Are Super Rugby teams paying too big a penalty?
Roar Rookie By Tom Logan, 13 May 2012 Tom Logan is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- Brumbies, penalties, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
Related coverage
It’s time for matches in Rugby Union to not be decided by teams who kick the most penalty goals.
Call me a disgruntled Brumbies fan, but it really concerned me, and I’m sure others as well, when the Brumbies lost to the Bulls in Pretoria even though they scored five tries to two.
I was left to wonder why the game is still played like this. It’s ludicrous that the team who scores the most amount of tries in a match can ultimately lose the game.
I might get some banter for this even though Rugby Union is not my first choice code but my family and close friends love the game so it has grown on me in recent years. It is sometimes hard for fans like myself to enjoy this game when teams often win games by kicking penalty goals rather than scoring off the main objective of the game which is to score tries.
Throughout the full match in Pretoria the Brumbies conceded a total of nine penalties whereas their South African counterparts only conceded six.
Ok, maybe the fact that the Brumbies lost this game is because the Bull’s contain a certain South African fly-half by the name of Morne Steyn, who when it comes to International Rugby has a success rate of over 85% which is almost double that of English great Johnny Wilkinson but it’s painful to see a team lose a match when they are playing “attractive Rugby” which is drawing the fans back to Bruce stadium.
In total the Brumbies made 9 line-breaks, 11 offloads and 13 line-outs won during the game, whilst conjuring up a total of 5 tries to the Bulls 2.
Brumbies centre Christian Lealilfano also managed a conversion rate of 3/5 whilst Morne Steyn only had half of his conversions converted but somehow lifted his game when it came to penalty goals, converting 7/8 of his penalty goals which is a very impressive success rate of 88%.
So the question continues to be disputed amongst fans. Should the amount of points be reduced when it comes to penalty goals?
Don’t take this the wrong way, I think teams should be punished for conceding too many penalties, but the 3 points seems a bit harsh especially when the team trying to play the more “attractive” brand of rugby (which is scoring tries) is on the losing end.
Games that generate way too many penalty goals are not winning any fans over.
Perhaps penalties should only result in a territory advantage and not points. Given the three points currently on offer, too many questions arise about both the style of play and the integrity of the game.
Changes need to be made both for the fans and the player’s enjoyment.
Have you seen the new Wallabies jersey? Want one of your own? We're giving away a brand new 2013 Wallabies jersey to one lucky Roarer, click here to go in the running to win.
- Explore:
- Brumbies, penalties, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
May 13th 2012 @ 5:32am
matthew said | May 13th 2012 @ 5:32am | Report comment
Bulls were all over the Brumbies in the game. Brumbies were cynical in trying to prevent the Bulls scoring the tries and rightfully conceded the penalties. The Bulls were never really threatened throughout the match and the Brumbie tries right at the end with the Bulls first team players off skews the reality of the game.
May 13th 2012 @ 5:33am
matthew said | May 13th 2012 @ 5:33am | Report comment
Also I wouldn’t call an attractive brand of rugby scoring tries. Some tries are dull as dishwater or pretty forgettable if caused by poor defense while some games without tries have scintillating back and forth play and attractive rugby played.
May 13th 2012 @ 5:46am
Geneva said | May 13th 2012 @ 5:46am | Report comment
This has been discussed many times on the Roar and few people are for keeping the status quo. A team might march the length of the field to score five points while somebody like Morne Steyn can get three of them back from 60 metres out. But the IRB refuses to change the scoring system. American football got it right years ago – six points for a try/touchdown, 1 for a conversion and instead of a penalty kick a yardage penalty.
If Steyne’s success rate in tests is 88% it proves a recent post that said he was just behind McCaw and Carter as the most valuable player in the world.
May 14th 2012 @ 8:42am
mitzter said | May 14th 2012 @ 8:42am | Report comment
interesting you mention NFL just as many kicks at goal in that game
May 13th 2012 @ 6:16am
Steve said | May 13th 2012 @ 6:16am | Report comment
Simple, don’t be negative, don’t be cynical, don’t be stupid and you shall prosper.
May 13th 2012 @ 7:21am
Ash said | May 13th 2012 @ 7:21am | Report comment
You are talking about certain referees right?
May 13th 2012 @ 9:09am
Steve said | May 13th 2012 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Player and referee
May 14th 2012 @ 8:58pm
sledgeandhammer said | May 14th 2012 @ 8:58pm | Report comment
In other words, don’t compete for the ball.
May 13th 2012 @ 6:49am
Football United said | May 13th 2012 @ 6:49am | Report comment
No rugby has always had kicking as a major part of the game, they are inseparable and should remain that way. the rest of the world has no problems with this and it’s only whiny australians who aren’t good enough at their kicking games compared to the north and RSA who complain about this. If you don’t want to get destroyed by the bulls, don’t give them a shot at goal by being ill disciplined. still unhappy? then watch League.
May 13th 2012 @ 8:48am
peeeko said | May 13th 2012 @ 8:48am | Report comment
We have good enough kickers but we generally pick players based on other skills rather than purely kicking
May 13th 2012 @ 7:05am
sixo_clock said | May 13th 2012 @ 7:05am | Report comment
Ditto with FU and Steve above. Kicking is important to Rugby. It rewards against negativity/cynical play/stupidity… It is the same for both sides. It demands each side retain a specialist, ie a good kicker. It gives the workers a rest. In sloppy conditions it can be the only way to score.
May 13th 2012 @ 8:08am
Mark Roth said | May 13th 2012 @ 8:08am | Report comment
Ah, this again.
I have actually thought a little about this issue since the last time somebody complained about and have reached two conclusions.
The first is not new nor do I claim it for my own idea. It is a simple idea–if you don’t want to concede penalty goals, don’t commit fouls and give away penalties. Referees do not decide games, players do. If a player does something wrong and the penalty for that action is a penalty, no pun intended, then the referee has an obligation to award a penalty kick and the non-fouling team has the luxury of doing what they will with the opportunity. If you want to complain about the laws being too complex, that may be the case but that is another issue.
The second conclusion that I have drawn is very simple, at least to me. In rugby, both codes, there are two ways to score–score a try or score a goal. Since, as far as I understand, a team wins a rugby match by scoring more POINTS than its opponent, a team must decide whether to score those points by kicking or by scoring tries. Frankly, I think there are only a few reasons decline free points and the ball back after the restart such as when a team is trailing by four or more points and time is slowing down or they have proven that they can score a try at will. Like I said earlier, teams have the right to do what they wish win their opponent errs and a penalty is awarded as a consequence for that error.
Who would really want a coach that puts entertainment (by going for a try) over winning the match? And, honestly, how many supporters want their side to lose entertainingly over winning ugly?
May 14th 2012 @ 9:02pm
sledgeandhammer said | May 14th 2012 @ 9:02pm | Report comment
There is a major flaw in your first argument. The fact remains a lot of penalties in rugby are awarded incorrectly or for marginal infringements. How many scrum penalties are a lottery which could have gone either way? How many breakdown penalties result from players trying to play within the rules, but being pinged for some perceived indiscretion? Of course there are also some cynical penalties but these are far from the majority.
May 13th 2012 @ 8:50am
Emric said | May 13th 2012 @ 8:50am | Report comment
Change the points system and encourage the defending team to “infringe” more. How about the Brumbies knew that Steyn could kick a goal from 60 meters out and just didn’t infringe in his goal shooting range.
May 13th 2012 @ 8:56am
Sailosi said | May 13th 2012 @ 8:56am | Report comment
Once again this ridiculous concept of what is entertaining and what isn’t comes up. A try or a penalty goal is not always a reflection of entertainment. For example, let’s say a team kicks off and the ball is caught by the opposition 20m out from their goal line, they attack for 3 phases then go wide, they make a linebreak on halfway and through some great interchange of passing they make it to 10mtrs out and are pushing for a try, the defending team infringes and a penalty goal ensues. A wonderful passage of play that results on 3 points. How is that less entertaining than a try that is scored from 5 pick and goes from 2 mtrs out until somebody falls over to score a try.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
May 13th 2012 @ 9:24am
matthew said | May 13th 2012 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Agreed Sailosi, far more eloquent than my attempts at adressing the issue of whether tries=entertainment.
May 13th 2012 @ 11:30am
colvin said | May 13th 2012 @ 11:30am | Report comment
They may miss the kick and get nothing for the great play; the referee may have made a mistake; the offence may have not been so serious that 3 points was earned.
No, there’s too many penalties awarded and too many shots at goal.
There was one big match in Europe recently where Jonny Wilkinson kicked 7penalty goals and missed 5. Imagine if he had kcked all 12. Most spectators didn’t know what the penalties were for anyway which has to be a negative for the game.
I can recall in 1959 Don Clarke kicking 6 penalty goals for the AB’s to beat the Lions who scored 4 tries ,18/17. The uproar at the time was unheard of because 6 penalty goals was unheard of. Now 6 penalty goals is common place.
Look at the Harlequins match in UK overnight. 6 penalty goals for both sides.
May 13th 2012 @ 12:29pm
Steve said | May 13th 2012 @ 12:29pm | Report comment
If the referee didn’t penalise and play continued they may have dropped the ball over the line and were therefore given no chance at all of being rewarded 3 points, that’s sport. The teams that scores less tries than the opposition but still wins occurs something like 8% of the time in super rugby so it’s hardly a big deal.
May 13th 2012 @ 1:09pm
colvin said | May 13th 2012 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
Steve,
It’s big deal because of all the mistake the referees are making. Their mistakes are determining the results of matches. Last night the Highlanders lost an incredibly important match because of (at least) two mistakes made by the match officials. A try not awarded by the TMO when everyone else believed it was a try and a try awarded when the player who had the ball prior to the try scorer was out when he passed the ball on. A 14 point turnaround. If simple issues like these can be incorrectly judged how many penalty awards are correct on one hand or missed on the other because of the complexity of the rules and the instant decisions required. It has become a lottery.
The rules need to be made more simple and many of them need to have less impact on the result. (that is, they need to only have the ability for 3 points if they are sufficiently serious). Then the officials need more use of technology.
Rugby is big business and match results can’t be determined by mistakes by officials.
May 13th 2012 @ 11:40am
maxikh said | May 13th 2012 @ 11:40am | Report comment
Well said mate!
May 14th 2012 @ 9:04pm
sledgeandhammer said | May 14th 2012 @ 9:04pm | Report comment
Here, here!
May 13th 2012 @ 9:34am
Turnover said | May 13th 2012 @ 9:34am | Report comment
This has been discussed to death. Enough said.