Rugby’s penalty goal decider disgrace
Roar Pro By Wally James, 5 May 2009 Wally James is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- Cardiff, Heineken Cup, Leicester, Rugby Union
I read yesterday that the semi-final of the Heineken Cup between Leicester and Cardiff was decided by a penalty shoot-out after extra-time. That is a truly obscene way to decide a game.
No game should be decided that way.
How does the poor bloke who missed feel? What about the fellows in the team who played their guts out but can’t kick for nuts?
They did not contribute to the final determination of the outcome. Nor could they.
Rugby emphasises team over individual. A shoot out does not do that.
The Laws say, “The object of the game is that two teams, each of fifteen players observing fair play, according to the Laws and in a sporting spirit should, by carrying passing, kicking and grounding the ball score as many points as possible.”
Rugby is about scoring tries and kicking goals. Not just scoring goals.
Some would argue that tries are the most important. We all want to see more tries not more goals. Furthermore, we should not want to have the same finale to a great contest that our soccer cousins think is appropriate.
A try and conversion is scored because of good play and/or bad defence. A penalty goal is scored because of a good kicker and an offending team who infringed.
A penalty-shoot out is just one dimensional.
Imagine the uproar if a Rugby World Cup was decided in such a way.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Cardiff, Heineken Cup, Leicester, Rugby Union
May 5th 2009 @ 1:38am
ohtani's jacket said | May 5th 2009 @ 1:38am | Report comment
Well, you know it’s the World Cup rule too, right?
Deciding how to determine a winner after extra time is a pretty tricky scenario. Remember in the ’95 World Cup final South Africa were minutes away from losing the Cup due to their disciplinary record.
In 2003, the WC rule was a drop goal contest. What’s better? Cards? Penalty counts? For and Against? Top qualifier goes through?
May 5th 2009 @ 2:03am
Scott The Aussie said | May 5th 2009 @ 2:03am | Report comment
Play on until one of the teams scores points by any means. Then its still a TEAM effort.
May 5th 2009 @ 2:10am
pothale said | May 5th 2009 @ 2:10am | Report comment
Yeah – a kind of Golden Point. That’s what the coach of the winning side said yesterday after the match. Mind you, having played for over 100 minutes in sunny conditions, you’d wonder how long the players would last – greater propensity for mistakes, injuries, etc. Maybe you could have a best out of 5 skills contest:
1. Place kick from out on the touchline or 5m line.
2. Drop kick from 10 yard line.
3. Garryowen catch
4. How many players can the scrum half tackle with all 8 forwards coming at him.
5. Dunno. Toss a coin?
May 5th 2009 @ 2:12am
Dublin Dave said | May 5th 2009 @ 2:12am | Report comment
To be fair, the penalty goal shoot out is the last option. According to the ERC website the rules for sorting out a tie are:
(ii) in the event of a tie at full-time in the Quarter-Finals, Semi-Finals and Final, extra
time of 20 minutes (10 minutes each way) will be played.
(iii) if the result is still unresolved the winner will be decided by the following criteria:
(a) the Club which has scored the most tries in that match, including extra time.
(b) place-kick competition to determine the winner.
Each side had scored two tries. And there were no more scores in extra time so the shoot out came into play.
Personally, twenty minutes is too short a period of extra time. Perhaps it should be 30 minutes. Perhaps then to be followed by sudden death, ie the first team to score any points goes through.
I agree. Penalty shoot outs are a lousy way to go out of a competition. Even in soccer where the defence, or at least the goalkeeper can play a part. Be thankful that given rugby’s scoring system, they are likely to be few and far between.
May 5th 2009 @ 2:38am
Knives Out said | May 5th 2009 @ 2:38am | Report comment
Scott, then you have the problem of referee subjectivity. God knows how bad it would be to lose a 100 minute match due to the IRB breakdown strictures.
May 5th 2009 @ 3:43am
katzilla said | May 5th 2009 @ 3:43am | Report comment
Start pulling off Players Imo. One player from each team off every stoppage in play.
Thats after regulation extra time.
May 5th 2009 @ 3:45am
ozxile said | May 5th 2009 @ 3:45am | Report comment
Football’s tie breaking shoot-outs have always seemed a bizarre phenomenon. Play 90 minutes as a team and then decide the match on the basis of individual skill/luck on the part of a kicker and goalkeeper. Utter crap. How long before a manager starts replacing defenders with spare strikers when it becomes apparent that a tie is likely? It is distressing to find that this blight is also an obscure part of rugby – at least in some competitions.
Some variation on my ‘solution/suggestion’ for football may also work for rugby.
When the match and mandatory overtimes have passed without resolving the tie, move to a process of ‘strategic attrition. ’ Start the process with 14 players on the pitch. At 2-3 minute intervals require each team to drop 1 player. The coach has a maximum of 15 seconds to remove that player at the first stoppage after the 2 (or 3) min hooter sounds. While in football the strategic and tactical options on replacements would be open, in rugby the requirement of a bona fide front three at all times would be necessary to have real scrums. There would also need to be a time off provision for kicks at goal to prevent delaying tactics. There would undoubtedly be a few other qualifications as well. Finally, all time would be played – no sudden death.
Nothing beats a match played to a definitive conclusion in regular time. That said, resolution of a tie by ‘strategic attrition’ at least allows for an outcome that involves teamwork, coaching, strategic use of players – something that does not turn an important outcome on an isolated skill and luck (or lack thereof).
May 5th 2009 @ 5:09am
ozxile said | May 5th 2009 @ 5:09am | Report comment
katzilla, succinctly said.
May 5th 2009 @ 6:44am
sambobly said | May 5th 2009 @ 6:44am | Report comment
I don’t understand why the teams can’t play until someone scores? Sure it is possible that it would result in more injuries, but since it is so unlikely the risk to the players isn’t that great. Also, that way the game goes to a team effort and not down to which team has the best seventh string kicker. How long would it take either team to score in golden point extra time? I think that it would not be very long.
In conclusion, the shootout is not rugby. We don’t want or need it as there are much better ways to decide a match.
May 5th 2009 @ 7:06am
pothale said | May 5th 2009 @ 7:06am | Report comment
Hmmm….. “Start pulling off Players…. one player from each team off every stoppage in play.” Katzilla
Novel suggestion. Certainly would make for interesting and entertaining TV. Not quite sure how it would settle the scoreline though.