Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- International Rugby Union - Six Nations, Heineken Cup, Rugby Championship news
- New Zealand All Blacks news
All Blacks coach Graham Henry says advancements in boot and ball technology is making rugby a less attractive spectacle.
Henry – who also recommends the value of a penalty goal be reduced to one – said the increasing preponderance of kicking at the top level of the sport was also a disadvantage to the natural running instincts of his side and Australia.
He told Britain’s The Independent newspaper that the game has “undoubtedly” transformed because of the length of kicks players can make – both at goal and kicking for territory.
“The quality of the ball, like everything else such as the quality of the boots, is constantly improving,” Henry said.
“Guys are kicking the ball 60m these days because the ball has improved so much. Kicking is a skill but it is transforming the game and I don’t think that was in the original ideas of rugby.
” We can’t increase the length of the field; there might be opposition to that at places like Twickenham and Eden Park. But on the same size field as long ago, you can now kick the ball 10m-15m further. That changes both the nature of the game and the nature of the penalty.”
The shift in emphasis would impact most on the All Blacks and Wallabies, Henry believed, not only on the field but off it, where interest levels could wane.
“People that have been traditional fans are now questioning the game because of the laws,” Henry said.
“There is nothing Australia and New Zealand can do about it. We wanted to make the ELVs permanent but we got out-voted.
“But the consequences of doing nothing about this in this part of the world are serious. It is a real problem because we do not have the population numbers in this country. Getting bums on seats is a big challenge, especially in a recession.”
Henry said the current rules promote safety-first rugby.
South Africa dominated the Tri-Nations on the back of a kicking strategy which reduced the chances of being penalised.
“Because of the rules, sides don’t take risks and don’t pass the ball very often,” Henry said.
“They are wary of playing a wider, more expansive game and scared of giving away penalties. It is becoming even more of a chessboard game than it ever has been. The way the game is played now is often like a tennis match with the ball kicked downfield so much.”
Henry said reducing the value of a penalty would be a radical move but suggested its impact would be positive.
“Wouldn’t that create widespread cheating?” he said.
“It may do but it gives the possibility to the other side that if they get the ball there are ways of winning the game other than kicking goals.”
Henry also suggested allowing a mark to be called when the ball is caught and play then taken back to where the kick was made.
“It is a matter of the people that have got the power making the correct decisions.
“But the problem at the moment is, what is the correct decision in one country isn’t necessarily the correct decision in another. So I think you need impartial people to make these decisions for the good of the game.
“I do think the rulemakers have got to re-visit this. The game under the ELVs last year was much more enjoyable to play and much better to watch.”
© AAP 2012Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- All Blacks, Graham Henry, International Rugby, Rugby Union

September 26th 2009 @ 9:05am
Dingbat said | September 26th 2009 @ 9:05am | Report comment
Set pieces is what makes union so interesting. Can John Smit scrum? Shld he be in the team? Hanson trying to downplay Big Vics prowess in the air? Spiro claiming Thorn is too short to be a lock. NH claiming Richie breaks the law at every breakdown. League is so bloody one dimensional.
September 26th 2009 @ 9:06am
Dingbat said | September 26th 2009 @ 9:06am | Report comment
In conclusion, League is a bit like baseball (ie: cricket dumbed down so the Yanks can understand it).
September 27th 2009 @ 5:17am
MM said | September 27th 2009 @ 5:17am | Report comment
Too true!!
September 26th 2009 @ 9:10am
adrien2166 said | September 26th 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
but who was talking about League?? i just made some suggestions to make the game ” much more enjoyable to play and much better to watch.” like Graham Henry said, nothing else!
September 26th 2009 @ 9:39am
katzilla said | September 26th 2009 @ 9:39am | Report comment
Look your post was as subtle as a sledgehammer.
I like rugby league, its like all the fancy and fun stuff from rugby union. Running with the ball and big collisions.
‘Then, as for the rucks, the crowds actually hate it because it’s too often draft’
Never in a million years would a rugby fan suggest this. Which is why your a RL fan.
True rugby fans appreciate the hard work that goes on at the coal face in order to retain ball or secure it.
Competition for the ball is what sets Union apart.
September 26th 2009 @ 9:51am
adrien2166 said | September 26th 2009 @ 9:51am | Report comment
well it was a funny joke not the begining of a code war please!
September 26th 2009 @ 10:16am
katzilla said | September 26th 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
It was a joke, that you claim it was funny is straight out of the Phil Gould book of self promotion
September 26th 2009 @ 11:19am
pothale said | September 26th 2009 @ 11:19am | Report comment
You’re being charitable. It wasn’t even vaguely funny, hilarious, or even original.
September 26th 2009 @ 12:58pm
simon said | September 26th 2009 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
If they reduced the 22 to 20 and the rule was that you get the line out if you kick out from your own 20, what difference would this make?
Would it increase ball in hand running rugby instead of attacking teams kicking for field position, or kicking for the corner near the oppositions try line, or putting up the high ball down near the oppositions try line? Surely attacking teams would want to keep possession of the ball rather than kick it away and allow the opposition to kick it out from their 20 and get the throw in.
The down side would be that teams would not attack from their own 22 (hence the reduction to 20). However, do teams really do this much anyway? And further, teams usually only get the ball in their own 22 if it’s kicked to them in the first place or kiced out and they get the the throw in.
So what do people think?
September 26th 2009 @ 1:10pm
Hansie said | September 26th 2009 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
I think too much is being made of technology. Apart from Francois Steyn, no other kickers are knocking them over from the other side of halfway. And besides, Steyn isn’t the first kicker to do so. Check this video out of Paul Thorburn knocking over a penalty (in 1986) from 61 metres out, 15 metres in from touch. All without a kicking tee.
September 26th 2009 @ 2:42pm
Stash said | September 26th 2009 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
Actually, I think Henry is being genuine here.
He only has a couple more seasons left so if there is a rule change regarding penalties he’s personally not going to get benefit.
The real question is, do rugby fans want to see more tries or more penalties?
September 26th 2009 @ 2:58pm
ohtani's jacket said | September 26th 2009 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
I agree that he’s being genuine. The problem is that NZ and Australia could choose to run in Tokyo, and they really ought to consider it’s meant to be an exhibition, but whoever loses will have the media/country coming down on their arse. That’s the problem.
September 26th 2009 @ 5:59pm
fred said | September 26th 2009 @ 5:59pm | Report comment
yeo OJ but dilemma with coaches too .deans poor % wins wont escape his intelligence ;survival
September 27th 2009 @ 11:03am
razzies said | September 27th 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
same amount of tries would not be so bad….but less penalites please
September 26th 2009 @ 4:30pm
Katipo said | September 26th 2009 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
I’m pleased to hear GH talking like this. Perhaps there is an easier option. Drop kicks replaced place kicks at re-starts a few years ago without controversy. Why not extend the logic to conversions and penalty kicks? Remove place kicks from rugby completely. This has been raised by Roarers a few times. Key benefits are;
1. A drop kick is less accurate so teams would elect to kick for goal less often
2. Drop kicks speed up the game because place kicks take about 1 minute to execute. The ball will be in play a few minutes more in every game.
I also agree that the short arm sanction should be revisited with differential options…
September 26th 2009 @ 9:39pm
Dingbat said | September 26th 2009 @ 9:39pm | Report comment
hansie, thanks for sharing the youtube clip. again, it shows that union is multi-dimensional. the skill and power to slot that kick over is remarkable. even today (with technologically advanced boots ‘n balls) kicks like that are a rarity. this issue of changing the rules to suit the australasian game is purely an australasian debate. aussie union is forever under pressure for a piece of the market share dominated by aussie rules and league. NZ have always been the best ball-in-hand team on the planet, so of course Graham wants the rules to suit the Kiwi’s strength. he’s being about as genuine as: “i did not have sexual relations with that woman, ms lewinski”.
September 26th 2009 @ 11:02pm
sports photography said | September 26th 2009 @ 11:02pm | Report comment
I don’t mind Henry making his way through his name as long as he keep it discreet for crying out loud. Supporters want to watch a game and have fun, Henry just plainly spoiling the well here. He better get his act straighten out.