By On-point-rugby -
December 2nd 2009 @ 4:20am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Change the point value for penalty kicks
The greatest thing about rugby is also the games’ most challenging aspect. The multi-faceted skills and disciplines exhibited by players allow for inequities in the match tactics employed by coaches. And, under the current set of rules any self-respecting coach will exploit the skills that win matches.
Penalty kicking has always been a great way to accumulate points and win matches and this must continue.
However, the distinct lack of tries in 2009 has diminished the game as a spectacle and the increase of kicks-in-play has drawn from the contest.
Kicking is a fine skill, but repetitive the up-and-under has nothing on a rolling mall. The soft penalty from 35 meters out yawns in comparison to a flat pass, a step the half-break and off-load to a flying winger headed for the corner.
For rugby to consistently become the contest and spectacle it should be, coaches need to put more emphasis on running-rugby and the rules need to reward teams that seek tries.
One way to improve the game would be to decrease the value of penalty goals, which in effect would increase the value of a try.
All Black coach Graham Henry among others have advocated the penalty goal be worth one point. This blanket change is too drastic as it would probably lead to more negative defensive play.
However, a slight change could strike the right balance.
If a team is hot on attack inside the opposition twenty and a defender flops on the ball, coming away with only one point does not reward the attacking endeavour. Any defensive infringement on their goal line should be worth the chance of three points.
But outside the twenty a penalty should not be worth three points, fans want to see their team kick for the corner and go for the try and a one-point penalty goal would encourage this. The goal could still separate a tight match, just like the one-point drop-goal.
As a result coaches would put more emphasis on keeping the ball in hand, attacking intent, and scoring tries.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(38)
mitzter said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:04am | Report comment
Yes previously i’ve advocated a system like this. I was a touch less drastic reducing field goals and penalty goals to 2 pts and introducing a ‘red zone penalty’ worth 3 pts. Might need some tweeking but my thinking is negative play should be punished when a try is about to be scored but a match shouldn’t be decided by penalty kicks on the halfway line
On-point-rugby said | December 2nd 2009 @ 11:24am | Report comment
“a match shouldn’t be decided by penalty kicks on the halfway line”
This is the crux of the argument, games should be decided by tries. A reeduction in penalty points is the key. Do you think it is even on the IRB’s agenda?
CK said | December 2nd 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Whilst the idea of differentiating penalties is feasible, I still don’t think that you will encourage try scoring. The result will quite likely be that a team will work their way into the “3 point zone” and manipulate a penalty. A team will still be in a position to lose a match based on the other team’s penalty kicker.
The fact is that 2 penalties should not be worth more than a try. Which bring me to my point: Why not reduce the penalty to 2 points as it used to be, and any intentional infringement in the 22m results in a yellow card. This should a) deter the defending team from being stupid and giving away the “soft points” and b) encourage the attacking team to go for the try, knowing that the opposition is short a player.
With respect to the ref’s interpretation of “intentional foul” well, the interpretation is always a factor of any game. But if someone keeps getting away with it (Richie McCaw comes to mind) then eventually the touchies or the fans will let the ref know about it.
On-point-rugby said | December 2nd 2009 @ 11:32am | Report comment
“The result will quite likely be that a team will work their way into the “3 point zone” and manipulate a penalty.”
And good on them if they can do this, at the very least it will it will make teams work hard to get into that attacking quater. As of now anything penalty in the oppositions half is almost always worth three. That is a blight on the game.
Once teams are inside the twenty and the try-line is within sight, teams would rather come away with the maximum because they have worked hard to get into the ‘red-zone’.
And this would give refs more confidence to card players killing the ball inside the twenty.
Harry Wombat said | December 2nd 2009 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
I would prefer to see a penalty in the 22 worth the 3 points, anything outside of the 22 not worth a crumpet forcing the team to kick for the corner and putting a stop to these halfway line kicks for goal. Or go one step further, inside the 22 the team can kick for points, inside the defending team half and automatic line out on the 5 metre line or kick for touch, in their own half normal penalty rules apply except kicing for points.
rugbyfuture said | December 2nd 2009 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
just reduce the points of any goal to 2 points and make it that the players have to tap and go within the 22 rather than have the oppurtunity to kick
Brett McKay said | December 2nd 2009 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
the biggest increase in the number of tries scored came at the same time as the game going pro, with tries being increased from 4 to 5 points. So if we want to encourage try-scoring, why aren’t we even considering increasing the value of tries again??
Wouldn’t kicking for the sideline and the chance to push for 8 points (instead of kicking at goal for 3) have the same effect as reducing the value of penalites??
Cattledog said | December 2nd 2009 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
Brett, my post some time back was on this very issue. Not increasing a try’s worth, but a conversion from a try to 3 points whilst simultaneously reducing the pen and FG to 2. The purists indicate this will increase infringing. Yes it will, but that will reduce with the use of yellow cards more frequently and once again the decision making process of teams will be for kicking to touch rather than goal. The outcome being more ‘ball in hand’ rugby. Would love to see something like this trialled in the pre-season premier comp. Having teams chance their arms is what we want to see with outcomes in 99.9% of cases determined by the highest try scorer, as it should be!
Dean Pantio said | December 2nd 2009 @ 10:22pm | Report comment
Wrong. Tries increased in value from four points to five in 1992. The game went professional three years later after the South African RWC. Penalties have been worth three points since 1891.
The increase in tries came from professional players now paid to train and practice. Speed, strength and skills increased. Defensive skill lagged behind.
Learn to play the game as it is, rather than looking to change it and impose another ELV debacle.
Cattledog said | December 3rd 2009 @ 1:16am | Report comment
Someone else frightened of change and the understanding of change management. If it ain’t broke…don’t fix it. Clearly, something needs to be done to return rugby to the spectacle it should be and good debate always helps. Change is inevitable. Embrace it, introduce it properly and get on with it.
Matt said | December 2nd 2009 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
I personally don’t like the idea of introducing even more variation to the point scoring system. A penalty shot at goal should be worth the same amount no matter where it is kicked from. I do agree that two penalty goals should not out value a try.
I think the 4 points for a Try, 2 for a conversion or Penalty and 1 for a Dropped Goal (that league uses) is a pretty fair balance. People often argue that a reduction in the value of a penalty will lead to more teams giving away penalties. But why don’t teams just kick to the corner and go for the try? A lineout these days is very rarely contested by the defense when it is less than 10m from the try line. Why don’t league teams always kick for 2 points when they receive a penalty from less than 55m out? Surely it is because they back themselves to score a try, which is worth more.
If penalties are worth less then teams will kick more often for touch and attack with the ball in hand. If a player is deemed to have deliberately and professionally impeded an attacking team (to give away the penalty and stop a try) then they should be yellow carded. This is no different to nowdays. Surely the possiblity of a try (when worth 4 points) is equal to the kicking of a conversion (2 points) plus the yellow carding of a defender for the next 10 minutes?
We don’t need a complex system, just a simple change so that penalty goals and dropped goals are worth slightly less in proportion to try’s. Let’s see more kicks to the corner from penalties and those nerve wracking defensive standoffs that result, rather than another 50:50 penalty shot at goal by Frans Steyn from the carpark behind his own dead ball line!
mitzter said | December 2nd 2009 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Even more variation to the scoring system?? What tries, conversion, PGs, and FGs. I don’t think it is that confusing really. WHY should a penalty shot at goal be worth the same pts – can you answer that. Other games (such as soccer) use location on the field to determine difference between penalty and free, so why can’t rugby?
This debate has happend before and the greatest problem with using the league scoring sytem is that the game is not league you do not get a restart of the tackle count and you have every chance of losing the ball stright away. The game is also more tiring for the attack than in league (securing rucks etc). etc etc
At the end of the day players live too close to the edge in rugby (some would call it continual cheating), a hard line is needed as we just saw the increase in cheating caused by the ELVs
Matt said | December 2nd 2009 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
By “more vairation” I mean, why have a different value for a penalty goal for different areas of the field.
Is the aim of that to try and give more value to a penalty if is given away closer to the defenders try line?
It just seems far too asuming and speculative. What happens if a player knocks the ball out of the half backs hands from a ruck while 23 metres from the try line with the attack hot on the front foot, a 2 point shot at goal for a very cynical faul. Compared to a contentious ruck infringement 20 metres out from the line where the attacking team might be playing one man off the ruck over and over again and a defender get’s trapped at the bottom and deemed to have not rolled away quick enough.
There are already too many complaints about confusion over referee’s decisions and many calls are 50:50. This just adds more layers to the system. I personally don’t think yardage has that much to do with the severity of an infringment as the general factors of gameplay under which the penalty is issued. So I don’t think creating a new 2 point penalty kick at goal makes sense on those grounds.
As for the 4,2,1 scoring system (ala League) surely when you take a kick at goal in Union you are immediately giving away possession (unless you kick it dead when missing the shot). There is no contest for possesion in a PG, but there is no guarantee of a penalty either. How is a team penalised from a missed shot at goal?
The point is that the penalty goal is too enticing at present, as is the drop goal. Both of these should take their place behind a try as the desired scoring method in all scenarios. In Union you do get a reset of the tackle count, so to speak. You basically get a great opportunity for possession (with most lineouts capable of claiming the majority of their throwins) AND territory, which is where all teams aim for in order to play attacking rugby.
I think there would be more tries (or at least attempts at scoring tries) if you had a 4, 2, 1 points system? Even if teams don’t convert all their penalties to tries at least there’d be a marked increase in the amount of attempts. Surely a kick to touch followed by a lineout is worth more to the fans and players than another 45m shot at goal, or ever a 35m one.
Here’s a contentious idea. What if there were NO penalty shots at goal? If you get a penalty you Tap, Scrum or Kick for Touch. Penalties are then dealt with on a card basis with no points on offer but other consequences. Would it work, probably too hard to imagine…
mitzter said | December 2nd 2009 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
ok firstly i have often wondered about no goal rugby but the experiment will never happen.
Now cynical play in the professional game is killing the game more than refs are. players are more willing to take the penalty than a try.
As for your example of 23 meters out – yes i understand and that is why i advocate a 2 pt penalty but still pressure, more than likely, comes from territory (just like they do in soccer and other sports!). Your other point about a tackler caught, it’s one of my pet peeves as I’m sure he wasn’t there by accident, players choose to be in this position when they make the tackle. Think about this, except for jumping out to tackle someone getting past you in a one on one situation, I’de argue there is no need to ever end up on the opposition’s side of the ruck
Brett McKay said | December 2nd 2009 @ 12:56pm | Report comment
of course it should also be remembered in all this talk of reducing the value of penalites, that the original ELVs included the change that the majority of these “minor” infringements became short-arm penalites, which gave the option of a scrum or a free kick (which more often than not was a tap-and-go), but not the option of a shot at goal. Only long arm penalities could be converted into three points, but these were only for the more major infringements.
But the ’short arms’ were voted out (by we all know who), which brought in the “Sanctions ELVs”, in which everything was a long arm again, and then eventually the only ELVs to survive were the really important ones, like the corner post no longer being in play…
AndyS said | December 2nd 2009 @ 5:25pm | Report comment
For mine, the mistake in the ELVs was not to extend the “free kick” penalty to allow the line-out (i.e. make it a full arm but without the shot at goal). Teams were prepared to back their defense against the tap or scrum, but a line-out near the try line might have made them think a bit harder. If that didn’t work they could have perhaps also considered allowing the drop-kick, but one of the great shortcomings of the trial exercise was that there was no opportunity for tuning the proposed law modifications.
CK said | December 2nd 2009 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
The ELV’s were not effective though even with the constant short-arm penalties, as the yellow card was not used. It just gave confidence to an infringing player to give away the free-kick. Regardless of what system is adopted, be it 4,2,1 values or 5,2,2 – the one law that must be enforced is the yellow card on deliberate foul play – from anywhere on the paddock. Unfortunately the ref’s all seem petrified to walk someone from the park, particularly Richie McCaw (he’s got photos of someone with a hooker for sure!).
4,2,1 or 5,2,2 I really don’t mind, but I am sick of watching teams score 2 or 3 tries to 0 and lose the match. It’s a disgrace, and it’s not what the game was based on.
As for the ruck and players “being trapped”; let’s just bring back the rucking. It’ll sort itself out. As Tana Umaga put it “we’re not playing tiddly winks”
Cattledog said | December 2nd 2009 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
What about 5 (3) 2 and 2? That way tries and running rugby are assured! The (3) is a conversion. I agree, tries must determine the outcome, and referees are to use yellow cards more liberally. Then it will all sort itself out.
Wal The Hooker said | December 2nd 2009 @ 8:41pm | Report comment
I like this idea Cattledog, but I’d go further with 1 point for FG, use it only as a game breaker. Bring the rucks back we’re sorted. 5 (3) 2 1
Cattledog said | December 2nd 2009 @ 9:00pm | Report comment
Aaaah Wal, a Hooker who wants rucking brought back! You miss it, don’t you. LOL Can’t see too many issues with 1 point for a FG. The purists, of course, would start screaming too much like league. I think we would get similar results with either 1 or 2 point FG. The important thing is to have them only consider a pen or FG as a tactical thing rather than a way to accumulate massive points with a great kicker. We need to see a team’s ability to score tries.
Justin said | December 2nd 2009 @ 4:57pm | Report comment
The ELVs would be more effective if short arms were the same as penalties (ie you could tap, scrum or kick for touch) except you could NOT kick for goal. That way the more severe penalties entitle you to a shot for goal but 50-50 short arms would see you still able to kick for touch and take a line out.
I think you will see more tries and less matches decided by the boot with a short arm that allows everything a penalty does bar a shot for goal.
rugbyguy said | December 2nd 2009 @ 6:52pm | Report comment
what about making the goal post narrower?
this would make kicking harder at long range ?
just an idea what do you think?
Pippinu said | December 2nd 2009 @ 6:54pm | Report comment
It always takes us back to that same issue – it becomes a greater inducement to offend, which is not a step in the right direction.
Dean Pantio said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:02am | Report comment
Obviously you’re frightened of change and the understanding of change management Pippinu. Dare I say half of these articles and responses affirming them wouldn’t exist if their team’s win-loss ratio was the other way round.
netrug said | December 2nd 2009 @ 6:57pm | Report comment
I will repeat this again.
It is not that the value of penalty goals should be reduced but that the number of laws that allow goals to be kicked is what should be reduced.
There has to be a deterrent and so only foul play, repeated infringements and professional fouls should attract a kickable penalty.
All offside, ruck and maul and bringing the ball into play offences should be free kicks only.
Ads said | December 2nd 2009 @ 7:32pm | Report comment
let’s see drop goals reduced also. I love seeing a side go through 5 -10 phases and not be able to break the defensive line only to be rewarded with 3 points because there number 10 can drop back in the pocket and slot one from 30 metres out!
One thing to consider is that IF the penalty goal was reduced to 1 point then we would see a huge increase in professional fouls. Therefore IF penalty goals were reduced then the penalty system would need amending too. Something along the lines of soccer. 2 or 3 strikes and your out, and you also miss the next 1 or 2 games if you get sent off.
I hope whatever the IRB does it encourages the game to flow. No more refs controlling every breakdown, no more up and unders, no more pointless kicks from the Wallaby back line and forwards back going to to taking pride in setting a great scrum…Low and straight, good drive….stop cheating when it comes time to engage.
If every game of rugby was as good as Australia and New Zealand on the weekend then we would have nothing to complain about on this site!!
Hoppy said | December 2nd 2009 @ 9:01pm | Report comment
Rather than changing the value of a field goal , one way to reduce the number of drop-goals would be to make it , rules wise, just like any other kick, which it is in reality . A field-goal is a kick, is a kick . So…. if you miss a drop-goal and the ball goes dead, and it invariably does , then it should be a scrum from where the field-goal was taken and the scrum put-in given to the defending team . That would surely put the brakes on the number of attempts of field-goals at least . Those coaches obsessed with playing for territory , as so many seem to be ‘ these days ‘, would surely have second thoughts . As it is now, you just get the ball straight back after a field-goal attempt, after attempt .
I personally don’t think the drop-goal should be worth three points , but one step at a time , huh .
As for the problem of the penalty goals , good luck with that one .From my vantage point here in Japan, the British public seem to go wild when a succesful penalty goal goes through the sticks . There’s something weird in the British psyche or water perhaps . Whatever you do, if the Home Unions and the British refs in particular aren’t supportive of it , it’ll be doomed to failure . That’s where the real ‘ power ‘ in rugby lies, doesn’t it ? That’s what ‘ they ‘ think anyway . In fact , the real power doesn’t lie anywhere in particular , Hopefully, rugby being included in the Olympics will eventually make that point plain for all to see and accept .
What d’ya reckon ?
Cattledog said | December 2nd 2009 @ 9:16pm | Report comment
Reckon ya might have a point, Hoppy. Hadn’t really considered a FG attempt to be deemed a kick in general play (which I agree it is), however, perhaps coming back for a scrum may change the decision lines somewhat. What about a missed penalty kick?
Hoppy said | December 2nd 2009 @ 9:33pm | Report comment
Thanks for that thought Cattledog . Re the idea of applying the same rule to a penalty goal, that would open up another political can of worms altogether , wouldn’t it . The politics of the game , in all countries , basically stinkls, right ? Penalty kick attempts are so ingrained in the culture of most of the Rugby Football Unions with the political muscle . I just can’t see massive changes in that regard happening . I like the idea of applying the at first sight though. I hadn’t thought of that myself .
It will definitely not be an easy sell though. And…. unfortunately , that is largely where the game at the ‘ elite ‘ level revolves around .Will it sell ?
By the way, you can add convincing the South African Rugby Football Union to the list of countries that have to be ‘ persuaded. ‘
IronAwe said | December 2nd 2009 @ 10:33pm | Report comment
What about increasing a conversion to 5 points? This would definitely make teams want to score more tries, and also make them want to score it under the posts. Having field goals and penalty kicks left at 3 points mean they still help and are still a valid tactical part of the game and still punish the offending team, but are not something that can be relied upon, and don’t reward a poor attacking team for not being able to break the defense.
One of the beauties of rugby union is the fact that you have a number of point scoring options in your arsenal to win the game, and you want to keep this, but you want to make try scoring the best and most rewarding option as its the most difficult to do.
Push over tries from the scrum would be huge because they would be an almost guaranteed 10 points, and we all want to see more of that sort of thing.
I also agree with the other posters who mention its the infringement rules that are the crux of the problem, not the number of points, but I cant think of a way to improve this.
jools-usa said | December 3rd 2009 @ 3:53am | Report comment
No way will IRB lessen points for drop goals & penalties.
In fact, any day now I expect an announcment (based on the tryless drought of UK teams), INCREASE in points for
the above:
5 for each, and if kicked from further away than 40 metres, make it 7.
A pushover try is 10 points
When a kick is run back, unless runner makes the opponents 20-metre mark, it’s a scrum to original kicker where
high ball was fielded.
Hey, something has to be done to make UK teams winners, and the IRB have the wherewithal.
Jools-USA
Cattledog said | December 3rd 2009 @ 4:09am | Report comment
Nothing like injecting some humour, Jools! BTW, it’ll take considerably more than that to make UK teams winners!! I’m more concerned about the US and China getting their act together and as rugby’s popularity increases, so will the standards. May be a little time off yet, especially in China. However, we in the SH better not sit idley on our hands!
Matt said | December 3rd 2009 @ 6:50am | Report comment
Forget China and the US, what about Russia?!
Apparently the game is going gangbusters there after the Olympic announcement with a new team being established every week on average and huge growth in spectators. Rugby is also gaining a lot of attention from Russian regional and national Government too, not to mention the fact there is now a 11 team professional league (which has consistently expanded since it’s inception in 2005, which inaugral attendances averaging over 3000 people). Rugby (including the recent WC and the Heineken Cup is also telecast now too, so media exposure is on the rise as well).
The national side is now up to 18th (dropping 2 places this week after losing to Canada) in the rankings and they have improved a lot over the last few years to claim 3rd and then 2nd in the last two 6 nations B competitions. They’ve recently beaten Romania, Spain and Portugal while losing narrowly to Georgia and look certain for a top 2 finish in the 2008-2010 6 nations B (sitting 1 point behind 1st placed Georgia) with a squad averaging 26 years of age (with some great young 21-23 year olds of the new generation to the fore). The Russian sevens side also won this years Hanovers sevens tournament too.
They still have a way to go yet though (having only 20,000 members and about 130 registered Clubs) and their recent loss to Canada (22-6) suggests they’ve still got a way to go before they can properly climb into the 2nd Tier with nations like Japan and the Pacific Islands on the field. But Russia is improving rapidly in all areas of the sport (media coverage, funding, participation, professional competition). The next thing to come will be the last measurement, success on the field.
A place in the World Cup in New Zealand (after the Guus Hudink lead Soccer side failed to qualify for the FIFA equivalent) could well give the sport of Rugby and even bigger shot in the arm in the potential rugby giant that is Russia.
Matt said | December 3rd 2009 @ 6:55am | Report comment
Also forgot that Russia is to host the Junior World Trophy in 2010 too and they have stated that they will use the Junior Tournament to help their bid for hosting the 2013 IRB Sevens World Cup too. So they seem pretty serious (and IRB seems to be acknowledging their efforts too).
Jay said | December 3rd 2009 @ 3:55am | Report comment
reduction of penalties to 1 point will indeed encourage more foul play and “changing the number of laws that allow goals to be kicked is what should be reduced” as suggested by netrug will probably be difficult to implement.
my view is that penalties should be reduced to 2 points BUT regardless of whether the penalty is converted or not, the attacking team gets a tap from the point where the penalty is taken (rather than going back to the middle if the penalty is converted). this way, the attacking team effectively gets a “free shot” at 2 points if the opposition commits a foul AND they continue play with possession in an attacking position.
this will eliminate much of the incentive for the defending side to give away penalties to get a “fresh start” from half way and rewards the attacking team for running the ball and scoring tries (which is what we all want to see!).
it is beyond me why the officials can’t get off their backsides and look into this and other suggestions that would greatly improve the game for both players and spectators..
sheek said | December 3rd 2009 @ 7:37am | Report comment
Why cut off a person’s leg to save him, when some other form of cure could have done the trick without such drastic action?
We can tinker with the points value system all we like, but if a team is offered 6, or 8, or 10 kickable penalty goals a game, they will continue to take those easy opportunities.
Whether you reduce penalties to 2 points, or increase unconverted tries to 6 points, people will always take the path of least resistance – numerous kicks at goal.
So shouldn’t we get the laws of the game right first, then consider tinkering with the points value system after that? Right now, teams are kicking more out of fear of being penalised as the attacking team, which is happening.
So even if a team wants to play the running game where a converted try is worth 6 points, but is continually penalised as the attacking team, even though penalties are reduced to two points, this will still affect their desire to play running rugby.
Changing the points value system might be a feel-good, short-term solution, but it won’t provide a lasting, long-term solution. That can only be achieved by arriving at an appropriate level of laws.
Right now, attacking teams ought to feel encouraged to attack without the fear of being penalised off the pitch.
Michael C said | December 3rd 2009 @ 8:11am | Report comment
coming from outside RU as someone who probably prefers to watch RU than RL as a ‘neutral’ – - I’m glad to see this :
“Penalty kicking has always been a great way to accumulate points and win matches and this must continue. ”
because, to me, it’s this variety of tactics/options that creates a more interesting game than is RL which tends to be a bit 1 dimensional in comparison.
btw – as an AFL follower, we so often hear people lament the ‘constant rule tinkering’ with cries of “leave the game alone”, but, reality is, all codes are evolving beasts.
Rowdy said | December 4th 2009 @ 2:30am | Report comment
I wonder why these proposals weren’t so strongly supported by Aus fans in 1999 ? Odd, that.
I think the law of unintended consequences comes into play here, as it did when tries went to 4 points from 3. Make a penalty worth 10 points and we might see the game open up a bit.
I like the fact that you can get down the other end, can’t find a way through and yet still have the option of a drop-kick; one of the reasons Football is so boring is that there is only one way of scoring which worth only one point. Rugby has that variety which makes it possible for a strongly forward-orientated team like Argentina to prosper, and why shouldn’t they ? Why should all teams be forced by law manipulation to play in exactly the same way ? Incidentally, I’m English and I hate with a passion the way our team plays, mainly because they’re rubbish at it.
Overall, if people think that games being decided on kicks is a problem (I don’t), then I’m in favour of simpler solutions such as narrowing the goal size, as mentioned above, or making the ball heavier.