New Zealand's Dan Carter, right, is tackled by Australia's Nathan Sharpe during the Bledisloe Cup rugby match in Sydney, Australia, Saturday, Aug. 22, 2009. New Zealand won the match 19-18 and retain the Bledisloe Cup.(AP Photo/Rob Griffith)
In just about any rugby conversation you come across these days, the talk turns to kicking, particularly kicking for goal. “There are too many penalties!” the naysayers argue.
Metronome-boots like Dan Carter and Morne Steyne are apparently spoiling the spectacle. After all, we opine, rugby was meant to be a running game.
This is not entirely true, but the barflies don’t let the facts get in the way of an attractive argument. As most of us are probably aware, even a try was originally just that in the old days – a try at goal. The only reason you wanted to get the ball over the line, was so that you could have a kick at goal for some points.
So kicking has always been a part of the game. More than just a running game, rugby has been a game for all seasons, all countries and all body types.
The stodgy Poms, fed up on fish, chips and lager and 6 hours of sunshine topped off with an inch of rain a day, understandably perfected the rolling maul and the kick for position. Combine that with every kid growing up kicking a round ball for the first 10 years of life, and it’s hardly surprising that some of the great goalkickers like Jonny Wilkinson and Rob Andrew have been English.
For the South Africans, the combination of heat, altitude and rock hard tracks, along with the preponderance of carnivorous forwards who block out the sun, encouraged a love affair with the set piece, and a preference for the field goal. Better that than running yourself to a standstill in Everest thin air, and then getting slammed to earth on a field only slightly softer than the average car park. As a result, Naas Botha, Joel Stransky and Jannie de Beer were all famous exponents of the droppie.
As for the Aussies, it’s a wonder that our famously laid back approach hasn’t led to more great goalkickers, although Matt Burke and Michael Lynagh are without doubt two of the world’s best. Maybe it has something with the more forgiving field conditions in Australia, or the famous cry of Australian sporting crowds “Have a go ya mug!” that leads us to generally prefer running over kicking.
That said, we haven’t missed the chance to win the odd important contest with a kick (thanks for the memories Bernie Larkham…), so we’ve no reason to get on our moral high horse.
Anyway, the point of all that is that whether we like it or not, the penalty goal and the field goal are an essential part of the game. Whether it is a Larkham or Wilkinson kicking a drop goal to win a World Cup semi-final or final, or an Eales or a Mortlock knocking one over on the bell to win the Tri-Nations, you can’t get away from the goal as a crucial play.
The problem arises when you have one guy knocking them over 6 or 8 of them in a game off the back of several refereeing decisions which may or may not have been interpreted entirely correctly. When the whole fabric of the game changes because teams have got some freak who can knock goals over from 60 metres 80 percent of the time, then we’ve got a problem Houston.
Of course, we can’t change the value of the penalty goal or the field goal. It’s too drastic and simply encourages infringements, because two points, or even one, is not penalty enough.
Changing the laws to discourage penalties doesn’t work either – it’s a proven way to annoy everyone and not actually change much. And anyway, as we’ve seen from both the Boks and the Lions during the 2009 Lions Tour of South Africa, and also the recent Wallabies win over South Africa, teams who want to play running rugby under the current laws can. The laws don’t stop them. Neither should the laws stop them kicking if they want to.
It’s really just the fact that one player with a ridiculously specific skill can have such a huge influence on a match – that’s the problem. An average team with a great kicker can often beat a good team with an average kicker, and that’s not what rugby should be about, no matter whether you’re an Aussie, a Pom, a Kiwi or a Boks fan.
So how do we change the situation without changing the points, and without changing the playing laws?
Simple. We limit each player to one successful goal per match. Once you’ve kicked one goal, that’s it. Neeeext.
Imagine the raft of possibilities which suddenly open up.
No longer do we have one freak player who dominates one part of the contest – the responsibilities are shared across the team. And why not? All players tackle, all players run and all players ruck and maul. So why shouldn’t all players kick for goal?
Of course, it’s going to be pretty rare that a prop or a lock is going to get the chance to have a crack at goal, since it’s not often that a team kicks more than five or six goals per game. The backs will take most of the shots, but it does open up the chance for an Eales-type to have a crack after about four or five goes.
Think of the strategic to-ing and fro-ing. Do we let Wilkinson take an early shot from in front, or do we save him for the tough match-winner later on? Do we give the penalty in front of the posts in the first 5 minutes to Rocky Elsom, or do we get someone better to make sure of it?
As a defending team, do we willingly infringe because they’ve already used three of their good kickers, or do we unwittingly gift a free shot to a guy who turns out to be an undiscovered goalkicking gem?
It’s interesting to see how this might play out. If pick a recent close match with plenty of goals as an example – say the Perth match between the Wallabies and Springboks – it could have gone something like this. First conversion goes to Fourie du Preez in the 7th minute, then Morne Steyn knocks a penalty over in the 17th. Matt Giteau follows with a penalty in the 28th and then Ruan Pienaar converts a try in the 34th. All of these players are now out of the kicking stakes.
The 40th minute penalty for the Wallabies would probably have been kicked by James O’Connor, and then maybe Adam Ashley-Cooper steps up to convert at 44 minutes. By the 54th minute conversion the Springboks are up to their fourth kicker for the night, most likely Jean de Villiers, then their fifth in Jacques Fourie for a penalty in the 68th minute.
By now the Wallabies are giving Peter Hynes a conversion attempt in the 81st minute, and if the Springboks had to go again, they may be tempted to give a forward a go, someone like Pierre Spies.
Of course, it’s not to say that these players would be used in this order. Several factors would influence the selection of kickers, factors such as where the kicks are awarded, whether they are conversions or penalties, what the score is and how far into the match we are. Regardless, the strategy would be fascinating and would give the fans a whole new dimension to debate. Imagine the roars of “Beeeeast” from the terraces as Tendai Mtawarira lines up a crucial conversion. Picture Richie McCaw dropping back in the pocket to have a crack at a drop goal. If nothing else it would put a whole new set of decisions on the captain.
The point is that this is a good middle ground between the current situation and a wholesale law change. Everything remains the same, and you can still have as many kicks as you want, but you just can’t have one guy taking all of them.
In tight games, the focus swings back to the rugby as it rightly should, since you can’t always rely on your kicker. Successful kicks become a bonus rather than a foregone conclusion. Teams only opt for one kick from 50 metres instead of three or four. And in games which are blowouts, at least everyone gets to have a crack at the posts.
If you’re still having trouble imagining, just remember John Eales stepping up as a replacement kicker to win the Tri-Nations and the Bledisloe in 2000.
Just think of it – we could be having that sort of intrigue every single game.
It’s got legs I reckon, so forwards across the globe, dust off those kicking boots. Your moment of glory is nigh.
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? (201)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (173)
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (70)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (65)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (58)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- France turns to Parra and Trinh-Duc
- Rebels look to lift for formidable Blues in rugby trial
- Mr Fix-It Lucas wants to nail down No.10
- Force roost loses ‘Mother Hen’ Sharpe
- Victory beat Mariners with Kewell winner
- Waratahs romp to 83-5 trial win over Samoa A
- Quade Cooper’s return to the Reds goes up a gear
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (29)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (19)
- 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)
sam.gilbert said | September 9th 2009 @ 1:19am | Report comment
this idea’s been around for a while, and i can’t really see any negatives to the idea, obviously the poms and boks won’t like it. this i can assume because they tend to disagree with any rule changes. i say yes, give it a go, why not?
one thing you said i would like to comment on though:
“Of course, we can’t change the value of the penalty goal or the field goal. It’s too drastic and simply encourages infringements, because two points, or even one, is not penalty enough.”
i can’t entirely agree with this. perhaps players will be slightly more likely to purposely infringe, or make a ‘professional foul’, but then you could argue that by penalties being worth less a questionable refereeing decision has less effect on the game. i think it would all balance itself out.
we saw this problem with the short-arm part of the ELVs; players were purposely infringing because they knew the opposition couldnt take three points, but i don’t think changing the points system would be half as bad as that was.
Marius said | September 14th 2009 @ 10:53pm | Report comment
to sam.gilbert,
I think you are wrong in your assumption. The boks have so much kicking talent available that your idea of allowing one kick per player surely would benifit the boks. It would be the aussies and All Black that will have problems with this suggestion. Just have a look at which team scorer the most tries in the Tri-Nations
Nelson said | September 9th 2009 @ 2:30am | Report comment
its a really interesting idea , you could also have a basketball, free throw type scenario, but anyway, i dont think it will ever get up. i may be alone, but i actually dont mind seeing a good kicker knock a few kicks over from all over the park provided they are field goals or penalties for valid reasons. its just infuriating when the penalties are seemingly arbitrary.
i think many people’s objection to the elv’s was not the lack penalties but the radical change to the shape of the game from structured to chaotic. so if, say, offside and foul play were kickable and everything else was still a penalty but could only be kicked for touch tapped etc, everyone would have been happy. i hope they havent abandoned this as it seems like the right balance of carrot and stick to me .
ohtani's jacket said | September 9th 2009 @ 2:42am | Report comment
Seems a bit convoluted to me.
It’s not as though Giteau is a poor goal kicker.
IronAwe said | September 9th 2009 @ 3:13am | Report comment
I think this would have an influence for a limited time only. Most backs these days can kick, and even if they arnt the ‘kicker’ they still practise it. It’s a valuable skill, and I think if you introduced this kind of system within a couple of years teams would have around 8 good kickers and 2 decent ones, which is ample really, and we would be back to square one.
Knives Out said | September 9th 2009 @ 3:18am | Report comment
If every back could conceivably end up kicking then surely that would increase the amount of time spent kicking in training as opposed to undertaking genuine backs work?
Eagle said | September 9th 2009 @ 4:07am | Report comment
Absolutely. Do we want the guys practising kicking or rather running moves?
Greg Russell said | September 9th 2009 @ 2:12pm | Report comment
There is an adage that the first player you choose in a rugby team is the goalkicker, and the second player you choose is the reserve goalkicker. Some people may prefer the version of this adage that replaces “goalkicker” with “tighthead prop”, but I prefer it as I have written it.
A consequence of Andrew’s proposal could be that this adage is extended to “the third player you choose is the third goalkicker, the fourth player you choose is the fourth goalkicker, and so on”. This of course would be to the detriment of what Andrew’s proposal is trying to achieve. I mean, could you imagine a backline full of Morne Steyns?
Then again, if a team wants to choose a backline full of Morne Steyns (personally I’d prefer a backline full of Dusty Hares – there’s one for Knives Out!), that would be their choice. It would certainly add new strategic dimensions to selecting a team.
And dare I mention the Harlequins fake blood scandal in the context of this proposal? Imagine the manoeuverings that would go on to get competent kickers onto the field once various kickers had taken their allowed shot at goal.
Billo said | September 9th 2009 @ 3:27am | Report comment
I think Knives Out has hit the nail on the head.
It’s funny how some rule changes achieve precisely the opposite effect to what they are intended to achieve, although the sentiment behind the article is not a bad one.
In England at the weekend, incidentally, two games had nothing but penalty kicks: Sale’s 15-12 win against Leicester, and Leeds’ 9-9 draw with Newcastle. But I’m not sure rugby fans in England mind too much.
Knives Out said | September 9th 2009 @ 3:38am | Report comment
No they probably didn’t mind that much, Billo, given the amount of tries that England has been dotting down in recent months
Colin N said | September 9th 2009 @ 3:41am | Report comment
You should have seen the conditions mate, for the Sale match at least. I very much doubt a try would have been scored had the rules been different. Nevertheless, it was an entralling match, especially at which the intensity of the game was played at.
Eagle said | September 9th 2009 @ 4:45am | Report comment
I think the IRB and the referees and then it seems the public as well would like to change the sport entirely. My suggestion is why don’t you leave rugby well alone and go and create an entirely new sport all of your own somewhere else.
We’ve already got 7′s and 15′s. So maybe what you want is something in between. What about…oh, yes there is a code for that. So go there.
A drop goal, a penalty kick, a long range touchfinder, an up and under and a conversion kick are all equally a part of rugby, just as much as a try. We have already increased the points for a “try” from 3 to 5, to emphasise the try.
Most people are unhappy and they do not really know why. I’ll tell you why: they fixed something that ain’t broken, or maybe now it is. And now they want to fix it some more and in the wrong direction.
If you wonder where all the tries went I would say again facilitate better access to attacking territory: allow the pass back into the 22 for a long range touch kick. This will mean that we will see a higer percentage of the time spent more than 15 metres into the opposition half and we will naturally see more running rugby and more tries.
If I am entirely wrong about this will somebody please rescue me with a better solution. Meanwhile I am really bored with the breakdown and the points value of a penalty etc. all being targeted as reasons why we are seeing kick and chase and line up the defense as the most common form of current attack in the changed sport we are watching every Saturday.
I do not know what these guys at Stellenbosch and wherever else they originally trialed the rule changes where seeing on the field. Maybe they simply wanted to see how long they could stretch periods between lineouts. I think they do not care what is happening in those extra minutes of headless chicken helter scelter they have instigated. What counts is they found those minutes.
If it is a matter of such importance to find the minutes, I would rather double the number of reserves, allow players to be taken of tactically and to rest and break the game into quarters plus then play an extra 20 minutes. There will be more time to socialise around the game and advertisers will be happy as well. And let me ad so will concession holders at stadiums. (Lets not talk about cricket tests or golf games now, but how long is a tennis match? and even a 20/20 cricket match takes a good while longer than a rugby match.)
American football always plays from a set piece. I would say if we left rugby alone we would see tremendous progress with set piece attack as both South Africa and Australia has recently been demonstrating. Devaluaing the set piece in rugby is a short sighted idea.
So in summary: if its minutes you need, then please ad the minutes, but don’t mess with the rules. Oh, yes, they have messed with it already. Oh, ..sorry..
Eagle said | September 9th 2009 @ 5:11am | Report comment
Andrew, and I do really not like the idea of calling Huston (especially if Huston is the IRB) about the state of the rules when you get a freakishly gifted player of any type.
Does the appearance of Frik Du Preez, John Eales or Victor Matfield mean that lineouts must be reduced or removed from the game? Or Naas Botha and Jannie De Beer drop goals eliminated? Or Morne Steyn that penalty kicks should be reduced? Or Danie Gerber and Timmy Horan that you cancel the line-break? Or Jean De Villers and Bryan Habana that you prohibit the interception?
On the contrary Huston, that is what you celebrate, because that is what every sport craves that it why we watch it year in and year out as we hope to see a freakish athlete appear and sparkle in the heavens of the game. It is the worst, and most disingenious logic that would attack that.
Eagle said | September 9th 2009 @ 5:13am | Report comment
Imagine if the IAAF lengthened the 100m sprint because Bolt was too quick
Eagle said | September 9th 2009 @ 5:35am | Report comment
or more to the point they barred Bolt from running in more than one out of five international meetings
mitzter said | September 9th 2009 @ 8:09am | Report comment
Do you really not get his point? Goal kickers have way too much influence on the game. It is a team sport and I’m pretty sure lineouts and line breaks are usually team plays.
I’m not saying there isn’t team work in getting to an attacking position but the goal kickers skill often determines the score/winner of the match.
They’re like the seeker in quidditch
Pippinu said | September 9th 2009 @ 8:30am | Report comment
Quidditch and the seeker – an interesting analogy.
Interestingly, one could almost reverse the moral.
In Quidditch, the players are scoring very low points by putting the ball through the hoops, and if the seeker catches the golden snitch, the points are so high that it’s like a knock out blow – a bit like next goal wins.
The moral? Tries are becoming a bit like the golden snitch.
Gary said | September 9th 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
or make him carry extra weight like they do in horse racing