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 @ 10:34am
colvin said | May 13th 2012 @ 10:34am | Report comment
The problems are that most people don’t know what most penalties are awarded for anyway; that too many penalties are 50/50, in that they could either have been awarded to either side, or not awarded at all; that they arise from a mistake by the referee or assistant referee; that many penalties are awarded for activities not serious enough as to be worth 3 points.
The solution is twofold; award more short arm free kicks and less full penalties, and make conversions worth 3 points. For a shot at goal the offence needs to be serious enough as to be worth 3 points, Three points for a conversion will encourage more attempts at try scoring and keep the goal kicker in the game.
May 13th 2012 @ 12:23pm
MattH said | May 13th 2012 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
I just watched an NBA playoff game where there were 50 free throws, many fouls were 50/50 didn’t understand all of them, what a game though!
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
May 13th 2012 @ 6:02pm
Mark Roth said | May 13th 2012 @ 6:02pm | Report comment
I’m not a fan of basketball nor am I a fan of the NBA’s ridiculous state of affairs where the officials can be influenced by home team supporters, but basketball does have something going for it–no one questions free throws. Oh sure someone might complain that a foul was undeserved or the refs missed a foul, but no one ever claims that they lost a game because their opponent had too many free throws–though they would admit that they made too many fouls and let their opponent have too many chances. A free throw is just a part of the game and accepted.
Union on the other hand has a large base that seems to think that tries are the only way to be entertaining and goals are bad. By their insane troll logic, a team that decides to score from the boot is really, really bad. I’ve said it before and I will say it again–how many people complaining about penalty kicks would prefer to be the team that scores seven points in a game that ends nine points to seven?
My favorite part of union is when one team is grinding their way towards goal over many, many phases. But after a while I often wonder why that team just doesn’t accept that if they didn’t score on the first ten phases, the next ten will not be much more likely to breach the line. In other words, why not just take a goal and try again. The object of the game is to score points, not tries.
May 14th 2012 @ 9:08pm
sledgeandhammer said | May 14th 2012 @ 9:08pm | Report comment
That’s fine if the penalty is an infringement caused by pressure of the attacking team, however, the truth is that many penalties are incorrectly awarded. A couple of classic examples came from the Reds Crusaders game a couple of weeks ago. One penalty which stood out was Digby being pinged for not releasing when in fact the ball emerged within a second or 2. This was clearly a harsh penalty, against the run of play, and cost the Reds 3 points. You can’t justify that decision based on your logic of rewarding pressure.
May 13th 2012 @ 1:00pm
frisky said | May 13th 2012 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
What really upsets me is the fact that games are decided for scrum infringements. A game should not be decided by the fact that one prop can pull the oppsosing player to the ground or pop him up in the scrum. Sure, give indirect penalties – this will ensure that the better scrummagers are rewrded and the game is sped up.
I persomnally think that the points ratio for try/penalty should be changed.
May 13th 2012 @ 6:08pm
Mark Roth said | May 13th 2012 @ 6:08pm | Report comment
I would prefer cleaning up the problems with the scrum with a healthy dose of the sin bin. Of course, I would also prefer to let the players pack down without being asked and the halfback sin binned for not feeding the ball straight, but that is just me.
While I would favor making all goals (penalty, conversion, drop) equal at two or three points a piece (either one), I am never a fan of altering the scoring system to favor one style of play.
May 14th 2012 @ 9:16pm
sledgeandhammer said | May 14th 2012 @ 9:16pm | Report comment
I agree, as I’ve posted elsewhere the scrum is the only facet of play in which the dominant team is automatically rewarded with 3 points. If scrum logic was applied to the tackle for instance, every time you tackled a guy and knocked him backwards you would be given a kick at goal.
May 13th 2012 @ 1:14pm
Ian Whitchurch said | May 13th 2012 @ 1:14pm | Report comment
Stop complaining about penalties deciding games. Everyone knows William Webb Ellis waited for the referee to blow his whistle and then took his free kick at goal.
May 13th 2012 @ 1:41pm
jeznez said | May 13th 2012 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
Tom, I didn’t hear a lot of complaints about penalties during the Brumbies/Cheetahs game. Brumbies picked up a massive run of penalties late in the match to snatch the lead at the death.
May 13th 2012 @ 2:14pm
Rob9 said | May 13th 2012 @ 2:14pm | Report comment
I agree with the crux of this article. I don’t want to see rugby games decided by penalties. And with ‘super boots’ like Steyn keeping their side of scoreboard ticking over while playing rugby within their defensive half, I’d argue that 3 points for a penalty that is committed 60 meters away from the attacking teams try line isn’t a fair result and not where rugby should be heading.
People suggesting that changing the rules in this area will ‘Leaguise’ rugby need a reality check. Trying to keep the ball in play more often and making the game more entertaining doesn’t mean anyone is suggesting folding rugby union in league. Rugby is trying to become more appealing to the masses by penetrating and growing within more corners of the globe. It’s using the sevens format of the game to bust into new markets and if the 15 a side format is going to catch on in these places it’s going to have to make itself more entertaining otherwise the public in the developing markets won’t be interested.
My solution to this penalty issue doesn’t necessarily involve tinkering with the points system though. I’d keep penalties at 3 but only offer a shot at goal if the infringement occurs inside the defending teams 22. This is a legitimate scoring zone where if the defending team commits a foul they should be penalised accordingly and 3 points is a sufficient penalty. Outside of this area the attacking team will have the option for a quick tap or driving the ball into touch for an attacking lineout from an advanced position on the field. If an infringement occurs at around 60 meters from a team’s try line they should put the ball into touch just outside of the 22. Any infringement within their attacking half and they will have their throw into the lineout within their attacking 22. I’ve heard the arguments before about changing the current system will lead to teams infringing on purpose and more often, but as a player I have never felt too comfortable with the idea of defending from a set piece within my own 22. Good rugby teams will come away from this position with points more often than not. If the defending team is silly enough to infringe again within their 22 then the attacking team has the option to line one up for 3 points. From this position they deserve the option for easy points as they are within cooee of the try line. In my opinion, 60 meters out (or anything outside the 22) isn’t a deserved position on a rugby field to be offered points from. If you’re a goal kicking nut and love to see the tee out on the field, then hopefully you’ll get your fix in the form of kickers lining up for 2 after more tries being scored.
May 13th 2012 @ 2:25pm
Ian Whitchurch said | May 13th 2012 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
Rob9,
Between the sin bin, the yellow card and the red card, referees have all the tools they need to stop dirty play.
May 13th 2012 @ 2:30pm
Rob9 said | May 13th 2012 @ 2:30pm | Report comment
Point being there Ian?
May 13th 2012 @ 6:15pm
Ian Whitchurch said | May 13th 2012 @ 6:15pm | Report comment
Rob9,
You could remove penalty kicks completely.
May 13th 2012 @ 7:27pm
Rob9 said | May 13th 2012 @ 7:27pm | Report comment
An interesting thought. I still think they should be on offer when an infringement occurs between the 22 and the try line. The attacking teams done the hard work to get into their opponents red zone and if the defensive side infringes in that area the attacking team should still have the option to come away with some easy(ier) points. There still needs to be that slap across the back of the hand for a defensive side using illegal tactics in an attempt to shut out a try (one must assume that would be the reason for a penalty in that particular area of the pitch) and there should also be that option for rewarding the attacking team for working their way up the field, trying to do the right thing (by the running rugby bible) but being shut out by their opponents illegal play. Agree that rewarding teams outside that 22 and up to 60 meters away from the try line with an attempt at 3 points is an area of the game that should be looked at.
May 13th 2012 @ 9:34pm
Ian Whitchurch said | May 13th 2012 @ 9:34pm | Report comment
Rob9,
And them playing a man down for 5 minutes, giving you an automatic overlap somewhere, doesnt do that ?
Pick up the ball, run with it, and put it over the try line for your points.
May 14th 2012 @ 11:24am
Rob9 said | May 14th 2012 @ 11:24am | Report comment
14 on 15 is hardly points in the bank though. And taking away goal kicks all together is going to put an increased amount of pressure on the referees as to when to bring out a card and when to leave it in the pocket. As we saw yesterday in the Reds game, referees still struggle with the concept of using cards. Taking away an important step in the penalising chain is going to put more emphasis on referees getting it right.
May 13th 2012 @ 3:21pm
colvin said | May 13th 2012 @ 3:21pm | Report comment
Rob9,
I’ll have one more go then call it a day.
I’m not wanting to leaguise the game but correct what I think needs correcting.
Lyndon Bray in an article about a month ago was very pleased to announce that the average penalty count per SR game had come down from last year from 22 to 21. In my opinion it should come down to around 12 to 15.
In the same article it said the ball is in play an average 34 minutes.
That means that there is a penalty for every minute and a bit that the ball is in play with the current average.of 21.
By reducing the average number of penalties per game to say 12 then there would be a penalty on average every 3 minutes while in paly. That’s plenty, but an added benefit is that it would reduce the number of referees mistakes whcih are resulting in incorrect points.
May 13th 2012 @ 4:06pm
Rob9 said | May 13th 2012 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
That’s all well and good colvin but what does all of what you’ve said have to do with my view and what ive said above? I actually suggest that more ball in play is a good thing for rugby and what the powers that be should be aiming towards.
May 13th 2012 @ 9:26pm
colvin said | May 13th 2012 @ 9:26pm | Report comment
Yes Rob9, i didn’t really get into the point you were making about only taking a shot at goal from within a designated zone.
It’s an interesting theory and at first I liked it but then I came back to the point that I believe some offences are worthy of an opportunity to score 3 points but that under the current laws or interpretation many are so immaterial that they shouldn’t.
So I guess I’m for being more selective on the actual offence itself rather than where the offence took place.
May 14th 2012 @ 11:25am
Rob9 said | May 14th 2012 @ 11:25am | Report comment
So are you suggesting an increased number of infringements coming under the short arm penalty? I agree a lot of what you’ve said here and other posts you’ve made Colvin. Things on a rugby field are complex and hard to control and make judgements of for the referee. In particular (as you’ve mentioned somewhere else) the rulings at scrum time are driving fans and players up the wall. It seriously seems like half the time the referee gets out a coin, flips it and makes a call accordingly. At one point during the game yesterday (Reds v Chiefs) the commentators praised the ref for making quick calls at scrum time and keeping the game flowing. This despite many of the calls he was making being wrong. I’m all for fast flowing rugby but if you’re constantly getting the rough end of the pineapple with collapsed scrum rulings it makes a farce out of the game. I agree, some rules need to be simplified. Especially at the scrum, I’d in fact do away with them altogether. But I don’t think the way to go is having a list of infringements come under kicking for touch and others result in allowing a shot at goal. Especially when there are so many things going on in a rugby field and a lot is left up to the interpretation of the referee. Simplify it, regardless of the type of infringement kick for touch or quick tap when it occurs outside the attacking 22 and inside still provide those options along with a kick at goal.
May 13th 2012 @ 4:56pm
nomis said | May 13th 2012 @ 4:56pm | Report comment
I agree with colvin in essence.
Telling players not to concede penalties won’t solve the problem, because so many penalties are accidental and ify
Something else is needed to reward teams that want to score tries.
It’s not the amount of tries that are scored that needs to improve, it’s the desire from teams to rely more on scoring tries if they want to win.
May 13th 2012 @ 9:14pm
colvin said | May 13th 2012 @ 9:14pm | Report comment
I’m still ranting about referees affecting the results of games by virtue of their personal interpretation of the laws; and their enthusiam to award penalties. And my belief that too often referees make mistakes which can determine the results of games.
Against the Crusaders last week the Reds were pinged 17 times. Against the Chiefs today they were pinged 6 times.They lost last week; they won this week.
Did the Reds change their style of play so much that this week they played like angels or was it that the referees interpreted it all differently.
May 13th 2012 @ 5:03pm
maticj said | May 13th 2012 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
I agree Tom, but the thing that annoys me the most is the 3 point field goals. One team could score a brilliant try, taking the ball 100 metres down field with a clinical interchange of passing and kicking, and the miss the conversion, while the other team could hit back with two field goals, kicked above the heads of all the defenders where they can’t stop the ball, and take a one point lead. It’s a really negative part of Union, for the gameplay and the entertainment of fans.
May 14th 2012 @ 6:57am
Simon Carew said | May 14th 2012 @ 6:57am | Report comment
Make penalty goals worth 2 points. Problem solved.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
May 14th 2012 @ 8:52am
mitzter said | May 14th 2012 @ 8:52am | Report comment
The problem to me isn’t the number of penalties or the point system (for deterrent sake), it’s the fact that the current laws encourage kicking at goal from the halfway line (miss it and kick it dead and you get it back from the 22) – this needs to be changed (by either reducing point for penalties outside the 22 OR giving the scrum from where it was kicked (like a dead punt kick)) as rarely are penalties around the halfway line imminent try scoring oppurtunities which is the point of penalty goals