All Blacks five eighth Dan Carter lines up a kick at the goal during the Rugby Union Bledisloe Cup Australia v New Zealand rugby test match at Eden Park in Auckland, New Zealand, Saturday, August 2, 2008. AAP Image/Photosport, Andrew Cornaga
Related coverage
I hate to bring this up again. Really I do, but anyone who I have spoken to during this past Test series has been disappointed.
Not with the score line or that the Wallabies won, but with the spectacle.
So, here it is: has the game of rugby outgrown its scoring system?
It’s a basic rule these days. Find yourself in the opposition’s half, draw a penalty and there is no hesitation in taking the three points. With kickers these days nailing up to 80 percent of their attempts and with territory at a premium, it’s an attractive option and has been for the past decade.
Don’t get a penalty? There’s always the drop goal.
The question is: How did this come about? Why did the three point option become so attractive? Anyone over the age of 25 remembers the days when running rugby was the standard. So what’s changed?
Well, everything.
Defence has improved markedly. The rules have changed. Attacking plays are no longer conducted at a 45 degree angle. It’s simply harder to score tries. Teams have gone one of two ways – work out how to get around the problem of scoring five pointers, or rely on the boot.
Teams like New Zealand don’t need to rely on kicks. With Dan Carter they have that option, but usually they possess the attacking class to run a few across the stripe as well – just ask Ireland. But for those sides without such reliably damaging backlines, the points on offer from field and penalty goals is simply too good to resist.
Saturday was a classic example. Despite a return to Sydney’s rugby home, on a sunny afternoon in front of a packed house, the first half was dour – an all too familiar ‘divisible by 3′ score line the result. As soon as the Welsh crossed in the second half, however, it opened up. Suddenly the home side were down by four and a try was needed. Cue the best 15 minutes of Test footy from the Wallabies this year.
It was an attacking period that reminded rugby fans of the glory days.
By and large, the game has changed. It will not change back by itself. It needs some help. Change the rules and the sides will work their way around it, but change the incentives, and the rest will take care of itself.
Increasing the worth of a try has been done before, both in 1971 and again in 1992. The IRB then faced the same issue we have now – they wanted to see more tries. The sceptics will say that increasing the value of a try will see sides deliberately give away penalties to avoid conceding. That’s a valid point. But then, why not encourage more use of the yellow card?
I think that rather than increasing the points for a try, the award for a penalty kick should be changed to two points. The same for a field goal. South Africa has gone a step further, and – with the support of the IRB – introduced a new scoring system in their Varsity Cup.
The competition awarded 2 points for a penalty and 3 points for a conversion, effectively meaning a converted try was worth four times as much as a shot at goal.
So, we have a working model and the stats suggest the negative impact is minimal. While penalties were up by 11% on the previous year, tries were up by 25%, and most importantly attempts at penalty goal were down by over 70% – with no increase in yellow cards.
This may well be different if trialled at senior level. But, as rugby loses even more ground on the rival codes, anything that could improve the game as a spectacle is worth a shot.
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:
- Rugby League, Rugby Union, wallabies



June 27th 2012 @ 2:12am
FraggleWrangler said | June 27th 2012 @ 2:12am | Report comment
One simple change would be to ban kicking tees. Why are they allowed in the first place? They’re not allowed at kick off. No sand, no tees, just drop goals. For one thing it would speed up the time taken for a kick.
June 27th 2012 @ 3:43am
the breakdown said | June 27th 2012 @ 3:43am | Report comment
Strange thing to worry about?
We just need to have time off for kicks.
June 27th 2012 @ 4:49am
marky mark said | June 27th 2012 @ 4:49am | Report comment
Time off for kicks and repacking scrums.
June 27th 2012 @ 7:18am
Rough Conduct said | June 27th 2012 @ 7:18am | Report comment
Yes, yes, yes! Leaving the clock run while the referee lectures the front rows and while the kickers have a drink and wait for their kicking tee to come out is simply ROBBING THE SUPPORTERS. Do Rugby administrators realise what an effort some people have to go to attend a game? Take transport, accommodation, tickets, food and drinks into consideration and you can put a significant dollar value on each minute of Rugby viewed.
There is much that can be done to improve the watchability of Rugby without changing a single law, getting rid of all the time-wasting from teams should be the first priority before any laws are changed. So sick of watching players mill about while the ball is dead and time is ticking away.
June 27th 2012 @ 7:05pm
cm said | June 27th 2012 @ 7:05pm | Report comment
Agree.
June 27th 2012 @ 12:24pm
Atawhai Drive said | June 27th 2012 @ 12:24pm | Report comment
So certain Test matches would last from, say, 3pm until about 6pm. Or night Tests from 8 until 11.
A good idea collides with reality, not least the reality of television scheduling.
June 27th 2012 @ 5:55am
FraggleWrangler said | June 27th 2012 @ 5:55am | Report comment
I just feel that if teams only had the option of an attempted drop goal instead of a penalty, they might be less keen to go for the points. Especially when the penalty is at exteme range for a place kick.
June 27th 2012 @ 10:25pm
Fan said | June 27th 2012 @ 10:25pm | Report comment
Nobody is thinking out of the box. Why not making goal kicking harder by narrowing the distance between the uprights of the goal posts or lift the cross bar.
June 28th 2012 @ 5:52am
mania said | June 28th 2012 @ 5:52am | Report comment
fan thats an awesome idea. it wouldnt discourage goal kicking tho. as a kicker it would spur me on to go for more because its a bigger challenge. kickers get off on this kind of stuff.
but still brilliant idea outside of the box.
June 28th 2012 @ 8:47am
Mick said | June 28th 2012 @ 8:47am | Report comment
Yeah, I must admit, I’ve never thought of that – not a bad idea. Although would make it trickier especially here in Aus, where most (all?) our top level rugby stadiums are shared with league, so that would pretty much rule out changing the width, but you could have a moveable crossbar?
June 28th 2012 @ 11:25am
Cattledog said | June 28th 2012 @ 11:25am | Report comment
At a cost of how many 10s of million world wide? Think outside the box by all means, but keep it within the planet at least.
June 27th 2012 @ 7:06am
Pogo said | June 27th 2012 @ 7:06am | Report comment
I see where you are coming from. No place kicks would reduce the % of penalties going over and the range from which they are attempted making the quick tap or a kick for touch more attractive.
People would probably put a lot more effort into practicing the drop goal, which would offset the effect slightly. We might just end up with Frans Steyn banging them over from 60m anyway.
June 27th 2012 @ 9:13am
Mark Roth said | June 27th 2012 @ 9:13am | Report comment
I have long and often said that the problem is the bad acts that lead up to the penalty kick, not the penalty kicks themselves. If teams do not want to concede penalties they need to either not make mistakes or (more rationally) improve the law book to make penalty worthy offenses clearer so that the man in the seats and the man on the pitch know what will and will not be a penalty…and then not make mistakes that lead to a penalty.
That being said, while I would hate to see the point system changed because of a strategic decision that is unpopular in Australia–does anyone else make these complaints–I could easily support taking away the tee. It would probably have the side benefit of saving a little bit of time wasted waiting for the tee and setting it up.
June 27th 2012 @ 10:45am
mania said | June 27th 2012 @ 10:45am | Report comment
then more time would be eaten up digging a mold for the ball to stay upright.
June 27th 2012 @ 9:23pm
sledgeandhammer said | June 27th 2012 @ 9:23pm | Report comment
Unfortunately a number of penalties do not relate to ‘offenses’, they are technical penalties. Rugby players are most often penalised for competing for the ball, a trait which is supposed to be part of the games core values. Hardly cynical play.
June 27th 2012 @ 10:39am
Markus said | June 27th 2012 @ 10:39am | Report comment
This is actually a really good suggestion.
My thought was that rugby ball development has had a substantial impact on the flow of the game as it has resulted in any penalty within 40m of goal being an expected gift 3 points, whereas back with the leather ball even a penalty 30m out would still not have been a sure thing.
Taking away the tee and thus the extended set-up time for kicks would bring a better degree of difficulty back to penalties and conversions, while still leaving it a viable attacking option for freaks like Francois Steyn.
As others have said, it would also probably increase the time ball is in play during a game by up to 10 minutes.
June 27th 2012 @ 10:48am
mania said | June 27th 2012 @ 10:48am | Report comment
your not a kicker are you markus?
taking the tee away would mean they’d have to either have someone holding the ball or the kicker digging a mould to hold the ball up. mould would take longer. the player holding the ball is the quickest option but you cant get as much height into the kick.
kicking is an artform and i’d hate to see it go. i would however like to do what they do in gridiron in that the clock freezes when going for a conversion or extra point.
June 27th 2012 @ 4:29pm
moaman said | June 27th 2012 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
Not to mention damage to the playing surface.
June 27th 2012 @ 7:19pm
Thurl said | June 27th 2012 @ 7:19pm | Report comment
bring back sand
June 27th 2012 @ 9:37pm
Recalcitrant said | June 27th 2012 @ 9:37pm | Report comment
Rugby football is supposed to be a football game as well as a running, passing and try game.
Some of the finest matches ever played were decided by kicks.
1) 1995 World Cup Final, Boks v. Blacks
2) 2003 World Cup Final, Wallabies v. Lillywhites
June 27th 2012 @ 2:17am
biltongbek said | June 27th 2012 @ 2:17am | Report comment
In South Africa a different points system was trialed in the Varsity cup.
Tries were worth 5 points, conversions 3 points and penalties 2 points, it had very little effect on the number of tries scored and overall the reports weren’t all that enthusiastic.
June 27th 2012 @ 7:29am
The Bush said | June 27th 2012 @ 7:29am | Report comment
The article, which actually provided the statistics says otherwise…
June 27th 2012 @ 4:50pm
Spencer said | June 27th 2012 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
Did you read the article?…or you prefer to just jump into the conversation?
June 27th 2012 @ 2:42am
Johnno said | June 27th 2012 @ 2:42am | Report comment
-Some options would be too reduce the interchange bench from 7 soon to be 8 to say 4 or trial 5.
-This means utitlity forwads on the bench like Ben Mcelman, and radike Samo, both players who can Play no 4,5,6,8.
-Or utility backs like Pat Mcabe and curtly Beale and JOC, or Matt Burke or Joe Roff or Jason Little types
Mcelman can even play 7.
-So yes have 4 interchanges it will mean explosive players will be replaced in the teams by endurance style players eg Dave Pocock, nathan hindmarsh , paul gallen types, replacing the big Wycliff Palu or Timani types, or steve Moore beiing picked ahead of TPN player types.
-But less subs means a more tired defence so more tries will open up the match, and test the mentally weak players more.
-Also increase tries to 6 points plus 2 points for conversions.
June 27th 2012 @ 2:47am
abnutta said | June 27th 2012 @ 2:47am | Report comment
“So, we have a working model and the stats suggest the negative impact is minimal. While penalties were up by 11% on the previous year, tries were up by 25%, and most importantly attempts at penalty goal were down by over 70% – with no increase in yellow cards.”
Where did these stats come from? If that’s true then I’m all for it. That makes a converted try worth 4x as much as a penalty goal.
June 27th 2012 @ 3:05am
The Werewolf said | June 27th 2012 @ 3:05am | Report comment
Everyone you’ve spoken too? What circles do you socialise in? I’ve enjoyed the series. I like my test rugby tough and close.
Look kicking penalties isn’t a new thing. We won a world cup in 99 by kicking penalties. Burke kicked 15 of them in the final two matches to win us that world cup.
As for drop goals we should see more of them like we did in that fantasy running rugby period which really wasn’t as good as what we like to make out. Mark Ella the great attacking no 10 was a huge exponent of the drop goal. He kicked 8 of them in just 25 matches. In fact he kicked more drop goals than he scored tries!
The scoring system is fine. We just need to let go of the fantasy that the amateur era was somehow better rugby. it just wasn’t. And we need to embrace all the wonderful aspects of international rugby including the set piece, the breakdown and yes penalties and drop goals being worth 3 points.
June 27th 2012 @ 3:49am
the breakdown said | June 27th 2012 @ 3:49am | Report comment
I agree we just need to ‘embrace all the wonderful aspects of international rugby’. Well said sir!
WW I love reading your comments always backed up with stats and records.
Mark Ella scored more drop goals than scored tries. How do we not all know that?
If we were going to increase anything it should be the conversion not the try. Why is it less than a penalty goal? It should be worth 3 points aswell bringing a converted try to a tempting 8 points with a try alone still just worth the 5.
June 27th 2012 @ 9:15am
Mark Roth said | June 27th 2012 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Well said. Its good to see that I am not alone in not wanting radical change that won’t solve the perceived problems.
June 27th 2012 @ 1:12pm
Hoy said | June 27th 2012 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
We actually scored two tries to win the world cup in the final as well there Wolfy.
June 27th 2012 @ 7:03pm
The Werewolf said | June 27th 2012 @ 7:03pm | Report comment
I know but by the second one that game had been secured by the 21 points kicked by Burke from penalties.
In that tournament we only scored 7 tries in four matches against the top tier sides. Less than 2 per game. Kicking 3 pointers and drop goals to win matches and tournaments is not a new phenomenon as suggested by many fans and media.
June 28th 2012 @ 12:24am
Rob from Brumby Country said | June 28th 2012 @ 12:24am | Report comment
What about something moderate, like reducing the value of penalties kicked from outside the 22?
Let’s be honest, that’s what the problem is. Teams aren’t bothering to give themselves enough of a chance to score a try when given a penalty from 40 metres out.
I understand the argument that 3-point penalties are supposed to act as a deterrent to teams cheating. That’s what a penalty is. Duh.
But do we really think that an enterprising openside who gets carried away trying to pilfer a ball (albeit illegally) from a ruck on the 40m line is as bad an offence as a player deliberately killing the ball in the 22 to avoid conceding a try? Do we really enjoy watching proud teams like the Springboks ignoring the touchline simply because they have Frans Steyn, and they know they can milk and take advantage of penalties from any place in the opposition’s half?
Proponents of the status-quo will argue that referees are the ones to blame for not being more liberal with cards and/or penalty tries for the more serious offences. But an overly pedantic referee is absolutely the last thing that a crowd wants to encourage. Expecting a referee to increase his generally subjective impact on the game is not going to improve it. The changes must come from within the laws themselves, not the men enforcing them.
Supposing you reduced the value of penalties kicked from outside the 22 by a single point, I think you would find that teams would opt to kick down the field more often. In doing so, they would enjoy a better attacking position – from which they might indeed earn another penalty (one worth the full three points) – but ultimately you would see more tries scored.
This solution does not discriminate unduly against freaks like the aforementioned Steyn from sometimes taking the long range shots (which, while occasionally good to watch, should not be prioritised over the scoring of tries). In situations where a team is close behind or not far ahead, two points could put you into the lead, secure a tie, or put you beyond the reach of a converted try. In other words, the long range penalties would become less about an opportunistic easy three points, and more about being a pressure-cooker-game-breaker opportunity.
I know that you and many other Rugby purists are concerned about the nature of the game, Werewolf, but there would be no game of Rugby if a boy named William Webb Ellis had not picked up a ball and ran with it. I think we should be trying to follow his good example.
June 27th 2012 @ 5:52am
mania said | June 27th 2012 @ 5:52am | Report comment
the points system isnt the problem here. its the mentality of the team. i only watched the 2nd half of the aus wales match and it didnt seem to be a case of aus trying to win but more them trying not to lose. changing the points isnt going to suddenly change a teams mentality from forward dominance or kick rugby to open running rugby.
leave the points as is. your cant blame the points structure on a bad team
yellow cards ruin the game. dont increase them. esp in the weekend where ireland got a player sent off for a contentious deliberate knock on call. yellow cards ruin the competitiveness of the match. cards should be rare for foul play or repeated pro fouls. dont increase the frequency.
and the past era’s werent all about running rugby. remember grantFox, hugoPorta, naasBotha, jonnyWilkinson?
running rugby is not the only style that wins. it doesnt suit every team and shouldnt be the only way to play. diversity makes everyone stronger. just enjoy the different styles
June 27th 2012 @ 7:16am
biltongbek said | June 27th 2012 @ 7:16am | Report comment
Mania it may surprise you but with Naas Botha the Boks averaged more than 3 tries per game
June 27th 2012 @ 8:16am
mania said | June 27th 2012 @ 8:16am | Report comment
yeah biltongbek – relatively naas ran a lot more than the the others. he was definately a better all round athelete than grantFox, hugoPorta, and jonnyWilkinson. tho wilko is by far a better tackler. naas tackled like quade
June 27th 2012 @ 4:33pm
biltongbek said | June 27th 2012 @ 4:33pm | Report comment
No mate, Naas never tackled, he directed the forwards with a little shriek, the closest man had to come in to protect him.
June 28th 2012 @ 5:26am
mania said | June 28th 2012 @ 5:26am | Report comment
thats what i meant. ok maybe quades a little better at tackling
June 27th 2012 @ 5:54am
Alex said | June 27th 2012 @ 5:54am | Report comment
International rugby is absolutely less interesting then 10 years ago. When you go to a game the main thing you want to see is tries. I absolutely agree with decreasing the value of penalties to 2. But don’t increase conversions as I hate seeing a team lose on kicks. If you want, increase tries to 6 as well, but not the conversion.
And absolutely use the cards more effectively
June 27th 2012 @ 9:18am
Mark Roth said | June 27th 2012 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Maybe you go to see tries, but I–and I am sure many like me go to see Rugby. And by Rugby, I mean running, tackling, kicking, scrummaging, goals, tries, and rucking–in no particular order, and I may have left some off–in other words, all aspects of the game. If I just wanted to see try after try, I might go to a League match. But in reality at a NRL match I might see more running, there is no guarantee that I will see tries piling up.
June 27th 2012 @ 2:16pm
niik said | June 27th 2012 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
To me that’s a bit like saying the main thing you want to see in cricket is sixes. Sorry but T20 isn’t really my thing.
June 27th 2012 @ 5:08pm
biltongbek said | June 27th 2012 @ 5:08pm | Report comment
Disagree with Alex, there is a lot more to rugby than tries, if you only appreciate tries then 76 minutes of the match doesn’t matter to those who only want to see tries, they will save themselves a lot of time to just simply watch the highlights.
June 27th 2012 @ 6:38am
UlsterDutch said | June 27th 2012 @ 6:38am | Report comment
Well said Mania;long live variety!And sorry Alex but I just cannot agree.Tries are great to see,but more importantly I want to see a hard fought contest.
While we’re at it does anybody else,apart from Johnno,think that we should reduce the number of substitutions?
June 27th 2012 @ 7:01am
mania said | June 27th 2012 @ 7:01am | Report comment
yes UlsterDutch, reduce the subs. even the compulsory subs to counter non contestable scrums is getting out of hand. should allow extra substitutions for injuries tho the coaches would find ways of abusing this.
June 27th 2012 @ 6:57pm
IronAwe said | June 27th 2012 @ 6:57pm | Report comment
Agreed, for me the only reason a try is as exciting as it is, is because of the fight it took to get there.
June 27th 2012 @ 6:57am
paul foley said | June 27th 2012 @ 6:57am | Report comment
Games and defenses are tighter as players are fitter bigger and stronger .. A related issue is the danger o the collisions .. I believe union used to have 17 players until it was reduced .. Maybe it is time to consider shedding a player again or alternatively make the pitch wider so there would be more scope for small thinner and speedy types ..
df
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
June 27th 2012 @ 7:16am
The Werewolf said | June 27th 2012 @ 7:16am | Report comment
When Rugby was first played there was no designated number actually. It just depended on how many players turned up. In the early variations of the game there are accounts of afternoons of just one massive rolling maul.
The point that it is feasible to change the amount of players is technically a correct one. It ain’t gonna happen in this life time though. Not when rugby as it is being played at the moment has never been so popular as it is currently in the home nations.
June 27th 2012 @ 11:19am
Whites said | June 27th 2012 @ 11:19am | Report comment
And originally a try was worth 0 points. It just gave you a free kick at goal.
June 27th 2012 @ 7:09am
Sailosi said | June 27th 2012 @ 7:09am | Report comment
I don’t go to rugby to see tries, I’ve never found a 125kg man falling over a line from 2mtrs out that entertaining. I watch it for the sum of all parts. The same when I watch basketball, watching 60 free throws a game isn’t that exciting but it’s part of the game.
Last week I sat down with my dad and watched all of Samoas games from the 99 world cup and if we go back to that type of rugby then the game has no hope of raising its profile around the world. Samoa beat wales 38-34, I think there was 7 tries and it was a shocking game of football.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.