Introduce a distance penalty into rugby

Roar Pro

By Ken Menz, 14 Aug 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Pro

Tagged:: American Football, ELVs, NFL, Rugby Union, running rugby

Related coverage

The recent rugby test results show that we have headed back to the bad old days of stultifying rugby, with play dominated by the kick and chase, and points coming predominantly from penalties.

The (former) ELVs, as practised in Super rugby, did largely eliminate this problem. But the downside was that the short arm penalty provided insufficient ‘penalty’ to prevent many transgressions.

Furthermore, there were inconsistencies in that some full arm transgressions seemed no more serious than those punishable by a short arm penalty.

While there have been other suggested reasons for the ELVs being changed, such as Northern Hemisphere styles of play versus Southern Hemisphere, these inherent problems with the old ELVs did require a change.

But things seem to have moved too far in the other direction.

We need to find a means of penalising that is sufficiently strong but not to the point of allowing kicking to dominate the game.

Fortunately such a penalty is at hand in American football: distance!

Let’s simply allow the team receiving the penalty for ‘minor’ transgressions to advance the ball (say 20 metres) before taking the tap or scum.

This approach essentially represents a compromise between the short arm and the full arm penalty, while retaining the advantages of the short arm penalty in speeding up the game and giving due weight to ‘running rugby’.

Penalty received within 20 metres of the goal line? No problem. Advance the ball half the distance to the goal line again as per NFL.

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.

The Crowd Says (41) | Page 1 of Comments

matt0931 said | August 14th 2009 @ 3:02am | Report comment

Not a bad suggestion. I totally agree that something needs to be done. My suggestion would be to either reduce penalties to be worth two points and drop kicks reduce to 1 point or to increase tries up to 6 points with conversions also 3 points. This would give teams more incentive to work toward scoring tries over penalties.
I can’t understand why conversions are worth less than tries when they are being scored in the same manner as penalties anyway! perhaps someone can explain that one to me?

Reply
Darryl SA said | August 14th 2009 @ 5:09am | Report comment

I didn’t see the first game between NZ and Aus, but is this reaction to ‘kick and chase’ not a bit premature? As some journalists have already said, the kick and chase will be analysed and countered. SA won’t be able to base their entire year on that plan – not if they plan to have a successful year at any rate. In my opinion we should wait out the year before making any damning deductions of the current laws. SA’s approach doth not a global trend make.

Reply
wannabprop said | August 14th 2009 @ 5:15am | Report comment

Agreed. I like the ‘advance’ penalty. Also points structure review as has been continually discussed on previous threads. Will it ever happen? Doubt it – the tradition of rewarding the kick dies hard. Having said that, I firmly believe the refereeing is what needs the greatest attention (and I’m not moaning about the result in the last test). If the refs were better/more confident in their judgements, then interpretation may not be such an issue e.g. that deserves a short arm, or long arm, yellow card, etc. I agree with a poster on a previous thread (a current referee at club level I think) that cards should given out MUCH more freely to stop the continued insult at the breakdown. The suggestion received howls of protest at the time for mess it would create in the match. I suggest some short-term pain for a better long-term outcome.

Reply
- Knives Out said | August 14th 2009 @ 5:42am | Report comment
  
  If there is uniform refereeing across the hemispheres then that automatically creates a level playing field. However, why is that not happening already? Beyond that I think union should investigate the use of a 2nd ref like in the NRL.
  
  Reply
  - wannabprop said | August 14th 2009 @ 6:56am | Report comment
    
    Good question. Sadly there appears to be a problem attracting quality refs. Given the pressure and thankless task that it is, no surprise really. I assume (hope) they’re very well paid. Are they well coached themselves? Doesn’t look like it. Expectations may be too high with the nature of the modern game.
    
    I haven’t seen much the 2 ref system in operation, and I read conflicting reports. But the bit I did see seemed to work fine – it makes sense dunnit? (especially given everyone goes on about the extra speed of modern players. I think we need 2 refs just for the scrum for a start (and one of em could be an old prop)!
    
    Reply
    - Knives Out said | August 14th 2009 @ 7:05am | Report comment
      
      The reason I mention the 2 refs, wannabprop, is because I’ve read that it sped the game up (I say this hailing from England, and thus only being broadly aware of the pros and cons of the NRL system) and that seems to have been a recent complaint on The Roar and also because there would be another set of eyes on the game.
      
      The main refereeing issue has to be accuracy. Why are there so many different interpretations, specifically at the breakdown? I’d also strongly advocate consistent and strict refereeing, as simple as that sounds, for example straight feeds to the scrum, and not just the occasional penalty here and there as we have seen over the past two 3N games. Also, as refs are professional how can they seemingly know so little about scrummaging. I think it’s shocking that they do not undergo coaching from top ex-front rowers. Accuracy across the world and a general consistency can’t be too much to ask surely? It’s the little things that count, like when France plays under a ref with no working knowledge of French. Rugby is big business these days. Scenarios like that are unacceptable.
      
      I know that Glen Jackson (ex-Waikato) is a referee. Why aren’t there more ex-players involved? Couldn’t you imagine a Mike Foley, Matt, Burke, Richard Hill, Keith Wood or Rassie Erasmus reffing a game?
      
      Reply
      - wannabprop said | August 14th 2009 @ 7:30am | Report comment
        
        Agreed. I also advocate a stricter refereeing policy – if it disrupts a few games until everyone gets on the same page it’d worth it – it can’t be worse than the dross served up currently (if fact, it may make it more exciting as another poster mentioned).
        
        I can only conclude that many players at the top level realise what a difficult job it is (on a subconscious level?) and won’t go near it with a barge pole… pity tho. I’d love to see someone like Keith Wood officiating, although after listening to Kearns and Martin the last couple of seasons, there doesn’t appear to be a guarantee that players at the top level actually have a clear understanding of the rules err laws. I remember hearing Buck Shelford saying he spent an inordinate amount of time studying every law, and therefore absolutely confident he could debate decisions with refs (beyond emotional quibbling).
        
        Reply
        
        Knives Out said | August 14th 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
        
        I think it’s the money. The majority of players (in England at least) are found well paid jobs upon their retirement. Others coach. Top players would definitely have an immediate advantage over refs, especially hooker and flankers. I appreciate what you’re saying about the top players not necessarily knowing the laws inside out but I would presume that the ex-players willing to put themselves forwards would be obsessive about the sport.
        
        arbitro storico said | August 15th 2009 @ 8:31am | Report comment
        
        Knives Out & Wannabprop – fascinating dialogue between you two regarding refereeing. I’d like to answer a specific question, and then make some points in response to issues raised about the referee in the game.
        
        1. Money – the pro’s in Oz fall into two categories; $70 to $100K per year for those in RS14 on the fringe of Test appointment, and anywhere up to $200K for the higher ranked (based on IRB ranking). The SA/NZ refs (and the Poms) are on better wickets than this, reflecting a requirement to perform at a higher level for a longer domestic season. Elsewhere in the rugby world, it’s patchy, and a rule of thumb would be that the referee is better paid the higher the profile for pro rugby in that country.
        
        2. “If the refs were better/more confident…” The 17 referees on the IRB Merit Panel are without doubt the best in the world. For all of them, the major issue is NOT accuracy, but deciding what NOT to penalise. Research on top line referees indicates that despite the dynamics and distractions inherent in our Game, they are remarkably able to “see” almost all infringements, largely because their decision making process has been shaped by their game experience, and they create a mental model as a template which is then applied to every scenario in the game. Those player actions which don’t fit into the “model” are seized upon for sanction by the referee. With the greatest respect to Glen Jackson, Keith Wood, Rassie Erasmus and Don Bradman, they’d still need time to develop their mental models as referees, although I’m certain that they each have a significant head start on Joe Average because of their accumulated experience in the Game. I hope they’d find the money attractive enough.
        
        So – the challenge for referees is what to leave out! The IRB has a Latin (of course!) maxim – “De minimis non curat lex” – the law does not concern itself with trivial things – which shapes an expectation that the referee will only penalise those infringements which have a major impact.
        
        If you think that’s too subjective, you’re absolutely right. But here’s where the absurdity of it all kicks in. The Laws describe a Game which would be unrecognisable if the referee applied them as written. The best referees, truly, have the accuracy to “get” everything, but are chosen because of their ability to select only the important infringements, and so keep the match they’re refereeing pointing in roughly the right direction – in their opinion! You can see why some of the leading coaches of the world wanted to take away some of the impact which this referee discretion had on the game when they advocated the ELV’s.
        
        A “second ref” won’t work – you’d have two blokes giving their respective (and different) opinions within their current discretion.
        
        I don’t think that the solution is to fiddle with the points system, I think the answer lies in a Law change process which does not make the mistake of trying to cure the Game in one fell swoop, as was the case with the ELV’s. In that exercise, the trials started with no laws applicable at the breakdown, and just added them as it was deemed necessary – the blank page scenario of so much “management mumble”. I think that we should start by removing completely the sanctions against infringements which don’t matter, re-wording those which remain so that the words reflect what we want to see refereed and keep going until we have a document which describes what we want to see , and by extension how we want it refereed. Defining “we” will be a challenge, because of the different drivers in different countries, but a game which has Olympian objectives ought to be able to arrange a bit of market research! I don’t see it happening overnight, but I think it’s realistic to see it progressively starting in the three year cycle after the 2011 RWC, and continuing in the next three year cycle after 2015.
        
        Sorry for the rant, lads, but that’s what “roaring” is about!
wannabprop said | August 14th 2009 @ 5:21am | Report comment

Darryl SA

I think it has been a global trend at least since the last WC (and the ELVs only amplified the problem). Everyone’s using it (especially Dean’s Dingos, but with poor execution), SA just happens to do it much better (learned from Argentina?).

Reply
Mushi said | August 14th 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment

Not sold on the advance penalty, it works in American football because of the game’s structure and the lack of contested possession.

The 2 ref idea though is perhaps worth considering, one thing would obviously need to be consistent interpretation but constantly having an eye on the ruck as well as the offside should have an impact on the flow of ball. Right now a ref has to choose between the two and often end up covering neither effectively.

Reply
Rickety Knees said | August 14th 2009 @ 9:38am | Report comment

All kicks for goal being reduced to one point would be my preference – then watch how the game would be totally focussed on scoring tries.

Reply
- Knives Out said | August 14th 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
  
  Surely that encourages cynical play. What is the worry in killing a move if a penalty is worth only 1 point? That doesn’t make defences any more easy to breach.
  
  Reply
  - Rickety Knees said | August 14th 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
    
    Cynical play = yellow card.
    
    Reply
    - AndyS said | August 14th 2009 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
      
      And by extension bad refereeing call = team a man down. That won’t cause any controversy then…
      
      Reply
wannabprop said | August 14th 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment

Knives Out,

Do you know roughly what a top referee is paid? (not rhetorical, I don’t actually have a clue). Given the impact they can have, it should be substantial. But even if it were, I wonder if it’s actually more than that – specifically respect – I’m not so sure many of them are willing to put themselves under the scrutiny that a ref attracts (and very different to a player or coach). Where’s the reward (if not monetary)? It’s not like you can see the growth/development of your ‘group’ – it could only be for the love of the game and continued involvement (without the prestige). All just conjecture tho – be good to hear from top level players about this.

Reply
- Knives Out said | August 14th 2009 @ 10:17am | Report comment
  
  Not a clue, sorry. Probably nowhere near what was earnt during a professional playing career.
  
  Reply
Skip said | August 14th 2009 @ 10:15am | Report comment

I cant beleive it Knives has actually written something I agree with!

Knives have you been in the Pub…..you know with comments like “speeding up the game” you may be kicked out of the old farts brigade.

I beleive the biggest benefit of a 2nd ref would be the policing of players retiring out of the 10 metres after a kick.
As well as offside in general play. Policing of both will open up attack and counter attack opportunities.

Conversely until there is consistency in referreeing and interpretation of the breakdown 2 refs could lead to more penalties.

Slightly off topic, are we at a point in International Rugby and perhaps provincial that the players are so athletic and strong that it is near impossible to stay on your feet at the breakdown? Do things simply happen to fast for a referee to adjudicate properly?

I think changing the points or distance of penalties is just masking the problem of why the penalties are occuring. I dont beleive it is a simple as players cheating or pushing the boundaries.

Reply
- Knives Out said | August 14th 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
  
  I’m quite happy in that brigade, thank you skip. I firmly believe that the game does not need to be speeded up.
  
  It probably is true that test refs aren’t as agile as they need to be to keep up with the ruck contest. Not sure about your breakdown suggestion, although it seems like something that would be worthwhile debating. I’d be fascinated to hear a top coaches theory.
  
  Reply
Even looser said | August 14th 2009 @ 10:23am | Report comment

Hasn’t this idea of reducing points for kicks been discussed at length many times?

Seems to me that the ‘reduce the value of the kick’ brigade play into the hands of the cynical (but clever) penalty that prevents a try. The argument that such scoring opportunities need to be penalised by a high value point such as 3 is to discourage opposing teams from giving away penalties in such situations (ala George Smith v the Boks recently).

Reducing the value of the kick would more likely only encourage penalties. Or am missing something here?

I hate penalty kicks too. But I hate those that spoil try scoring movements even more. I’d say that there’s actually a stronger case for increasing the value of penalty goal rather than reducing it.

Reply
Jameswm said | August 14th 2009 @ 10:26am | Report comment

as Knives said, the problem with introducing the value of tries and/or reducing the value of penalties is how this encourages cynical play. The use of yellow cards would have to be stricter.

I still say penalties should remain at 3 inside the 22 (the red zone as they call it) and worth say 2 points from the quarter to the 10m line, then 1 behind that. Sure, long range penalties require a lot of skill, but is this the sort of play that should be encouraged in preference to scoring tries?

And if someone holds on to a jersey 40m out to stop a try, sure the kick might only be worth 1-2 points, but they’ll have a player in the bin.

The through the gate issue is sorted but I still can’t work out what they should do with hands in the ruck and staying on your feet.

Reply