6:09pm | Report comment
Spiro,
I totally agree with your though that the drop goal needs devaluing, I offer the following in support of your cause:
1.) Technology:
a. Ball : the rugby ball has evolved significantly to an all weather, perfectly weighted / balanced item.
i. The old leather rugby ball possessed a seam and wide stitching to permit the insertion of the bladder, causing a different weight distribution and aerodynamic trajectory when kicked.
ii. Upon getting wet, the weight due to saturation of the leather rugby ball increased considerably and the “grip” was non-existent – strangely, the hookers were still able to throw straight and “hit” the line-out target!!
iii. Mud would cling to the old leather ball like thick grease making it almost impossible to catch under extreme defensive pressure and there would be little rise if any when “dropped to bounce” as it would stick!
b. Stadium : Modern stadiums, particularly those with closed roofs, offer dry and predictable conditions
c. Turf : the playing surface on most international rugby grounds is fast draining and non-muddy (sand base). Additionally, most are modular with pallet replacement of ‘bad” sections able to be done in hours
In sum, compare the degree of difficulty of taking a field goal on:
i. a muddy wet pitch with a slippery and saturated heavy leather ball (i.e. SCG during the 1980s); to that of,
ii. a supper dry pitch in a closed stadium with a perfectly weighted synthetic rugby ball (i.e. Telstra Dome this Saturday)
No comparison…. Hugo Porta’s opinion would be interesting!
2.) Relative Value v Penalty
a. The points intended to benefit the non-offending team for a penalty infringement are “relatively lower” due to the shift in favour of the field goal arising from the technology improvements. For example, giving away a penalty is not so serious if you have an indefensible (as you correctly state) scoring opportunity via a field goal. Theoretically, this renders the penalty less effective in value and consequently in effect.
3.) Importance
a. Without doubt, the field goal must remain in the game a deadlock breaker
4.) Recommendations
a. Reduce the value of a field goal to 1 point; or,
b. Reduce the value of a field goal to 1 point if taken between the defending team’s try line and the 10metre line in the defending team’s half (i.e. a 40 metre zone) AND keep it a 3 points if taken on the other side of the defending team’s 10metre line.
5.) Considerations
a. The game would open up as the loosing team would be forced to go for a try as opposed to initiating “X” number of phases to reach an indefensible position – unless they would work for a penalty etc…
Lets get this moving !
Regards
Timothy
PS: Rugby League got this right…
June 19th 2007 @ 6:58pm
Graham Heath said | June 19th 2007 @ 6:58pm | Report comment
When is the IRB going to review the value of a field goal and the negative impact they have on the game?
On the subject of the point scoring system in Rugby Union, why is a conversion only worth 2 points and a field goal worth 3 points? For me, a life long fan of Rugby, a Try is the ultimate reward for hard work and skill and should be valued and rewarded as such. A try should not be able to be wiped out by a couple of indefensible opportunist field goals.
Revalue the Try with 3 points for a conversion and either ban field goals or devaule them to 1 or half a point .