Rugby’s penalty fixation is unfair on the sport
By hes been doing it all day sir, 15 Sep 2011 hes been doing it all day sir is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup, Rugby World Cup 2011, RWC, RWC 2011, wallabies
Related coverage
Dropping penalties to two points and introducing five-minute sin bin cards are the cure that would ensure running rugby lives on. It has taken law change after law change to finally clean up the breakdown, though northern hemisphere referees are still finding their feet.
The last two years of International rugby has seen a shift towards ball-in-hand rugby as a result of the tackle release laws ensuring speedy recycle at the breakdown and higher ball retention.
Even England, the most conservative team in world rugby, have revitalised their game, most emphatically displayed against the young Wallabies on last Movember’s spring tour.
That was a great example of beating someone at their own game. The Irish and Welsh have even jumped on the bandwagon, although they don’t quite have the skill sets to execute it yet.
It is still early days in the World Cup, the only encounters of powerful nations were England-Argentina and Wales-South Africa, both results hinging on the boots of kickers.
Think back to Rugby World Cup 1999. Jannie de Beer potted five drop goals against England in the quarter-final, he could have ruined the whole World Cup had it not been for Stephen Larkham’s first attempt at a field goal, not bad for a first either.
I’m no genius but that’s the equivalent of three tries. I don’t care how good the kicks were, scoring three tries in a World Cup quarter final deserves better compensation.
Possibly the greatest injustice occurred in 2006 when the World XV were beaten 30-27 by a tryless Springboks outfit. Thats right, nine penalty goals by the one and only Percy Montgomery and a field goal from winger Gaffie de Toit.
The world XV scored two tries to none yet lost. The biggest problem I have with this is that it wasn’t even a Test for a trophy or part of a tournament.
The World XV, like Barbarians fixtures are for the good of the game, they are intended to showcase rugby by the greatest players of our game.
We are coming off the back of a stellar Super XV campaign and are being treated to some entertaining rugby thus far in New Zealand however I fear its only a matter of time until the Jannies and Percies come out of the woodwork in the current form of Jonny Wilkinson, Dan Carter, James Hook (if they award his kicks), Felipe Contepomi and of course Francois Steyn.
There’s a reason de Villiers picked the Racing Metro based player. And that reason comes in the form of his capability to slot 60 metre field goals.
I don’t see Australia taking enough three-pointers to scare anyone. There’s only a handful of points between O’Connor, Beale and Cooper. It’s a shame you don’t get three points for flick passes and brain explosions. We would be favourites.
Hopefully my cynical expectations are wrong and we see tries take priority when the heat is on.
Finally, this is my the cure that would ensure running rugby lives on.
Try – 5 points
Conversion – 2 points
Penalty goal – 2 points
Drop goal – 1 point
Five minute sin bin cards= to prevent an increase in professional fouls.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Where is Deans in the pecking order of rugby coaches? (319)
- Wallabies squad announced: Folau in, no Quade Cooper – yet (267)
- Deans: Should he stay or should he go? (245)
- SPIRO’s Lions Diary: Deans goes for experience, plus Folau (242)
- Wallabies 25-man Lions squad: analysis (214)
- Quade Cooper misses Wallaby squad selection (209)
- Quade shouldn’t be fly half against the Lions (184)
- Could Matt Lucas be a Wallaby bolter? (35)
- Australia, time to get behind the Wallabies (52)
- Who can still win the Super Rugby title? (10)
- Deans must forgive Quade: Slack (60)
- SPIRO: Super Rugby TMOs are making too many mistakes (55)
- Rebels’ O’Connor stays on sidelines (3)
- ‘Lucky 29′ journey into despair (part one)
- Australia, time to get behind the Wallabies (52)
- Who can still win the Super Rugby title? (10)
- ‘Lucky 29′ journey into despair (part one) (1)
- Super Rugby teams will skin the Lions (116)
- Super B to the rescue for rugby? (52)
- Picking your ‘First V’ for the Wallabies (66)
- Looking forward to the 2015 Wallabies (20)
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Rugby Union, Rugby World Cup, Rugby World Cup 2011, RWC, RWC 2011, wallabies

September 15th 2011 @ 8:37am
LeftArmSpinner said | September 15th 2011 @ 8:37am | Report comment
I agree completely and would add that there should be yellow cards sooner. Yellow cards open the game up even more.
Don’t let the players, particularly the forwards, pretend that at the start of every game, they need time to relearn the rules. Nope, this is not a period of relearning but a period of milking advantages from the ref. Again, the game suffers.
But, in the meantime, every coach needs at least one good goal kicker and a back up in case of injury and also a field goal kicker for the tight ones!
September 15th 2011 @ 8:41am
niwdEyaJ said | September 15th 2011 @ 8:41am | Report comment
Reducing penalties to two points may encourage even more infringements as the “cost” of saving a possible try is even less than it is now. That’s not to say I don’t agree with the concept of two-point penalties however I think it needs to be accompanied by restart where the infingement occured regardless of whether the penalty attempt was successful or not.
It completely infuriates me that after an attacking team gets a penalty shot, they have to go back to the middle and start again.
In my opinion, penalties should be reduced to two points AND regardless of whether the kicker slots it throug the big H, the restart occurs wherever the infingement took place with either a tap or attacking scrum feed.
This keeps the pressure on the defending side until they either crumble and let in a try or show some nuts, defend like steel and secure a legal turnover. If the defending team instead insists on cynical play, the attacking team will continue to get “free” shots at goal and still remain in a position to apply pressure for a try,
September 15th 2011 @ 8:54am
he's been doing it all day sir said | September 15th 2011 @ 8:54am | Report comment
thats why there would be 5 min sin bins, to prevent that from happening.
the idea of resuming play where it occured could potentially result in another infringement and in turn another penalty attempt. this could actually be the worst idea i have ever heard. team kicks penalty in front of posts, gets a scrum afterwards, kicks a drop goal, gets another scrum, oh- another drop goal………..
September 15th 2011 @ 9:56am
mitzter said | September 15th 2011 @ 9:56am | Report comment
“In my opinion, penalties should be reduced to two points AND regardless of whether the kicker slots it throug the big H, the restart occurs wherever the infingement took place with either a tap or attacking scrum feed.”
-Worst idea ever! Give the ball back to the team that got the penalty??
-I’m now coming around to the idea that points should stay where they are for now and that what needs to be done is that just like a punt, if the ball goes dead from a field or penalty goal attempt, the defending team has the option of a scrum restart where it was kicked. Hopefully that adds less incentive to kick that penalty from 60m out, where they had no chance in hell of scoring a try (and thus don’t deserve any points)
September 15th 2011 @ 9:56am
kiwidave said | September 15th 2011 @ 9:56am | Report comment
If you let the team start from the penalty spot whether they got it or not they would just take a shot from every penalty within 60m of the posts. Why would you ever go for touch or take the tap when you’d effectively get a tap anyway. It sounds like a recipe for more kicking to me.
September 15th 2011 @ 9:57am
mitzter said | September 15th 2011 @ 9:57am | Report comment
Exactly -ridiculous idea
September 15th 2011 @ 5:01pm
AndyS said | September 15th 2011 @ 5:01pm | Report comment
You mean as opposed to taking the shot from 60m out, confident in the knowledge that if you miss it you’ll get it back from the 22 drop-out….?
Players will go to the line or take the tap if they back their attack or the defense is in disarray, same as now. That said, if the restart were taken from the point of penalty, I’d reduce the value of the penalty to 1 point.
September 16th 2011 @ 8:49am
mitzter said | September 16th 2011 @ 8:49am | Report comment
see other point – go to a scrum option on dead balls
September 16th 2011 @ 9:11am
Bakkies said | September 16th 2011 @ 9:11am | Report comment
You don’t have to take a drop out. You can toe it over the 22metre and get the ball back.
September 15th 2011 @ 8:48am
he's been doing it all day sir said | September 15th 2011 @ 8:48am | Report comment
I agree every team needs a great kicker for the tight ones, and for me the tight ones are when the scores are deadlocked and you need to win the game or you are down by one and kick a drop goal to go into extra time. The idea of introducing 5 min cards would ensure there wasn’t an increase in professional fouls as a result of the points reduction.
Think about how many games you have watched where teams were down by 2 and simply set up in the pocket and took pot shots at goal. Now imagine if they had to try and score a try to win and how much more exciting that would have been. You would have witnessed the most desperate determined rugby ever played, instead you said ‘great kick’.
September 15th 2011 @ 2:03pm
Muzza said | September 15th 2011 @ 2:03pm | Report comment
I recall a couple and they were awesome! Especially the Nick Evans one. That said yeah we all (except the poms) would prefer tries. I don’t have too many problems with the game now other the scrum resets. As a player I love the scrum but the reset issue needs to be resolved.
September 15th 2011 @ 9:10am
jumpers said | September 15th 2011 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Degrading the penalty score down would certainly receive a very negative response from our NH friends. But I have to agree that this measure is long over due and may encourage teams to explore the expansive style of running rugby.
This is the style that the ABs created way back at the first WC and was successful!
And yes at this WC teams such as South Africa, England and the ABs have their accurate kickers who can score these points as proven by results in the past WC’s.
It is also necessary to have a reliable kicker and most teams do!
September 15th 2011 @ 9:22am
Lee said | September 15th 2011 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Keep the points the same, but introduce a 5 minute sin bin for any offence in your own 22m…that way when teams get close they get more of an incentive to go for the try!
September 15th 2011 @ 9:26am
LeftArmSpinner said | September 15th 2011 @ 9:26am | Report comment
Lee, thats more like the toughness that I propose. Alternatively, just check their number and if they are a forward, send them off for the rest of the game.
September 15th 2011 @ 2:09pm
Muzza said | September 15th 2011 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
Good idea for the card but you are joking re: forwards.
This plus the Cup, Plate, Shield idea is great.
September 15th 2011 @ 9:23am
grandpabhaile said | September 15th 2011 @ 9:23am | Report comment
“Degrading the penalty score down would certainly receive a very negative response from our NH friends.”
You mean South Africa wouldn’t mind? Or Argentina? Or Tonga? Or Samoa?
Australia wouldn’t mind because they’ve poor place kickers.
New Zealand might. For as long as they have Dan Carter anyway and if they need a penalty kick to win a World Cup…
September 15th 2011 @ 9:23am
Mark Roth said | September 15th 2011 @ 9:23am | Report comment
Are you having a problem with penalty kicks or just with kicking in general? I opened this article thinking I would get insight on meaningful ways of reducing penalties and penalty kicks. Instead I read a suggestion to reduce kicking to support the author’s desire for “running rugby.”
This article lost me when it confused drop goals and penalty goals. Kicking is and always has been a part of rugby. Making drop goals worthless will limit the sport. If you want to watch teams run into each other for eighty minutes, watch the NRL or support teams that run. I prefer games that have a balance of kicking, running, good rucking and hard fought scrums. But I don’t want to change the rules so that every game looks the same. Teams win the game because they outscore the opposition. If that means scoring more tries, good. If that means a penalty fest because teams can’t follow the rules, okay. A win by 10 points is the same whether those points come from two tries, four goals or simply because the winning team converted four tries on the day. Its all the same.
I too wish that penalty kicks could be reduced. Making a penalty goal worth less, even with a five minute sin bin will only serve to increase the number of penalty kicks. Who wouldn’t put their hands in the ruck if it cost them two points and five minutes to prevent five points–or even an easy seven points. This would be even worse if drop goals were one point. If a team is leading by more than a converted try towards the end, its best option would be a penalty foul fest. Lose a few men, give up a few two pointers, but save the lead. It knows that the only way the opponent would come back into the game would be with tries–nothing less would make the difference.
September 15th 2011 @ 9:58am
Stinger said | September 15th 2011 @ 9:58am | Report comment
Interesting idea & comments. The idea of a shorter sin bin is something I’ve been kicking around with myself this year. What about a water polo style power play. Not sure whether it is for all ‘cynical’ fouls or just in attacking 22m but the result is the opposition lose that player until that passage of play ends (lineout, knock on, etc). If you choose to kick for goal, the infringing player is off until play is restarted (be it getting the goal or play is stopped by a 22m drop out, etc.) I think it would have a tactical benefit so that teams who rely on kicking pen goals can still do that (this is what gives our game variety and world appeal that different nations play differently) but they don’t get the chance to attack 15 on 14.
Definitely something for IRB to think of as the 1or2 seasons post world cup is the time to try stuff so you then set up for at least 2 years building into next world cup.
September 15th 2011 @ 10:09am
knockon said | September 15th 2011 @ 10:09am | Report comment
This article is correct. People who state that reducing the penalty will reward the infringeing team have missed a crucial point. In many cases the team penalised has not in fact infringed. The referees regularly get it wrong. Games are decided on incorrect decisions. Therefore a balance need to be struck between penalising the offending team, and not making the penalty overly harsh given that 25% of the time the penalty will be unwarranted or incorrect.
September 15th 2011 @ 10:39am
mitzter said | September 15th 2011 @ 10:39am | Report comment
Refs do get it wrong absolutely but only because so many players from both teams are cheating – so it can sometimes sound like they are blowing all over the place
September 15th 2011 @ 10:13am
Bakkies said | September 15th 2011 @ 10:13am | Report comment
Nonsense article been over this before. Reducing penalties to two points will encourage more teams to infringe especially with hands in the ruck and pulling down mauls (refs rarely give out yellows for that). People who whinge about penalties don’t know the game that well and they are given out for a reason. 5 minute yellow cards doesn’t work. A yellow card is actually a step closer to getting a red card (two yellows equal a red) so don’t expect to see more dished out than what’s happening currently. There is more to Rugby than just running the ball and the original point of the try was to get a kick at goal. Teams that do the basic forward work well like South Africa and England will draw more penalties it’s natural as they use forward play such as mauling as a weapon. Breakdown turnovers from players like Pocock and McCaw aren’t as common now. Counterrucking and entering the gate are now fundamentals of the breakdown so obviously if not done right it will draw a penalty. Running the ball needs to be done properly not just for the sake of it where teams run out of ideas.
I would rather a northern hemisphere referee than a ref like Kaplan or Bryce Lawrence who hand out bizarre penalties and don’t police the breakdown properly.
As for that Barbarians game you can score many tries as you wish but if you can’t defend your line at the other end without infringing in can cost you the game (like the Brumbies vs Reds match where the Brumbies scored four tries but still lost) it’s what sport is all about. If you want to watch constant scoring switch on an AFL match where it’s like a basketball match. It’s like a soccer team such as Spurs and Real Madrid that have great attacking players but if they neglect the defensive side of the game they leak more goals than they score.
September 15th 2011 @ 10:29am
Sledgeandhammer said | September 15th 2011 @ 10:29am | Report comment
When pressure leads to points, fair play. You are 100% right. The problem is when a referee makes a poor decision that leads to 3 points.
September 15th 2011 @ 10:50am
Bakkies said | September 15th 2011 @ 10:50am | Report comment
We don’t want to become like the NFL where there are challenges, time outs and constant stoppages to query referee’s decisions. We can debate for a while on this the IRB have it right. The referees haven’t been run well by Paddy O’Brien though and constant law changes don’t help them.