How to fix the scourge of rugby penalty fests
By Ben Pobjie, 25 Oct 2012 Ben Pobjie is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, entertainment, humour, penalty goals, Rugby Championship, Rugby Union, tries, wallabies
150 Have your say
Referee Craig Joubert (left) shows the yellow card to Rebels' Gareth Delve. AAP Image/Lukas Coch
Related coverage
Ok, look. We’ve all had enough, haven’t we? We who adore rugby union are fed up to the back teeth with games which fail to reach their full potential because of the penalty-goal scourge.
The last Bledisloe clash was a gripping, absorbing contest, full of drama and heroics, but it had no tries at all. Six penalty goals each, 18-18.
That’s not even unusual – penalties are the preferred mode of scoring nowadays, and the rules are not calculated to enrich our lives or bless us with more of what we really love about the game.
So it’s time to fix it. You’re lucky I’m around.
There are two basic problems behind the penalty goal glut: the attacking team and the defending team.
An attacking team will always go for the penalty goal when it’s available. Penalties are worth three points, so you can potentially wipe out the value of a try just by edging into opposition territory and knocking over two kicks.
Most top level teams have a quality goalkicker, so why would they risk a failed raid on the tryline when they could take three points from pretty much anywhere in the opposition half – and sometimes even further?
On the flip-side, defenders are happy enough to give away penalties to avoid conceding a try.
When desperately defending your own line, with massive muscular men charging low and hard at you, it’s a lot easier to give three points away, get yourself a breather, and get back to halfway for a reboot, than trust to your own legal tackling ability to prevent a five or seven pointer.
Penalty goals are too easy to take as a scoring option, and too easy to concede as the lesser of two evils.
So here is my Special All New Excellent Plan for Breaking the Penalty’s Stranglehold, or SANEPFBTPS for short.
1. Reduce the value of all goals to two points.
There would be an argument for cutting it to one, but in the interests of a) baby steps and b) deterrence, let’s keep it to two for now.
There will still be an incentive to take a shot when you get the chance, but you’ll need three goals to overcome a try, and four to overcome a converted try. The penalty goal would become less attractive.
2. All goal attempts must be drop-goals.
Increase the difficulty level a little. If the kicker isn’t as confident of knocking it over, teams will be more reluctant to take shots at goal from penalties.
3. Here’s the big one. Penalty goals should only be kickable within the opposition 22.
This has two effects. Firstly, it means that teams can’t engage in the cop out of going for long range shots instead of pushing closer to the line for a try. This reduces the probability of the game deteriorating into a shootout between sniping goal-kickers.
Secondly, it takes a leaf out of football’s book by making it clear that the worst offence is that which is cynically committed to shut down a try-scoring opportunity. And on that note…
4. Change the rules for restarts following penalty goal attempts by specifying that after each shot at goal, whether the kick is successful or not, the defending team must restart play with a dropout from the goal-line.
This takes away one of the incentives to infringe within your own 22: the thought of respite by taking the ball back to halfway.
This way, giving away a professional foul may result in both the concession of points, AND the prospect of the opposition immediately storming back at your line.
This is a harsh punishment, but it’s designed to stamp out the scourge of deliberate infringement, which stymies attacking play. And to back that up…
5. Mandatory sentencing.
If a player gives away two consecutive penalties within his own 22, he gets a yellow card.
If a team gives away three consecutive penalties within its own 22, the captain gets a yellow card. No exceptions.
If it keeps happening, keep yellowing. When a team is forced to defend with ten men, maybe players will get the message. We want to see attack versus defence, not attack versus ball-killing.
So there you have it. My plan reduces the incentive for teams to “roll over halfway and play for a penalty”, and increases the incentive to stay within the rules when defending your own line.
Penalty goals will no longer be the dominant scoring method in rugby. Teams will attempt to score more tries, and they’ll be more reluctant to illegally prevent tries. Peace and joy will reign. Hooray!
Or, as a certain ex-Wallaby suggested after hearing my plan, we could just increase the value of tries to ten points.
What would you do?
Ben Pobjie is a writer and comedian writing weekly on The Age, New Matilda and The Roar, whose promising rugby career was tragically cut short the day he stopped playing rugby and had a pizza instead. The most he has ever cried was the day Balmain lost the 1989 grand final. Today he enjoys the frolics of Wallabies, Swans, baggy greens, and Storms. Ben is also the author of the books Surveying the Wreckage, Superchef, and his latest, The Book of Bloke, available from Momentum Books.
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
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:
- All Blacks, entertainment, humour, penalty goals, Rugby Championship, Rugby Union, tries, wallabies



October 25th 2012 @ 2:41am
biltongbek said | October 25th 2012 @ 2:41am | Report comment
1. Been tested in the Varsity Cup in SA and made little diffrence.
2. Cool, Dan Carter isn’t the greatest exponent of the Dropgoal. Not cool, because Morne Steyn will be back in the Bok jersey.
3. Not fair, what must Frans Steyn do then?
4. Disagree with that, where is the benefit of being able to chase the restart and put the opposition uder pressure?
5. Diagree, you want referees who struggle to consistently officiate breakdowns to have 13 men…….ah, I get it. No.
October 25th 2012 @ 5:32am
mania1 said | October 25th 2012 @ 5:32am | Report comment
agree fully biltongbek
October 25th 2012 @ 9:28am
sheek said | October 25th 2012 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Ben,
Sometimes I don’t know when you’re being serious or taking the ‘mickey.’
Anyway, two words – “unintended consequences.”
Always keep these two words in mind when considering laws/rules changes. Dastardly human nature has a way of using law/rule changes in a way not intended by the legislators.
Case in point – 1992. The ’5 point” try & “use it or lose it” maul law was intended to create more attacking rugby.
Initially this happened, until coaches & players wised up. Then the ‘professional foul’ became rampant. Conceding a 3 point penalty was better than a 5 or 7 point try when under the pump defensively.
And with ‘use it or lose it’ teams began to commit only 3-5 forwards with the remainder clogging the backline. Consequence was more kicking, not less.
Beware “unintended consequences.”
October 25th 2012 @ 7:17pm
Charging Rhino said | October 25th 2012 @ 7:17pm | Report comment
Agree with you Biltongbek.
Mr David Lord these have to be the worst ideas ever thought up! How ever said “Peace and Joy will reign” if teams score more tries? This past Test match between NZ – Aus was an absolute cracker with no tries.
People quickly forget that a drop goal or penalty and a try used to be worth the same amount of points – 3
Then it was changed to – 4 points for a try
And only in the early 90′s it changed again to – 5
And rugby has not changed much! Rugby is rugby. Stop trying to make it some loopy running around fest for the sake of running around because you think it may attract for fans in Australia only as it will bear more of a similarity to League or Aussie Rules.
Leave the scrums. Leave the lineouts. Leave the tactical kicking. Yes score lots of tries too. Leave the drop goals and penalties and 3 points.
My only gripe is some of the scrum penalties which are given away so easily by some refs which are almost “unfair” to the other team. Quicken up the scrums again like the early 90′s, while maintaing the safety issues, and you’d have less penalties resulting from them and fewer 3 easy points.
Anyway my 2 cents worth. Rugby is extremely strong and popular in other parts of the world just the way it is.
October 25th 2012 @ 7:22pm
Charging Rhino said | October 25th 2012 @ 7:22pm | Report comment
Sorry David Lord…. Ben Pobjie is the writer
October 25th 2012 @ 9:24pm
AdamS said | October 25th 2012 @ 9:24pm | Report comment
Don’t be sorry, it’s an apt expression and you can take credit for coining it.
Can I use it?
October 25th 2012 @ 9:50pm
MAJB said | October 25th 2012 @ 9:50pm | Report comment
If reducing the value of a penalty to two doesn’t change the teams approach to attacking Rugby then that says more about the entrenched style of Rugby being played and the skill sets not being taught and the negative attitude to running Rugby. I would like to see the reduced value of penalties trialled in Aus and NZ to see whether this can change scoring patterns. I hope it would because negative Rugby will destroy this wonderful game.
October 25th 2012 @ 10:17pm
biltongbek said | October 25th 2012 @ 10:17pm | Report comment
Sorry but you are now making assumptions about the perception that Sa teams don’t play running rugby.
In 2011 The varisty cup had 6 tries per match, Although in 2012 the try count went up to 7.5 tries per match and would seem to have made a difference, TUT conceded 60 tries in their seven matches compared to 36 the previous season.
So the difference was only down to TUT being very poor this year.
The general consensus was that making the penalty kick count only 2 points and conversion counting 3 points to add value to the try only encouraged teams to concede more penalties.
Ultimately the scoring didn’t change much, the results were similar and the teams still played attacking rugby.
October 26th 2012 @ 8:01am
MAJB said | October 26th 2012 @ 8:01am | Report comment
B
“The general consensus was that making the penalty kick count only 2 points and conversion counting 3 points to add value to the try only encouraged teams to concede more penalties.” This is the negative playing style I am talking about. Conceding more penalties because a penalty has less value! That is an interesting mindset.
October 25th 2012 @ 10:39pm
biltongbek said | October 25th 2012 @ 10:39pm | Report comment
Just to provide some perspective about SA rugby.
Our Varsity cup provided 7.5 tries per match
Our Currie Cup 1st Division provided 8.5 tries per match
Our Currie Cup premier division provided 5.5 tries per match.
NZ, ITM cup, provided 5.8 tries per match.
Doesn’t suggest to me that we don’t play running rugby.
YOu are confusing the PDV and John Smit era with what is really our capabilities.
Just as an aside we scored the second most tries this Rugby Championship.
October 25th 2012 @ 2:58am
Bee Bee said | October 25th 2012 @ 2:58am | Report comment
Agree with 2 points for penalties. Great idea.
Too many phases. Serious issue as well. Should be limited to six.
Scrums, total waste of time. Just roll it near the lock and get on with it.
Far too many players on the field. 13 is enough.
Wallabies are too small and wussy. Call them Kangaroos.
Hang on a minute….. Didn’t we do this 100 years ago.
October 25th 2012 @ 3:43am
Johnno said | October 25th 2012 @ 3:43am | Report comment
Bee Bee keep phases in otherwise players will just hang out in backline. Killing more play as it will be predicable and easy for teams to organise defensive patterns, rather than fast and unpredictable it will make the game slower phase limit.. 5 second rule fixes up wasting time at rucks and maul. .
October 25th 2012 @ 4:22am
Bee Bee said | October 25th 2012 @ 4:22am | Report comment
Tongue in cheek comment Johnno. I was actually pointing out that tinkering with rules too much can turn the game into a different game entirely. For example (Rugby League.)
Here are 2 much simpler solutions that won’t involve reprinting rule books.
1. Play by the rules and don’t give away penalties. Game is much more fun and your opponents can’t kick 3 points.
2. Get rid of the Jouberts of this world who clearly think they are the stars of the show and everyone payed to hear them blow their whistle.
October 25th 2012 @ 6:24am
Shop said | October 25th 2012 @ 6:24am | Report comment
If you don’t want so many shots at goal, take away kicking tees.
Mandatory dig a hole in the ground and thump. This still allows for the art of goal kicking but will stop marginal 60m penalties turning into points. We may even see a return to the toebash!
The thing is though, it isn’t just shots at goal that are the problem, it is the endless stoppages for infringements. When the ref becomes too pedantic (like Joubert was) the game loses all flow and the penalties mainly come from the ruck area. A split second can mean the difference between a good steal or giving away 3 points. Plus it also relies on the subjectivity of the ref. The answer is bring back rucking and allow the players to sort the ruck area out.
Quite simple but unfortunately won’t be adopted.
October 25th 2012 @ 9:10am
Mike said | October 25th 2012 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Great idea re taking the kicking tees away.
October 25th 2012 @ 9:46am
Bakkies said | October 25th 2012 @ 9:46am | Report comment
That means little the Don Clarkes of the world were drilling kicks from all over when they used a leather ball. Even Campo took long range kicks at goal.
October 25th 2012 @ 9:10am
soapit said | October 25th 2012 @ 9:10am | Report comment
your number 2 reduces the incentive to do number 1
October 25th 2012 @ 11:28am
jeznez said | October 25th 2012 @ 11:28am | Report comment
Bee Bee, I thought when Ben said -
“the rules are not calculated to enrich our lives or bless us with more of what we really love about the game.”
That he was talking about not enough scrums.
I think it is criminal that we don’t have intelligent and knowledgeable commentators regarding scrummaging taking us through the game. In the game the other night we had the ridiculous circumstance that Benn Robinson was penalised for a collapse but the camera man focussed on James Slipper as he walked back and the people running the telecast gave us a replay of his side of the scrum.
The Roar commentary following this was that Robinson was strong while Slipper was weak! (To be fair Slipper did get done over a few other times but I know there are plenty of uninitiated out there thinking Slipper was done in that particular scrum.
Anyway, scrums are not a complete waste of time – for front rowers they are the key point of the game. Without them you might as well go play that other game.
Oh, wait, I see your comment to Johnno that you were being tongue in cheek rather than trolling – carry on!
PS. Mr Pobjie – I think I can abbreviate and fix your article – “The last Bledisloe clash was a gripping, absorbing contest, full of drama and heroics.”
October 25th 2012 @ 11:51pm
Banger said | October 25th 2012 @ 11:51pm | Report comment
I think there would be a massive improvement in the consistency of scrums if they just implemented the rules properly at the time. Two of the biggest issues for me are the half back not feeding the ball straight, and the fact that all teams are pushing prior to the feed. I shake my head in disbelief every time a team is penalised for not taking the hit before a ball is fed, when the laws stipulate that there can be no pushing until the ball has been fed. Additionally throw in a decent set of jerseys so the players can actually blind
October 26th 2012 @ 2:08pm
jeznez said | October 26th 2012 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
Bangarang, spot on – the feed and early pushing are both ridiculous and are up there with refs letting players who make contact at the breakdown being allowed to flop. Jerseys are a furphy though, the tops are fine.
October 25th 2012 @ 12:23pm
yahyah said | October 25th 2012 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
why are you watching Union for? League is your calling BB .. where people who cant appreciate a great sport go.
October 26th 2012 @ 1:48am
Bee Bee said | October 26th 2012 @ 1:48am | Report comment
No No!! Yahyah you are so wrong wrong.
Please re read my comments
Your loving friend.
Bee Bee.
October 26th 2012 @ 5:52am
yahyah said | October 26th 2012 @ 5:52am | Report comment
Realised that when I finally decided to read the rest of the thread.
I take that back in that case. Apologies mate.
October 25th 2012 @ 3:02am
Johnno said | October 25th 2012 @ 3:02am | Report comment
2 Great articles in the last few days I have read on this subject. And I agree rugby is killing itself with stoppages. Love to know what the average ball in play is in last year eg at RWC 2011, or all global test matches in 2012 is.
Here is some articles on subject stoppages, time wasting etc.
http://www.news.com.au/sport/rugby-gold/minutes-50-stoppages-12-penalty-goals-15-shots-at-goal-and-0-tries-is-rugby-boring-itself-to-death/story-fndpt9s1-1226500507959
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/rugby-gold/time-wasting-penalties-should-be-taken-out-of-rugby/story-fn8ti7yn-1226502715973
-And also another compelling statistic for what it is worth. Not once this year in 3 matches have we scored a try vs AB’S fortress defence. 4 hours of rugby and if you add on the world cup semi final we scored no tries either, .
So in the last 320 minutes of rugby vs the AB’S, that is 5 hours and 20 minutes no tries were scored by the wallabies. “Ouch “, that is an unpleasant stat.
-Yes rugby rewards all body shapes and rewards good defence is the balance fine, or is it jus threat AB defence, woeful wallaby attack, or just aimless penalties , and pedantic rule enforcement harming try chances. A bit of both.
Or maybe pedantic refereeing is too blame. Maybe. 5 second rule should help. Another article suggested a phase rule kinda like tackle count in rugby league. Say on 4th phase you have to kick it or handover possession i think that is silly.
One thing I fear with new 5 second rule is player fatigue which will lead to even more stoppages, and more penalties as fatigue increases. And heaps of players will just hang in backline and no rucks and mauls forms to conserve energy.
You don’t want rugby to be like the super league in 1997 when the overgenerous or exact 10 metres was being enforced by refs rugby league was becoming like touch footy with scores like 50-44 each match
Bringing back rucking could help at the rucks as the fear factor will prevent collapsing mauls. And laying on ground. But marketing wise will be terrible for safety image as with prying cameras not the world too potential soccer mum types whose kids maybe interested in rugby, could turn these type of parents away form rugby, aka shoulder charge in rugby league and banning of that.
Penalties keep at 3 to reduce foul play, as 2 will encourage more big hits and taking out late hits of the star 5/8 eg Dan Carter. And 2 points only will only encourage tired teams to kill ball and sacrifice a try. 2 point penalty count would be disastrous for rugby, and i used to favour it but now firmly believe in 3 for reasons above.
What I would do is encourage tries to be made to 6 points, and 2 points conversion makes 8 points to be gain from try not 7 as current.
Also get tougher on professional fouls. Any professional foul committed in your on 22m zone, is a yellow card to offender. That would really get players behaving . As players know the rules and they are just as much to blame as pedantic referees in all the penalties.
Fatigue is to blame for penalties too, but so is lack of punishment eg yellow cards not given enough .
-So yes rule ideas I think the IRB should try
-6 point tries
-Yellow card to any professional fouls committed in your own 22m zone
-Also penally on 2nd scrum collapse every time no 3rd re-set of scrum
There is no simple solution to the problem of stoppages in rugby union, but something has to change as the sport of rugby union can not go on like this in it’s current stoppages format No sport is perfect and so many sports have the same problem with stoppages.
I have no idea how so many fans in USA can tolerate the sport of gridiron. Wowee so many stoppages.
I love basketball but it has too many time outs, and needs to cut them down. Also so many fouls in basketball since checking was banned and endless fouls and players to frees throw line , so boring this type of stoppage for basketball.
Soccer is not bad but has a lot of time wasting and faking injuries, and arguing . Watch the soccer’s VS Croatia match in world cup 2006 for a game littered with stoppages.
Rugby league wastes time with wrestling, uncontested scrums meaning scrums don’t add to contest just give players a breather.
To me Ice Hockey and FIeld Hockey are the 2 best flowing games overall. International Ice hockey has very few time outs think 1 per game per team ,so in match minimum of 2. In NHL 3 TV time outs per game.
-I know time outs stop the clock but they are still annoying int he sports that have them excessively like basketball,. I like international ice hockey rules of just 1 each per team, 2 total in whole match only.
T20 cricket flows quite well, in pace. Test cricket annoying stoppages with drinks waiters, coming on all the time, giving gloves and pads is annoying, plus slow over rates by fast bowlers is annoying too.
So all major team sports in World have stoppages, and time wasting (just look at some old soccer matches int he 1980′s and early 90′s when it used to be legal to kick the ball back to your goal keeper who would be allowed to pick it up with is hands, bounce the ball around like a basketball for a while then kick it back to his teammate to only repeat the same offence).
So all major team sports have time wasting, and excessive stoppages it seems to be a universal problem of team sport. Boxing and Tae Kwando also have the same problem,. So much wrestling in boxing or holding , and in Olympic games Tae KWON DO, and also fighters running around ring too as a time waster. Baseball with it’s endless strike 1,2,3. And 9 innings each per team too.
AFL is pretty good with the ball in play, and now if you take a mark you have to get kicking or running pretty quickly , unlike in the olden days in the 1980′s.
But rugby union to me is right up there stoppages being a momentum killer to match. And it has to change if it is to go forwad rugby otherwise it will lose more fans.
October 25th 2012 @ 6:09am
Shop said | October 25th 2012 @ 6:09am | Report comment
Didn’t Nathan Sharpe score a try in the first Bledisloe this year?
October 25th 2012 @ 8:03am
Shungmao said | October 25th 2012 @ 8:03am | Report comment
Sharpe scored in the first test in the 38th minute.
October 25th 2012 @ 7:39am
Ben said | October 25th 2012 @ 7:39am | Report comment
The stoppages are not the problem in grid iron because the clock stops. They Need to introduce this in rugby. Soon as the whilstle blows the clock stops. Simple.
October 25th 2012 @ 8:44am
Post said | October 25th 2012 @ 8:44am | Report comment
They’re not a problem for the amount of time spent playing, but they ARE a problem in that it creates a 3 hour game to watch on TV. That is just too long and why I don’t watch NFL anymore despite living in the USA.
October 25th 2012 @ 8:48am
mania said | October 25th 2012 @ 8:48am | Report comment
post – i play gridiron and i agree. i cant be bothered watching an nfl game and will only ever watch superbowl but i tape it so i can ff thru the ads.
ben – i agree, they should at least freeze the clock for kicks at goal. its not fair that the clock keeps ticking while 29 guys are standing around watching one guy line it up.
October 25th 2012 @ 9:26am
soapit said | October 25th 2012 @ 9:26am | Report comment
it wouldnt take the game to three hours tho. there wont be timeouts.
October 25th 2012 @ 12:27pm
yahyah said | October 25th 2012 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
NFL goes on for three hours because there’s stoppages after every play. won’t be the same for stopping the time just for the kicks at goal.
October 25th 2012 @ 1:51pm
post said | October 25th 2012 @ 1:51pm | Report comment
Yahyah, the clock keeps ticking during those stoppages. It only stops for special circumstances like penalties, time outs, going out of bounds, incomplete passes, and challenging the call. If I watch a game of football with friends, I need to set aside the whole afternoon, not just a couple hours.
October 25th 2012 @ 10:57am
Steven Metzger said | October 25th 2012 @ 10:57am | Report comment
The NHL has 3 television timeouts per PERIOD, for a total of up to 9 (sometimes the TV timeouts get scrapped if there isn’t a stoppage for 10 minutes or so). A quick game takes 2 hours and 20 minutes to complete, at minimum, and most of that downtime is spent because it takes at least 15 minutes to resurface the ice (twice a game). While the clock is going, though, it’s non-stop action.
October 25th 2012 @ 3:03pm
chachi said | October 25th 2012 @ 3:03pm | Report comment
I agree with 6 point tries, but would reduce the conversion to 1 point. In my opinion, conversions represent too great a proportion of the possible 7 point bucket, and effectively create inequity between tries – a try under the posts is statistically more valuable than a try in the corner. To some extent, that’s unavoidable, but limiting conversions to 1 point minimises the influence of where the try was scored whilst still providing teams with a good kicker the ability to put some icing on the cake.
I’d leave penalties at 3 points. Reducing them to 2 points makes it a no brainer for defending teams to infringe father than risk a try – they’d take 2 points over 5 (or 6) or 7 every time. Three points is enough of a disincentive, especially if the ref is prepared to hand out yellow cards for repeated infringements within the 22. Conversely, you want to provide genuine incentives for attacking teams to go for the try rather than taking the shot at goal. That’s where the 6 point try gives them extra incentive to be positive – 3 points vs 5 points doesn’t really encourage that positive approach. However, an opportunity to score double points (at minimum) by going for the try probably decreases that incentive imbalance.
So 6 point tries, 1 point conversions, 3 point penalties and rigorous policing of the breakdown in the 22. Converted tries are still worth 7 so the basic scoring paradigm remains the same, but assigning a higher value to the tries themselves provides the required incentive, and reduces the (in my view) unacceptable prevailing situation where black dot tries are worth much more than tries in the corner.
October 25th 2012 @ 3:20am
Johnno said | October 25th 2012 @ 3:20am | Report comment
A good article indeed. To be honest after thinking about this is not just a rugby union problem, but a problem universal problem for all major sports in world team sport and individual.
You name it , you think about it k the following sports
Rugby union-yes we have covered it in this article
Rugby league- plenty, wrestling, uncontested scrums just an excuse for breather now, not a critical phase in match
Basketball- Endless time outs too many allowed, and endless fouls going to free throw line zzzzz. Boring these 2 parts of basketball and i love basketball the stoppages annoy me big time
American football- After every play a stoppage
Test cricket-slow over rates by fast bowlers, and endless drinks break at end of over and brining out fresh pair of gloves or bats, or shoes.
AFL and ice hockey are pretty good. International ice hockey rules only allow 1 time out each per team over whole match which is only 2 in total for whole 4 quarters and match. NHL 3 tv time outs per game. T20 cricket flows well too.
AFL has flowed so mich better and faster since the umpires made the players after a mark kick or run with the ball within 5 seconds i think.
Baseball has endless strike 1,2,3. And also Ball as well which is play when ball is not thrown straight or batter hits out of lines. ANd 9 innings changes.
Boxing has endless stoppages eg holding or wrestling, lying on the ropes too, running around ring to. Plus 1 minute rest between rounds. taekwondo is bad to a lot of stoppages , or waiting ot make play watch Olympic taekwondo and you will see why.
So does soccer as well big time. Faking injuries, arguing with referees, . Watch the socceroos vs Croatia match in 2006 world cup as evidence of a match filled with time wasting and stoppages.
SO all sports team, and individual this a problem. Stoppages,time wasting, pedantic umpires and refs, also video refs making designs is a another big time waster stoppage. All sports do. But rugby union needs to fix it up too, as it has the problem very bad but so do many other major popular sports in the world .
With rugby union rules change i would do if I was the running the IRB
-6 point tries
-keep penalty too 3 points , otherwise even more penalties will happen, and star players taken out in cheap shots.
Yellow card more for professional fouls
-Yellow card automatic if professional foul is committed in your own 22m zone.
-And penalty on 2nd scrum collapse overtime, no more 3rd scrum being put down. ANd 2nd scrum collapse in own 10metres is a penalty try.
Some ideas but good news is if you are a rugby union fan, all sports are guilty of the same problem of time wasting, stoppages, pedantic refs. But also with pedantic refs, players also if more yellow cards were committed would not break rules as much.
October 25th 2012 @ 3:55am
Pot Hale said | October 25th 2012 @ 3:55am | Report comment
I think this penalty fest is really only a problem for the Southern Hemisphere sides of late.
If they played a bit more running rugby, instead of sticking it up their jumper and falling down in rucks, you wouldn’t need to make any changes to penalty goals.
Argentina didn’t have any problem scoring tries against NZ or Aus in the 4N.
October 25th 2012 @ 10:33am
Pogo said | October 25th 2012 @ 10:33am | Report comment
Bring on November Pot Hale, I hope your northern hemisphere sides are as keen on running the ball as you say they are.
October 25th 2012 @ 11:04am
Mike said | October 25th 2012 @ 11:04am | Report comment
I suspect PH was making tongue-in-cheek reference to all the mud thrown at NH sides in recent years for their supposedly stodgy play.
Irish stirrers – they should be transported for 7 years. Oh wait, we already tried that…!
October 25th 2012 @ 1:58pm
Pogo said | October 25th 2012 @ 1:58pm | Report comment
It’d probably improve the wallaby pack if the brought back transportation.
October 25th 2012 @ 6:52am
Andrew C (waikato) said | October 25th 2012 @ 6:52am | Report comment
Ok, a lot of teams bring penalties on themselves. However in International rugby, in my opinion, it is PEDANTIC Refereeing and referees that blow their whilstle IMMEDIATELY instead of playing advantage. Joubert, Barnes and Bryce Lawrence are classic examples of this. Even Steve Walsh has had some bad games in the past 12 months (and I used to really rate him) The IRB need to issue a strong edict to Paddy O’Brien that he needs to select /promote referees (on an international stage) that let the game FLOW.
October 25th 2012 @ 7:10am
biltongbek said | October 25th 2012 @ 7:10am | Report comment
Well to be fair to Bryce Lawrence, there were games where he refused to blow his whistle, except of course for de Villiers’ forward pass.
October 25th 2012 @ 7:31am
mania said | October 25th 2012 @ 7:31am | Report comment
and paddy obrien isnt in charge of the refs anymore
October 25th 2012 @ 12:20pm
Andrew C (waikato) said | October 25th 2012 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
So now, who’s in charge then _ a Pom or an Orstralian?
– bet they both love the clour of money.
October 25th 2012 @ 12:28pm
Mike said | October 25th 2012 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
I thought you knew Andrew, an Australian can be a Pom or an Irishman, plus a sentence of 7 years.
October 25th 2012 @ 5:53pm
Andrew C (waikato) said | October 25th 2012 @ 5:53pm | Report comment
Hah, like it, Mike …………… just for you (not incl others
) 3yo Proisir to win Saturday’s Cox Plate (OZ bred by it has its roots in NZ – old NZ Sunbride family. Fill ya boots as well as the Poms & the Oirish
October 25th 2012 @ 11:39am
Uncle Argyle said | October 25th 2012 @ 11:39am | Report comment
You nearly had to get a photo of Gilllard didn’t you old mate?
October 25th 2012 @ 7:29am
Allanthus said | October 25th 2012 @ 7:29am | Report comment
Devaluing penalties to 2 points is a tired old chestnut that gets a run every time there is a kick dominated test match. It seems logical on the surface but in reality is illogical and would make things worse.
It isn’t about the value of the penalty per se but the balance between the value of tries and kicks. Shift this too far and teams will simply give away more penalties than what they are doing now, because it doesn’t hurt them as much. And then we’ll have even more kicks at goal.
It would actually make more sense to increase the value of the penalty (not that I’m advocating this, just illustrating the point), defending teams would be careful not to infringe because it would hurt them a lot more. Imagine if a penalty was 10 points – how hard do you think players would be trying not to infringe then?
Case in point – the last few minutes of the Brisbane test, the Wallabies in possession and hot on attack… the AB’s never looked for a second like infringing, yet they had given many breakdown penalties away during the rest of the match. The reason? Because now the stakes were so much higher. Any penalty now was worth so much more than one during the match, and it would have lost them the game. So they kept onside. Even Richie.
Same logic applies in soccer, a penalty in the red zone is likely to cost a goal, a massive cost in a low scoring game, so defences try to keep clean and attacking play is better rewarded.
October 25th 2012 @ 8:47am
Gussy Boi said | October 25th 2012 @ 8:47am | Report comment
100% agree. I’ve tried to advocate this theory to people for a few years, it’s a tough sell but makes complete sense to increase the value of the penalties!!! You can blames the referee’s but the players’ attitudes need to change, both in attack and defence. Players’ bonuses and/or match payments relate to amount of tries scored??!?!
October 25th 2012 @ 9:34am
Steven Metzger said | October 25th 2012 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Wow, I hadn’t really thought of it this way. It’s an incredibly tough sell, but wasn’t it only 40 years ago that tries became worth more than goals? Then again, it was 140 years ago that tries basically only awarded a shot at goal…this is definitely something to think about.
October 25th 2012 @ 11:21am
Elisha Pearce said | October 25th 2012 @ 11:21am | Report comment
The All Blacks also didn’t ever look like infringing because the Wallabies slowed down to a walk. I’m fairly sure at walk-through training pace most international sides won’t give away a penalty. Playing with speed and stressing the opposition is what earns penalties.
The refereeing could be adjusted rather than adjusting the rule of penalties. Play better advantage and allow a bit of players rucking to a degree. Also the ruck laws need to be enforced in the spirit in which they were written not the safe, lazy way modern rugby interprets them. Referees need to tell all players before the match that: 1. BOTH sides must stay on their feet. 2. The player must play the ball quickly and the defenders must release until he does (this has been emphasised previously but only lasted about 4 weeks. Which it lasted it worked well.)
What I most agree with is the penalty on the team should be longer lasting than a shot at goal. 3 penalties of any type inside the 22 by anyone in the team, accumulated over the entire match, results in a yellow. That would be worth looking at.
When advantage is being played and the other team cynically infringes again (and this seems to happen a lot) that should count as two penalties against them.
Be strict on the ruck penalty count. The ref on the field should have a man in his ear that lets him know its the third one and time to bin someone. Don’t make it a decision the ref has to make, put it in concrete so he is supported in that action.
October 25th 2012 @ 7:43am
Rough Conduct said | October 25th 2012 @ 7:43am | Report comment
Time-wasting is a greater scourge than penalties, I think we should fix this first, it can be done without changing any laws. I have no real problem with the kicking of penalties per se, it is the kicker milling about, grabbing a drink and taking an eternity to kick the ball – this is the frustrating part. I though JM Hernandez was very good this year, he simply placed the ball, couple of steps back and knocked it over – no fuss, no ridiculous routines, just kick the ball!
October 25th 2012 @ 7:57am
Al said | October 25th 2012 @ 7:57am | Report comment
I think one way to change the focus on kicking penalty is the make them harder. The current rugby ball is too easy to kick. Similar to Ben’s second point if the team is sure they are going to convert they are less likely to go for the points.
If the ball was made of leather, or a slightly different shape it would not travel as far or as straight, It may also stop some of the mindless kicking we see
October 25th 2012 @ 9:08am
Dasher said | October 25th 2012 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Ha I’ve said that before. Make the balls heavier and they’d be less inclined to kick the thing!
October 25th 2012 @ 10:35am
Pogo said | October 25th 2012 @ 10:35am | Report comment
Make them asymetrically weighted, it’ll go all over the place. Or bring back the adidas lemon, that seemed to approach the desired effect.
October 25th 2012 @ 8:21am
Brett McKay said | October 25th 2012 @ 8:21am | Report comment
I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times…
The points system is fine. Refs need to be encouraged to give out more yellow cards in defending 40m (not just in the 22), and we’ll eradicate cynical penalties within a season…
October 25th 2012 @ 8:39am
Mark Roth said | October 25th 2012 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Cleaning out people who just want to turn the game into international rugby league might help too.
Imagine the backlash if someone wrote an article saying that League teams scoring tries on less than one-fourth their trips inside the opposing twenty should just kick field goals on fifth tackle and to encourage that, League should consider bringing back two point field goals.
October 25th 2012 @ 9:38am
Steven Metzger said | October 25th 2012 @ 9:38am | Report comment
It’s unfortunate because League could absorb more of what gridiron has to offer, and would be a more intriguing sport. First downs, fewer up-and-unders, and a point system that is properly balanced, and League might be watchable.
October 25th 2012 @ 8:53am
Post said | October 25th 2012 @ 8:53am | Report comment
You’re right on the money Brett. At one time I believed the reduction to 2 points was the answer, but have changed my mind and agree that an increase in yellow cards will sort it all out.
As a teacher I quickly found out that warnings, yelling, etc only caused a momentary silence in a rowdy classroom, but sending a kid out of class with a 0 for the day and a possible suspension resulted in the entire class shaping up. It’s the same thing in rugby, the threat of an imminent yellow will make you second guess whether or not it’s worth it to try and get away with an infringement.
October 25th 2012 @ 8:54am
Riccardo said | October 25th 2012 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Couldn’t agree more Brett.
Not only that but the balance between the convoluted Laws and Referees’ interpretaton and dispensation are out of kilter.
They need a more common approach, particularly at the breakdown and policing of offside.
Hopefully the new laws’ amendments for the upcoming tours will go some way to improving the flow of the game but more attention is required IMO.
October 25th 2012 @ 9:27am
David of Canberra said | October 25th 2012 @ 9:27am | Report comment
so refs are going to have to yellow card St Richie of the Blessed Turnover more often then – and not be afraid!
October 25th 2012 @ 9:30am
soapit said | October 25th 2012 @ 9:30am | Report comment
probably sound like a broken record brett but i believe refs are loathe to hand them out for fear of deciding the game on one subjective decision.
the solution is to reduce them to 5 minutes in the bin and refs wont fear them as much.
October 25th 2012 @ 9:35am
Brett McKay said | October 25th 2012 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Soapit, the possibility of a match being decided on one subjective decision exists now anyway…
October 25th 2012 @ 12:54pm
soapit said | October 25th 2012 @ 12:54pm | Report comment
disagree (excluding the cards). it may seem that way when a penalty is awarded in the 80th minute but in reality that one decision is rarely the entire reason one team loses. the decisions made in the 79 minutes up until then contributes its proportionately.
whereas with a card as its a larger punishment than any other and generally we only get one per match there is a feeling (also in league) that binning a player with two evenly matched teams makes it very hard for that players team to win deciding the outcome with one call.
October 25th 2012 @ 12:57pm
Brett McKay said | October 25th 2012 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Soapit, you’ve just highlighted perfectly why the ‘more yellows’ method would work…
October 25th 2012 @ 1:08pm
soapit said | October 25th 2012 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
oh yeah dont get me wrong, i’m on the more yellows bandwagon. just thinking of ways to make refs more comfortably throwing them round.
October 25th 2012 @ 1:41pm
Brett McKay said | October 25th 2012 @ 1:41pm | Report comment
Soapit, see my post way down below, Andrew Logan might have an even better idea, that takes the decision away from the refs..
October 25th 2012 @ 9:41am
Eddard said | October 25th 2012 @ 9:41am | Report comment
The problem is that this would make the referees an even bigger factor in the game. The contest for possession is always going to be somewhat messy. There is a fine line between a defender being on their feet and supporting their body weight, or not. There is a fine line between coming in through the gate or not. Not to mention referees trying to figure out who brought down a scrum. There are many other examples. This comes down to referee interpretation and it differs per game. If you encourage more yellow cards then more and more games will be decided by subjective refereeing decisions and eventually you’ll destroy the contest for possession because teams will be too afraid to attempt turnovers.
Penalties themselves aren’t the problem. It’s all the time wasted taking shots at goal. If you can’t kick at goal all the time, or it’s harder to kick for goal, more offences would lead to either a quick tap or a kick for an attacking lineout. This would be a good thing. And if teams keep giving penalties away they’ll be defending for very long periods of time. I think the ELV’s were on to a good thing with the reduction of offences that could lead to a goal attempt, but they should have allowed free kicks to include a kick for lineout.
The all penalties must be drop kicks is a great idea. And it’s logical because a drop goal is something you can do in general play. You can’t take a place kick in general play. Not only would it make penalty goals tougher to kick, but they’d also be taken within about 20 seconds of the penalty being awarded. If this was the only thing you did it would make a big difference.
October 25th 2012 @ 11:04am
Brett McKay said | October 25th 2012 @ 11:04am | Report comment
Ed, I’d suggest the referees becoming a bigger factor is short term pain for long term gain. If players know they risk a yellow for going off their feet, or not supporting their weight – particularly if their team has already lost players during the game – I’d suggest they’ll sharpen up really quick.
I would be quite confident that yellow cards in the first 10 mins of a game means there are no defending team infringements in the last quarter of tight games..
I do agree with your points about time on for kicks, and the ELVs being a good things, though. I don’t know why time can’t be called off from the moment the ref signals a PG will be taken, right up until the time the goalkicker strikes the ball..
October 25th 2012 @ 2:26pm
Eddard said | October 25th 2012 @ 2:26pm | Report comment
I think there would be unintended consequences. You’d significantly reduce the contest at the breakdown and the backs would have even less space. Attacking teams would play for penalties even more than they do now. Defensive teams would never bother to compete because if they were to go for a pilfer or a counter ruck there are too many risks of giving away an accidental penalty…and I think most penalties are given away unintentionally as a result of trying to win the ball.
I think in order to have a contest for possession that isn’t a complete mess and doesn’t involve rucking you have to have penalties. The question is whether kicks at goal for 3 points that take up a lot of time is an ideal option.
Personally I think it’s too big a punishment and time waster for many infringements. Territory and set piece possession is enough IMO – with the yellow card used as it is now. If teams can’t score in general play from that territory and possession then they don’t deserve to win. If ball in play time increased significantly and there was a greater emphasis on scoring in general play (mostly tries but also drop goals) would anyone really care if there were 2 or 3 more penalties (roughly 10%) per game? Considering almost all of them would result in quick taps or attacking lineouts or scrums.
October 25th 2012 @ 9:49am
formeropenside said | October 25th 2012 @ 9:49am | Report comment
This is exactly right.
October 25th 2012 @ 10:01am
Robo said | October 25th 2012 @ 10:01am | Report comment
Totally agree Brett, and also with comment by Johnno about ice hockey being a free flowing game with players being “sin binned” for fouls with most goals being scored against teams when down a man.
Could we go further than Brett suggests, and extend the Ice Hockey concept to rugby where the yellow card actually replaces the penalty, with a free kick taken for the re-start. If a player gets a third yellow he/she is automatically red carded. As happens now, if a prop gets yellow carded then a replacement has to made.
Then to Ben’s point about deliberate fouls in the 22, the referee has the option to issue two yellows to the same player for professional fouls meaning 20 minutes in the bin, in lieu of a penalty try. If two players are involved in the same incident even from the same team they both get yellow cards. As both teams will be getting binned more often, the yellow card becomes less of a “big thing”. We may see games where both teams only have 12 or 13 players on the field at any one time, especially in the last quarter, we get holes in defensive lines, we get space and we get more excitement.
Could we also add the rule from soccer where yellow cards are cumulative in tournaments such as test series, 4N/6N, Super rugby, and when players get three yellows they have to clear their sheet by missing a game?
So the penalty comes (as in ice hockey) from having points scored against whilst missing key players on the field. Thoughts?
October 25th 2012 @ 1:46pm
nomis said | October 25th 2012 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
Brett, I’d be happy to give this a go, but I’m still concerned for all the accidental/subjective infringements. What’s something that would encourage teams to go for an attacking line-out rather than a penalty goal?
October 25th 2012 @ 2:09pm
Brett McKay said | October 25th 2012 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
Nomis, see my post at the bottom – Loges’ scrum feed to the defnding team after PG miss idea may well result in more attacking lineouts instead..
October 25th 2012 @ 2:33pm
yahyah said | October 25th 2012 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
more yellow cards is a bit of a gamble. there are some real cons to this proposal
I, for one, will feel disappointed if my team won against a 14 man side. there is nothing satisfying about it.
secondly, we have already seen countless controversial decisions by referees in awarding penalties the wrong way. imagine how many players will be undeservedly sitting on the side line for 10 minutes (or possibly more) if the yellow card was used more often? it’s an interesting solution Brett but probably not the right one.