Rugby’s penalty shoot-out is a real winner
Columnist
By Spiro Zavos, 6 May 2009 Spiro Zavos is a Roar Expert
Cardiff Blues' Maama Molitika, left, Tom Shanklin, right and Richie Rees combine to stop Leicester Tigers' Scott Hamilton during their Heineken Cup semi final rugby match at the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, Wales, Sunday, May 3, 2009. AP Photo/Tom Hevezi
When Martyn Williams placed the ball for Cardiff’s seventh and fatal kick in the penalty shoot-out to decide the winner of the Heineken Cup semi-final, the unctuous television commentator rabbited on about how ‘professional’ he was, and unlikely to miskick.
But how tragic it would be for him if he did.
Williams then proceeded to duff-hook his kick, a bit like my pathetic golf drives. How unfair this miss was, the commentators wailed.
Then Jordan Crane, Leicester’s number 8 and a former soccer player, duly kicked his goal.
The match itself, like the first semi-final the day before between Leinster and Munster, was a terrific contest. With ten minutes to go, Leicester, with two converted tries in front, had the game in the bag.
Then they lost two men to the sin-bin.
Cardiff came back, and with a few minutes of play left, Cardiff scored two tries. Ben Blair kicked a conversion from the sideline that effectively took the game into extra time.
Extra time was played and there was still no result.
So for only the second time (the first was in 1984 in the final of the French championship between Brive and Agen), there was a penalty shoot-out to decide the winner in a major rugby tournament match.
A lot of the commentators in the print media, and many making comments on The Roar, have deplored this shoot-out approach to settling an important rugby match.
The consensus seems to be that the golden point system that applies in rugby league should be used, rather than the well-established football practice of the shoot-out.
For me, though, there is no doubt that after 20 minutes of extra time, the penalty shoot-out system is the preferable way of deciding the winner – and the loser.
Here are some reasons to support this opinion.
First, for 100 minutes the resolution of the match had been partially, at least, in the hands of the refereee. It was noticeable, for instance, how conservatively both teams played in extra time in their efforts to avoid giving away a penalty.
The shoot-out system gives the individual players of both teams, for the only time in a rugby match, the total control of the outcome of the match.
Two, kicking penalties is a rugby skill that many players aspire to, and the shoot-out system rewards those players who remain back after the formal practice to boot goals.
I bet Craig Newby, the Leicester loose forward who booted his shot confidently through the posts, is one of those players.
The golden point system rewards one player’s skill, the player who drop kicks the field goal. The shoot-out system requires six or seven solid penalty kickers.
Three, the shoot-out system is terrifically dramatic.
When a game goes into over-time, there is always going to be heartache from the losing side about lost chances and missed kicks at goals.
This happens even in games that don’t go into extra time. Remember Matt Giteau missing that final penalty kick, for instance, against England in the 2007 Rugby World Cup quarter-final?
The shoot-out system tests the nerves of the players by taking them into an area of play most of them have never been. And it tests the nerves of the spectators.
It is incredibly exciting theatre, and a fitting way to decide a match that has not been resolved with 80 minutes of ordinary time play, followed by 20 minutes of extra time.
Wouldn’t it be memorable if a Rugby World Cup final were ever decided this way.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (28)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
Dublin Dave said | May 6th 2009 @ 1:53am | Report comment
This is one of those events that is only special if it is rare. Unique even. If this were to become commonplace, believe me we would tire of it very quickly.
In soccer the use of penalty shoot outs to decide drawn matches in tournaments gave rise to great drama in the early days but now it is seen as a blight on the game and much attention is being brought to bear how to make things fairer. The first major tournament to be decided on a shootout was the European Championship Final of 1976 in which one country which no longer exists (West Germany) faced another (Czechoslovakia) at a venue provided by a third (Yugoslavia).
That was memorable both for its novelty value at the time and for the manner in which it was decided. With West Germany having missed one kick the Czech Antonin Panenka needed to convert his to win the tournament. The German keeper Sepp Maier had dived early and to his left for all the preceding kicks. Would he do the same this time, or would he go right? Panenka produced an astonishing double bluff and simply chipped the ball gently into the middle of the goal. Maier dutifully dived out of the way and Czechoslovakia had won. Penalty shoot outs looked like an exciting new variation.
Now what tends to happen if a game goes to extra time is that teams play very cautiously and seem prepared to risk the Russian Roulette of the penalty shoot out rather than take their chances on their own merits. Granted, this is easier to do in soccer than rugby but it’s not hard to envisage rugby teams in extra time adopting similar caution.
Fortunately, with rugby’s scoring values as they are, draws are rare indeed. A quick look at the records shows that in the five and six nations since the value of a try was increased from four to five points there have been 220 matches and only three draws.
When the try was worth four points (ie when a converted try equated to two kicked goals) there were 218 matches and 12 draws, ie nearly four times as many.
Just as well.
Knives Out said | May 6th 2009 @ 2:12am | Report comment
‘Remember Matt Giteau missing that final penalty kick, for instance, against England in the 2007 Rugby World Cup quarter-final?’
No. I remember Stirling Mortlock missing that final penalty kick.
Steffy said | May 6th 2009 @ 2:29am | Report comment
“The golden point system rewards one player’s skill, the player who drop kicks the field goal”
How about the team which gets that player into position to kick the field goal?
Knives Out said | May 6th 2009 @ 2:30am | Report comment
Good point, Steffy.
pothale said | May 6th 2009 @ 3:09am | Report comment
penalty shoot-outs are synonomous in Ireland with Ireland’s Italia ’90 World Cup campaign. They were indeed novel enough at the time for a soccer-mad country (at the time) starved of participation in a World Cup.
Now – they’re a pain in the arse – although one derives a certain amount of sadistic pleasure in watching other countries having to go through it. When your own team is involved, it’s not pleasureable at all. Particularly when the previous 90 minutes have been bereft of any invention or skill that got the players to this point in the first place.
I was fascinated by Sunday’s match and outcome, but I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. Novelty value that quickly wears off.
Am now thinking up mad alternatives for shoot-outs.
I think you need a solution where you focus the minds of the teams onto scoring come hell what may. Make the alternative unliveable with. Kind of like hanging concentrates the mind wonderfully, if it’s tied up at the end of extra time, both teams are knocked out. So let em play 20 minutes of extra time. No score? Then move it into sudden death for 15 minutes – for both parties. Any score will do. If they don’t, both teams are knocked out. The other semi-finalist wins by default.
Unless, of course, it’s the first semi-final…hmmmm. So play both semi-finals at the same time.
And if both semi-finals end in draws, then feck ‘em – no cup awarded – they weren’t good enough in the first place.
Knives Out said | May 6th 2009 @ 3:30am | Report comment
The problems with penalty shoot-outs, IMO, are thus:
1. Soccer penalty shoot-outs are completely different. Footballer’s feet are their main weapon and they have goalkeepers to beat. We might as well be asking the hookers to hit those pop-up line-out targets they use in practice. Penalties do not translate onto a sport like rugby. It was abundantly clear – to those who actually watched the game – that the penalties had no relationship with the previous 100 minutes. They are, therefore, completely arbitrary and only undermine the narrative of a game.
2. They might be dramatic, but so were public executions. I would wager that the majority of spectators felt slightly surreal and also upset for the Blues. If rugby were judged solely on excitement value then the shoot-out should be altered. Kicking from in front of the posts is bland. Frankly, I thought the penalties were more embarrasing than dramatic.
3. If teams know that penalty shoot-outs are inevitable then we get the excitement-free rugby seen in extra time. Teams are afraid to attack and so will kick and kick. There could also be the issue of tactical substitutions, removing non-kicking players and the like.
The fact of the matter is that whilst the conclusion of the game is neither desirable or practicle, draws rarely occur. Therefore, all the shoot-out has done is allow the media a chance to knock out a few thousand cheap words.
Colin N said | May 6th 2009 @ 3:46am | Report comment
KO, you mentioned that football shootouts have goalkeepers, but I think a few years ago, a team have created a wall (players on top of each others shoulders to stop a penalty being scored). So how about that?
Knives Out said | May 6th 2009 @ 3:58am | Report comment
I remember, Colin. Not a bad idea although I do think that penalties are not an appopriate end to the game.
pothale said | May 6th 2009 @ 5:30am | Report comment
“knock our a few thousand cheap words”!!?? Splutter, splutter. These words take time to emerge and go through an awful amount of creative thought and agony, I’ll have you know, KO.
ozxile said | May 6th 2009 @ 5:44am | Report comment
I posted this elsewhere but it got lost in a flurry of ‘teenage girls pajama party like’ nonsense. I’d like a bit of feedback to straighten me out or whatever.
The kick is a rubbish way to finish any contest – no more relevant than high stakes rock-paper-scissors. 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 (or just some stationary goal posts. Utter crap. It is distressing to find that this blight is also an obscure part of rugby.
Some variation on my ‘solution/suggestion’ for football may also work for rugby.
When the match overtimes have passed without resolving the tie, move to a ‘strategic attrition’ process. Re-start with 14 players. 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. This would probably be over in far less time than the kick-off.
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). It would also be fascinating to watch – particularly if spectators know the order in which players will be dropped.