- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
After being announced earlier in the year there are currently some new scoring laws being trialled in South Africa’s Varsity Cup, recently endorsed by Rod Macqueen.
But basically field goals and penalty goals are only worth two points under the experimental laws, while a converted try is worth eight points instead of seven – with conversions increasing from two points to three points.
The aim of these experimental laws is to increase the incentive to score tries, while maintaining an emphasis on the skill of kicking (with conversions becoming more important).
Many people in the past have talked about the idea of reducing the value of penalty goals, but the usual reluctance was that reducing their value would just cause the defending team to purposely infringe more often.
The logic was that defending teams would rather concede a potential two points from a penalty goal rather than allow the attacking team to potentially score a try.
This is also what I use to think, but under these particular experimental laws, I’m not so sure anymore.
Follow the logic. If the defending team purposely infringes in an attempt to stop the attacking team from scoring a try, what is the attacking team going to do under these new laws?
Will they simply take the potential 2 points on offer with a penalty goal?
My thinking is that more often than not, the attacking team will instead, kick to the corner for an attacking line-out, and go for a potential eight points, rather than go for a penalty goal only worth a potential two points.
And if attacking teams increasingly start to take the option to kick for an attacking line-out and a potential eight points when the defending team purposely infringes, then the defending team are going to want to stop purposely infringing, and find some other (legal) way to stop the attacking team.
While it is still very early days, this appears to be what is happening already in the Varsity Cup.
Here is a scoring summary of the competition after four rounds:
Tries scored
2011: 39
2012: 50
28.2 percent increase
Penalties in game
2011: 183
2012: 193
5.5 percent increase
Penalty kicks aimed at goal
2011: 45
2012: 16
64.4 percent decrease
Yellow cards
2011: 3
2012: 3
No change
Total points scored
2011: 359
2012: 379
5.6 percent increase
There is a statistically significant increase in tries, but no significant increase in penalties.
There is a hugely significant decrease in penalties aimed at goals.
And there is no significant change in total points scored, but a difference in how those points are scored.
To increase the personal enjoyment and thrill of rugby, and to widen it’s appeal, many ideas are often suggested.
These include making it easier to score tries by reducing playing numbers or widening the field. Other suggestions include reducing the amount of penalties by simplifying the laws, or changing the referee!
But when I see the possibility of such thrilling games like the Crusaders verse the Blues in the opening round of the 2012 Super Rugby season, compared to the possibility of slower games like some other games in 2012, it makes me think that the problem is not the game of rugby itself, as it is.
The problem must be the way it’s played (and possibly coached).
What these new laws in South Africa’s Varsity Cup attempt to do is not decrease the amount of penalties awarded, nor create a try-fest, but instead, they attempt to increase the incentive for teams to score more tries instead of going for penalty goals.
If teams are wanting to try harder to score tries, then this might mean more games consistently like the Crusaders verse Blues.
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.