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.

“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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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!!

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.

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.

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”

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…

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…