A small score change will bring the crowds back
Roar Rookie
By Cattledog, 14 Sep 2009 Cattledog is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- IRB Laws of Rugby, penalties, referees, Rugby Union, running rugby
Ever wandered why the crowd roars when a team decides to go for touch rather than kick for goal? They want to see tries and a team ‘back’ itself.
OK, so why not make a conversion from a try 3 points?
What this would do is change the mindset of the team to go for tries. More radical would be to reduce the penalty and field goal to two points.
Four penalties worth one converted try … sounds good to me. Would you see more running rugby? You bet!
Would there be more infringements? Perhaps initially, until referees understood fully the use of the sin bin and repeated infringements properly dealt with.
I have little doubt this would work, but only for a team who can grasp the concept of running rugby. Penalties and field goals would still be important in close games, which is what the crowds want.
Give it a trial, and let’s get the excitement back constantly, not sporadically.
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? (202)
- 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)
- Explore:
- IRB Laws of Rugby, penalties, referees, Rugby Union, running rugby
sheek said | September 14th 2009 @ 8:06am | Report comment
Cattledog,
No! Why not make the try worth 6 points instead? But I’m kidding.
I think a better system is to devalue penalty & drop goals from 3 to 2 points. If the IRB isn’t going to back down on it’s myriad of ‘technicality’ laws, then at least reduce their impact on the flow of a game.
By flow, I mean how teams approach a game as it unfolds. At present, a team conceding 3 rather innocuous penalties, suddenly finds themselves down 0-9, & having to score twice, including one converted try, to regain the lead.
But if penalty goals were only worth 2 points, they would be down 0-6, & requiring one score, a converted try, to regain the lead.
Having 2 point penalty goals still acts as a sufficient deterrent, but at least it ‘softens’ the blow for those many innocuous penalties based on rigid technicalities.
Sure, teams have to continually compete for possession while adhering to the laws. But we also want to see teams rewarded for their skill in creating & scoring tries, which is the ultimate expression of individual & team skills.
More often than not, our best memories of former test matches, are those where spectacular tries were scored. There’s the classic Babas-ABs match of 1973, or the ABs-Wallas match of 2000. The Wallas won an epic semi-final against the Boks in 1999, admired for the toughness of contest, & closeness of scores. But you wouldn’t call it a classic.
On the other hand, I fondly remember the 1980 series against the ABs, which the Wallas won with less than 40 percent clean ball in the series, but by crafting some exceptional tries.
LeftArmSpinner said | September 14th 2009 @ 9:37am | Report comment
here’s a radical solution: Dont change the points.
Just play complete rugby that is based around discipline, (no penalties to opponents) and courage in attack to run the ball and back yourself and your skills execution.
This is very difficult to achieve and so opposition will struggle to go with a team that can play it. ask all the best rugby teams.
Lee said | September 14th 2009 @ 9:55am | Report comment
At last some sanity LAS.
The rules are the same for everyone. Rugby has this strange quality that allows teams to get points through a number of different methods. Teams play to their strengths.
If you want your team to play “real” rugby and not lose to those who play a style that involves taking points whenever they are on offer – then maybe, just maybe they should get their discipline sorted and not provide those oppourtunites. In the same way that the Boks have realised that in order for their style to work, expecially against those who like to run, their cover defense must be exceptional.
Figure out your strengths, figure out the oppositions, figure out a way to maximise yours and minimise the oppositions. Same for every team.
sheek said | September 14th 2009 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
Leftie,
Wonderful… except lacking in reality. Humans aren’t geared to be mistake-free.
However, I’m allowing for the fact your comments are very tongue-in-cheek!
LeftArmSpinner said | September 14th 2009 @ 9:40am | Report comment
as for the crowds, put the performance on the field, then promote the hell out of it and the crowds will come. some closeups of breathtaking plays from De Barts, Beale, Harvey, Toomua, Giteau, Turner, Barnes, or the scrum contest (close ups of course, dirty, sweaty, tough, torturous, skilful)
Even looser said | September 14th 2009 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
LAS – I really like your idea of the scrum close-up. Seriously!
Let’s face it, a big point of difference between Rugby & League is the scrum contest. That being the case why not cash in on it? Nothing else like it in League, AFL or Soccer, so let’s promote it. Who knows, down the track we may even attract quality youngsters to become top notch props, loosies and so on.
Maybe something needs to be worked with camera crews and techniques but zooming into the scrum should be something that TV audiences look forward to. It would also be nice to have an unbiased scrum coach or former prop etc talking us through what’s going on.
Blinky Bill of Bellingen said | September 14th 2009 @ 9:59am | Report comment
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I’m all for trying new ideas to improve the product, the ELV’s being a good example. However changes to the rules and the value of points, while on the surface appearing the solution, seldom are. Facts are the players & coaches examine the changes and find new ‘opportunities’.
It’s been said before here on The Roar about what to do and that is stick with the exisiting system & enforce it. The ref already has the means at his disposal to sort things out and they are Yellow & Red cards. I can’t help but feel that coaches and players would soon get the message and the game would then flow.
Dexter William said | September 14th 2009 @ 10:13am | Report comment
BBB
You are absolutely right. And so clearly explained as well.
If players do not lie on the wrong side of the ruck, coming in from the side, hand in the ruck, or not releasing, I bet there would be more tries.
Invictus said | September 14th 2009 @ 10:15am | Report comment
Agreed. Consistent enforcement of the current laws would make a big difference. I think something should be done with the whole “what is a warning” side of things. Perhaps give the referees another card to signify an official warning – ie do it again and it’s a yellow. Also, for repeated team infringements, you could have a number of “white” cards for the whole team being an automatic yellow. Similar to fouls in basketball.
The idea being to have the players behave themselves without having 3 or 4 in the bin at any one stage.
Even looser said | September 14th 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
Blinky – Nicely put.
Invictus – I think your white card idea has much merit. No one wants the contest spoilt by an unnecessary send off & even the dumbest player would soon get the message, and so too the coaches.
What goes in Soccer (football)? Isn’t there a process of the referee writing in a note book?
Invictus said | September 14th 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
Can’t claim the idea as entirely mine. Have seen others recommend looking at the way basketball polices fouls. I’ve just made it conform to the current card system. There are few things that annoy me more that the ref telling a player ” do that again and you’re off” and then not following through when the player infringes again.
BTW, the TMO should be used as a third touch judge.
sheek said | September 14th 2009 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
‘Consistent enforcement’. Again, we’re talking human nature, which is not designed to be mistake-free.
Not only does the ability to think & choose different courses of action, separate us humans from every other animal species, but we are also victim to another factor, emotion.
Try as they might, every ref will make a decision at some point, governed by emotion, & not the facts before him. Ever heard of the TMO? I rest my case!
Consequently, with humans so mistake riddled & emotional, by reducing the number of laws, this is the only way to create a more level playing field. We should rely more on the ‘intent’ of the law, & less on the technicality of it.
Cattledog said | September 14th 2009 @ 3:18pm | Report comment
Sheek
Good point on the intent. As a retired referee also, I always used the adage ‘reward positive play, penalise negative play’, using the ‘intent’ of the law. They are laws; however, the adage ‘rules are for the blind obedience of fools and for the guidance of wisemen’ also applies. Sadly, our referees are so closely scrutinised by individual assessors, they are afraid to ‘play what’s in front of them’ to coin a phrase. Being dropped can mean significant $$
I still firmly believe making a conversion from a try 3 points will influence dramatically the dynamics of a teams thinking to make the game more exciting as tries will then become a premium, because of the bonus goal on offer.
Invictus said | September 14th 2009 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
I have always felt that it is not so much the laws themselves as the way the referees are marked for their handling of a match that is the major problem. My understanding is that the technical referee scores higher than the referee who wants the game to flow. This is where the issue starts IMO.
Cattledog said | September 14th 2009 @ 4:19pm | Report comment
You are correct. We need to get assessors who are comfortable with a referee who plays what’s in front of him, allows the game to flow and rewards positive play. The highest rating on the assessor’s score sheet should be ‘The referee allowed the game to flow and was NOT the centre of attention’!!
Invictus said | September 14th 2009 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
There will always be mistakes. Referees must be provided with all the support and assistance available in the digital age to minimise errors and their effect on a match. Consistency is always something to be striven for.
Recent experience with the ELV’s should have proven to you that radical changes to the laws will not be forthcoming in the near future.
grahamcreid said | September 14th 2009 @ 8:57pm | Report comment
Does anyone like the mistakes that cause controversy and talking points for years? I for one do!
For every decision that goes right, there could be a decision that could go the other way. In sport, it tends to even itself out. Give more power to the referees to make their own decisions, before it becomes even more stop/start.
Invictus said | September 14th 2009 @ 10:05pm | Report comment
I would prefer “what a great game. The two sides really went at it” as opposed to “we were robbed by the bloody ref” as a talking point.
Invictus said | September 14th 2009 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Get rid of the current bonus point system. Have each try worth 0.25 of a bonus point (no close loss bonus).
As for changing the points – the IRB will not reduce the value of penalties and drop goals so the only real way to go is increase conversions to 3. This at least has some logic with all kicks being the same value. I don’t see them changing the value of a try again any time soon.
Cattledog said | September 14th 2009 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
Thanks for all the comments above, all good ideas. It would be good if referees cracked down on foul play and made better use of the card for indescretions…perhaps this would reduce penalties, but not a team playing for position and then sweating on an error. Tries won’t be increased but even after all the comments, it would appear making a conversion 3, in line with all other kicks, would change the mindset of coaches and players…to make running rugby with ball in hand the norm rather than exception. It needs to be trialled.
Invictus said | September 14th 2009 @ 4:21pm | Report comment
Another idea, slightly off topic, is to let the tap be taken from anywhere behind the mark (similar to the quick throw in). At the moment most quick taps are either called back by the ref for not being on the mark or are negated by the opposition being inside the ten and not being picked up.
Cattledog said | September 14th 2009 @ 6:34pm | Report comment
Yeah, table top rule. Within the area last played, then let it go. Too many pedantic referees who are too slow to react!
simon said | September 14th 2009 @ 4:31pm | Report comment
I’ve always been opposed to encouraging infringements by decreasing their value/worth (which includes increasing points for a try etc). I understand the argument behind the yellow card at this point, but it’s one big drawback is if it’s given by mistake to an accidental / minor infringement (which does happen). The other team then has way too much advantage.
On the positive side, while infringements might increase a little, I wonder if the attacking team might be more tempted to go for a try rather than a penalty precisely because either a penalty has less worth, or a try has more.
However, again the defending team would be encouraged to keep infringing and being penalised rather than the opposition score a try. And we’re back to the yellow card argument.
The only real solution in my mind is to make tries slightly easier to score, so that teams would be more encouraged to run the ball knowing that they will be rewarded more often. The only real way to achieve this is to either reduce the number of players on the field by at least two per team, or maybe widen the field, or possibly both.
I think it was in the late 19th century when rugby last reduced the amount of players from 20 to 15.
Cattledog said | September 14th 2009 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
Simon
15 players distinguishes us from league. My original concept stands, make a try worth going for. There will be more tries scored as there will be more teams going for them. Whether this happens, however, is coincidental to the fact we get more attacking rugby, more running with ball in hand and it’s this that crowds want to see. It will lead to more tries, That I have no doubt
Invictus said | September 14th 2009 @ 5:38pm | Report comment
Reduction in player numbers has absolutely no chance of occuring. Increase in size of the playing surface also has no chance.
grahamcreid said | September 14th 2009 @ 9:02pm | Report comment
Would increasing the try’s worth on the other hand, lead to teams clogging up and become scared to concede? It could turn matches into a defensive game of chess. Much more kicking and positional play, and only attacking rugby would come in the final third.
I think a good idea is decreasing DG and Pens to 2 points. Nowadays, players can get over the posts from their own 10!
Part of the attraction of rugby is the skill and art of pushing and bending the rules. Every good flanker knows how, it’s all part of the tactics. I think to just totally expose any slightest discrepancy with the rules would be a bad idea, and we’d see most games played with 6 backrow players in the bin.
Invictus said | September 14th 2009 @ 9:48pm | Report comment
If the entire back row is in the bin you will definitely have a fast open game……
I’m pretty certain it would only happen once and it would be a different back row next week.
Spencer said | September 14th 2009 @ 4:38pm | Report comment
The “Risk & Reward” equation is not currently balanced. I agree with modifying the scoring (reward) system so as to promote more open, adventurous, and running rugby (risk).
Seriously…wasn’t it so adventurous to watch Steyn hoof it from 60m…yawn! I threatened to leave the pub at half time after watching the Bumbling Blacks and the Laager Boks at play.
Cattledog said | September 14th 2009 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
Spencer
Agree, pretty boring stuff, however, where I am in the world at present I get a direct feed through SA. If our commentators were as biased and one eyed as these blokes, dinkem aussies would ridicule relentlessly. Every time an Aussie or All Black did something well, all you would hear was how well the Boks defended, got there in nos. or negated the Aussie / All Bl;ack attack…and when we scored, the referee apparently missed the earlier indiscretion…it’s really a sad commentary, but I suppose geared to the SA audience
Working Class Rugger said | September 14th 2009 @ 5:31pm | Report comment
Just eliminate the option of penalty goals. Keep drop kicks as they only go over maybe 50% of the time under pressure. The only kicking for goal would be conversion. Couple this with widening the field to teams 5 or 10m extra room to move.
Invictus said | September 14th 2009 @ 5:46pm | Report comment
You won’t get that past the IRB.
AndyS said | September 14th 2009 @ 5:52pm | Report comment
Are you saying no place kicks for penalties, only a free drop goal attempt for the three points?
Working Class Rugger said | September 14th 2009 @ 8:54pm | Report comment
AndyS/Invictus
No place kicks for penalties. Bascially you have three options. Tap and go, scrum or kick for touch. It’s not a serious suggestion. It would have the same chance as a snowflake in hell of being ratified.
Invictus said | September 14th 2009 @ 9:49pm | Report comment
Thought they must have changed your dosage there for a minute…..
AndyS said | September 15th 2009 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
It is an interesting question then. I wonder to what extent kicking penalties is a remnant of the days when a kick was the only way to score, and therefore the only meaningful punishment for foul play? That no longer being the case, perhaps the basic justification could be re-examined.