A small score change will bring the crowds back
Roar Guru By Cattledog, 14 Sep 2009 Cattledog is a Roar Guru
- 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.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- IRB Laws of Rugby, penalties, referees, Rugby Union, running rugby
September 14th 2009 @ 5:31pm
retired rucker said | September 14th 2009 @ 5:31pm | Report comment
Cattledog,
I have been an advocate for very heavy use of the card at test and s14 level and haven’t been able to garner much support but the roarers today seem to be sympatheyic.It will only take 1-3 tests of 10 a side for the infingements to stop!
As you are an ex ref I have a few questions for you, some I posted on another thread and will paste;
1.I am of the opinion the game at test level and s14 is too fast for 1 ref and think it would be an advantage to run 2 refs, especially for offside and scrum policing,your opinoin?
2. The scrum seems to be a debacle but as an ex tight 5 I want to see a contest and not a penalty or free kick fest. It seems of late the refs are awarding penalties all most automatically if the first engagement isn’t good and you rarely see the scrum reset more than twice.
My radical plan is to stop the clock at scrum time and not restart until the ball is out of the scrum. A penalty or free kick can only be awarded after 5 attempted resets, except under a foul or dangerous play penalty
Based on TN’s this year;
I watched the ‘neutral’ game with much interest and have a question for the Roarer’s. Did ref Owen’s have the opption to play advantage from the scrum penatlies when the ball was clear and available at the back of the scrum? It seems to me to almost be a disadvantage to get a penalty without first having a crack at the advantage.
From memory one scrum was popped and the all blacks had the momentum and good old N Owens killed all the momentum when the Boks where being driven straight back, the same occured to the disadvantage of the bookes at one stage. To me it was extremely frustrating unnecesarry stoppage.
Any comment Roarer’s
Go wallabies!
September 14th 2009 @ 5:45pm
Invictus said | September 14th 2009 @ 5:45pm | Report comment
Have also been considering the two referees idea. I think it might be easier to use the TMO for this, particularly for offside.
Definitiely should be automatic time off whenever the ball is not in play and the ball is not in play until it is fed into the scrum or thrown into the lineout.
The scrum goes better the closer you get the front row’s prior to engagement.
I believe the ref’s have been instructed to repack for a scrum collapse even if the ball is available for use.
September 14th 2009 @ 6:48pm
Cattledog said | September 14th 2009 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
G’day Rucker, we don’t need two referees but I would like to see greater use of the TMO (see Situvani put his foot in touch in the AB Bok test Saturday AFTER he caught it. Perfect position for TMO to call). On te scrum issue, it’s great to see a contest and this should not diminish. What I would like to see, however, is props elbows must remain horizontal to the ground, not drop perpendicular in a pull down motion. Can still exert weight forward but collapses would diminish considerably. Time out should only be controlled by the referee when there are longer than usual breaks. Not at scrums and not at lineouts unless he needs to call time off. It would play havoc with the quick lineout. Once again, the advantage law should apply at these times unless unsafe. Again, their hands are tied somewhat. Get’s back to an earlier comment of letting the referees ‘play what’s in fromt of them’.
September 14th 2009 @ 7:34pm
AndyS said | September 14th 2009 @ 7:34pm | Report comment
We can’t get consistent rulings week-to-week, can you imagine if they changed end-to-end?
September 14th 2009 @ 5:51pm
AndyS said | September 14th 2009 @ 5:51pm | Report comment
I have no problem with the current point values, other than just noting the inconsistency of a drop goal having the same value as a penalty rather than a conversion when a conversion can be taken with a DG. For mine, I think a DG should be 2 points. If not, then there should be an option to convert a try with a DG for 3 points.
September 14th 2009 @ 7:58pm
Ben J said | September 14th 2009 @ 7:58pm | Report comment
Australia is the only country in the world that seems to have a problem with the laws and somehow correlates this to crowd attendance. Rugby Union worldwide is in rude health, the economy might not be but the game itself is fine. No, the game is fine, it is the tactics and strategies of the teams that need attention.
September 14th 2009 @ 9:07pm
grahamcreid said | September 14th 2009 @ 9:07pm | Report comment
Another thing, I don’t think more tries is necessarily the answer to attracting crowds. When every possession become points it makes it less of the contest, and more of a lottery. Everyone likes to see the ball thrown around a bit, but it has to be with style and precision. The ELVs mistake was that players just began chucking the ball around with no structure, thank God they are (pretty much) assigned to history!
The bonus point system is the best idea to come out of recent years. Could that be improved? i.e. a point for 3 tries, maybe 2 points for four tries?
September 14th 2009 @ 10:45pm
Cattledog said | September 14th 2009 @ 10:45pm | Report comment
My original concept was to change the mindset of teams to play more ball in hand running rugby by increasing the conversion to 3 points. As a result, more tries will be scored, however, this would be as a consequence of the change in mind set. But that’s not a bad thing, I suggest. I agree the bonus point system was a great idea (adopted by numerous local competitions I might add) to occur. It could be reviewed as you suggest but regardless of how it’s achieved, I think the overwhelming agreement here is seeing more exciting ball in hand, running rugby and only kicking for goal when tactically necessary.
September 14th 2009 @ 11:14pm
grahamcreid said | September 14th 2009 @ 11:14pm | Report comment
Spot on. There can’t be a rugby fan in the land who would disagree with that. Although that could spell the demise of English rugby haha
September 14th 2009 @ 11:29pm
pothale said | September 14th 2009 @ 11:29pm | Report comment
So you weren’t watching the Six Nations this year, then.
On reflection, the simplest thing to do is make Australian and New Zealand stadia smaller – that way the crowds won’t feel so isolated.
September 15th 2009 @ 12:09am
Knives Out said | September 15th 2009 @ 12:09am | Report comment
I read a gem of a quote on the BBC sport website last night from Sean Lineen:
“There was a good crowd again.”
The good crowd consisted of 2,582 spectators. Bless. We really do support such a strangely isolated sport.
September 15th 2009 @ 12:38pm
simon said | September 15th 2009 @ 12:38pm | Report comment
Cattledog, 15 players is hardly what distinguishes rugby from league, and while decreasing the amount of players is not very popular, it would still not be like league in structure or dynamic.
If a penalty is not worth as much in value compared to a try, infringements in the ruck will definitely increase (to stop the try). The irony is that it may lead to more penalty goals than tries. This is where the argument for the card comes in, and I concede that this might be the best solution. However, I can see a potential nightmare if it is ruled incorrectly for minor/ accidental infringements, which occur all the time BTW. The problem with laws is that they cannot rule the spirit/motive of the infringement very well. However, perhaps I have been too hasty. Maybe the second ref idea would help in this area.
To think that teams are not already trying to score tries is a fallacy I think. I think teams want to score tries because they are already worth more. Teams are not intentionally setting out to not score tries. They simply take the penalty because they’re more easier to come and tries are harder to come by, rather than penalties being worth so much in value.
If you really want teams to run with the ball and chance their arm (and have this mindset) then the best way is to make tries easier to come (somehow) rather than increase their value compared to a penalty.
Have more tries really been scored on average per game since they increased the value from 4 to 5 points? This would determine it for me.
Invictus, you are probably right about decreasing the amount of players or increasing the width of the field having no chance of happening, but not much more so than changing the points.
grahamcreid, critics are always saying rugby is boring because they kick too much instead of run with the ball. So I think there is a place to relate crowd attendance and running rugby (rather than try scoring) generally speaking.
September 15th 2009 @ 3:15pm
Cattledog said | September 15th 2009 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
G’day Simon, thanks for your thoughts. I perhaps should have qualified a little more with ‘one of the things’ that distinguishes union from league! Changing points has a far greater chance of being trialled than reducing numbers or widening fields. To give a team the motivation to run the ball, you must give them a goal. Sure, teams are trying to score tries, but to get back to my original point, that is, the crowds roar (no pun intended) with delight when a team elects to kick for touch rather than for goal. That’s because they are going for a try, rather than a 3 pointer. What we have to do is give them the motivation to do this more often. Whether more tries have been scored is for the statcian…statitic…number crunchers! But there’s lies, damn lies and statistics! Don’t go on them much. Made refereeing what it is today. Abysmal! Anyway, we agree we all want to see more running rugby. I haven’t seen any compelling argument to date that would indicate what I originally suggested would not work. Some have value added, but the overwhelming thing is it must be simple. Wander what the outcome would be if the premier Sydney and Brisbane sides trialled a new points system for all trial matches prior to the 2010 season commencing. Then do an analysis of the matches under both systems and publish the results. No new laws to comprehend, only the refs needing to be more diligent in rewarding positive play and penalising negative play…probably with more use of yellow cards. Will only take a game or two to come to grips with this aspect.
September 15th 2009 @ 4:21pm
Spencer said | September 15th 2009 @ 4:21pm | Report comment
The value of a try was introduced in 1992. Did this change the try/penalty ratios.
I checked on Australia V New Zealand in 2 period: 1982 – 1992 and 1992-2002.
1982 to 1992
Tries per match = 3.24
Penalties per match = 4.96
1992-2002
Tries per match = 4.17
Penalties per match = 4.83
On the principle of “lies, damn lies, and statistics”, I declare Cattledogs proposition to be “true and correct”.
Cattledog, please write to the IRB on our behalf and demand an immediate change to the points allocations.
September 15th 2009 @ 4:25pm
Invictus said | September 15th 2009 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
Very, very interesting!
September 15th 2009 @ 6:26pm
Cattledog said | September 15th 2009 @ 6:26pm | Report comment
I’m up to my arse in Aligators in Afghanistan at present, no time for such a detailed submission. lol Anyway, what would the IRB know about running rugby. lol Let’s get it trialled in the Southern Hemisphere, do the stats…(your good at that Spencer), then we can present them with the facts, if our theory is correct. But how would such changes benefit English Rugby, I hear them ask….
September 18th 2009 @ 8:57am
adrien2166 said | September 18th 2009 @ 8:57am | Report comment
To bring the crowds back i have a great idea :
-First, the scrums don’t have to be contest, the crowds hate when the same scrum is played 3 times in a row.
-Secondly, the players are now too much bigger and stronger, as we know we can’t extend fields so let’s reduce the numbers of players in each team from 15 to 13, it will have more space to play “real rugby” like someone says in a comment.
-third, as we all know, The defence got the upper hand over the attack, so it should be placed in ten metres of the ruck.
-Then, as for the rucks, the crowds actually hate it because it’s too often draft , it should be better to forget it, The carrier of ball should simply make roll the ball between its legs with its foot, and it’ll be two markers in front of him, while the defence can’t play since the ball is played.
– And last but not least, every 5tackles the attaking team will have to kick the ball or it’ll be a turnover.
As for the score change, this is not very important i think, but we may bring back the try to 4points and the conversion to 2points like the penalties and the drop goal should be 1point, to become a match-winning point to make suspense and emotion, all that the crowds enjoy!
So we could become the greatest game of all, isn’t it??