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.
Recommend this story.
May 6th 2009 @ 5:58am
Gladstone said | May 6th 2009 @ 5:58am | Report comment
This subject came up a few years ago on The Roar, and there was one suggestion that got a lot of comment – instead of a penalty shoot out, hold a Charlie Chaplin lookalike contest, and the winner’s team gets the decision.
The objection as I recall was that teams with smaller players – like Giteau and Shane Williams – would have an advantage if it came to a tie. Also, somebody else pointed out that teams might start putting a Chaplin impersonator on the bench and would bring him on in the last minute if the scores were tied.
In the end the majority of Roarers decided that a Chaplin lookalike contest was not the way to go and it’s probably not the way to go now. You’d have Dublin Dave and Pothale insisting that it should be a Gabriel Byrne lookalike contest, Knives Out wanting to change it to a Ricky Hatton lookalike contest – for that one, the teams have to lie on their backs – and Sheek perhaps okaying a Charlie Chaplin lookalike comp as long as it was a national one.
Maybe the players should just line up and play their opposite number at rock, paper, scissors. But whatever, let’s keep Hollywood out it.
May 6th 2009 @ 6:43am
pothale said | May 6th 2009 @ 6:43am | Report comment
I’d prefer a version of Ozxile’s proposal of Strategic Attrition.
15 minutes after the Extra Time period is over. I’d have the team numbers slowly reduced by removing four players from the field every three minutes – two from each team. I’d allow the coaches to pick the players from the opposing team who should leave. Just hold up numbers at the edge of the pitch and off they walk. Only numbers 1,2 & 3 would be exempt from removal. We’d be down to 7s rugby for the last three minutes with 3 on each side lumbering around the field.
It’d be great fun to watch the teams having to readjust.
‘Ooops there goes Stringer and O’Gara; we’ve taken their flankers (who’s bloody idea was that?). Quinny, no more gouging, you’re taking over from Strings. Can anyone kick instead of RO’G? Well, at least avoid being steamrollered? Thanks, Bull, but you have to able to run more than 3 yards as well.’
May 6th 2009 @ 6:44am
Knives Out said | May 6th 2009 @ 6:44am | Report comment
The thread responses, so far, have been more entertaining than the shoot-out and longer than the Hatton fight. All’s well that ends well then, I suppose.
May 6th 2009 @ 7:32am
Wally James said | May 6th 2009 @ 7:32am | Report comment
Spiro
(i) the resolution of the match should always be in the hands of the referee. That is what the laws provide. If it was in the hands of the players therer would never be any infringements would there? I don;t think so. Why should it change for a shoot-out? Any team worth their salt plays to the ref when it is to their advantage
(ii) because the shoot out give 100% control to individual players is the very reason there should be no shoot out. Rugby is a team sport with people with different abilities contributing the betterment of the team
(iii) Goal kisking is definitely not a practice that Rugby players aspire to. A prop might be given a go when the team is up by 50 with 2 minutes to fulltime, to the raucous cheers of his mates and the chagrine of the losers but thats about it. Goal kickers with talent aspire to a shoot out moment but the rest of us want to avoid it like the plague. Ask the poor chap who lost it for Cardiff
(iv) the golden point system does not require one players skill to drop a goal. How did his team gain possession for him to get it – the forwards. How did they get to a position where a shot was on – the forwards got him there. Possession and position, the basic tenets of rugby. A case in point, as much as I hate to remember it, is the work of the English forwards and the darting halfback snipe to get Wilkinson in position to…. say no more. That was Rugby at its best
(v) the golden point system is not the only alternative
(vi)
May 6th 2009 @ 7:33am
Wally James said | May 6th 2009 @ 7:33am | Report comment
(vi)
May 6th 2009 @ 7:35am
Wally James said | May 6th 2009 @ 7:35am | Report comment
bloody hell
(vi) the shootout is dramatic. But so is russian roulette. You know one poor chap is going to cop it but whom?
No thanks. Leave the shoot out to the shinclutchers. Let’s play Rugby not soccer.
May 6th 2009 @ 8:28am
LeftArmSpinner said | May 6th 2009 @ 8:28am | Report comment
wally, stay off the “red” when roaring!!! it helps you not to hit the enter key too early.
Shinclutchers: thats a good one.
Phew, Spiro got me in with such a eye-catching headline. Now, I am not sure what I think. There are pros and cons on both sides. Whatabout a golden try rather than golden point.
Whether it be a penalty shoot out or golden something, there will be tension and excitement, particularly when so much is at stake. But, I dont like having a player exposed so much. Its just not fair in a team game like rugby.
So, I’ve decided on my stance: Golden try it is.
May 6th 2009 @ 8:41am
Andrew Logan said | May 6th 2009 @ 8:41am | Report comment
The solution that no-one seems to have mentioned is the golden try. Simply make the second period of extra time one where the winner is the first team to score a try and penalty kicks for goal are meaningless. The only problem I can see is cynical fouls where players kill the ball in their own 22. The solution there is to make it clear to both teams that any foul in their own 22 is an immediate sin-bin for the rest of the match.
A team under pressure then has 2 choices – defend cleanly and keep all players on the field, or foul as a last resort knowing that they will lose a player. Either way the advantage rightly ends up with the team who is putting the pressure on and they have every chance to be the victor.
It is impossible to take the referee out of the equation entirely in rugby these days, but this is the closest you will go in a close match. The best part is that penalties and drop goals are out, and the match is decided by a try – the way it should be.
May 6th 2009 @ 8:43am
Andrew Logan said | May 6th 2009 @ 8:43am | Report comment
To clarify….when I say “foul”, I mean a penalisable offence ie offside, not releasing, not rolling away etc.
May 6th 2009 @ 9:09am
sheek said | May 6th 2009 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Dublin Dave pretty well summed it up (the penalty shootout, that is) – an exciting novelty now, a tiresome bore later.
And to take Andrew Logan’s ‘golden try’ a step further. After 100 minutes, reduce the teams to Sevens (7s) – that will guarantee a quick result, while still asking teams & individuals to exhibit rugby skills, plus fitness endurance.
But let me ask another question – if the teams in a grand final can’t be separated after 100 minutes, why not go back over the two teams season’s results, for the winner?
1. The team that won most games coming into the GF.
2. The team with the greater difference between points & against.
3. The greater number of tries scored.
4. The fewer penalties conceded.
I’m sure we could quickly come up with 10 succession points in separating teams. The key is, consistent performance through the season gets rewarded, if it comes down to this.
Or a purely Aussie invention – who can come up with the bestest & cleverest sledge, drawing the greatest laughter & cheer from the crowd. Sorry…..that’s politically incorrect.