The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Solving rugby’s scoring dilemma

Roar Guru
5th January, 2018
Advertisement
Samu Kerevi. (Photo by Matt Roberts/Getty Images)
Roar Guru
5th January, 2018
75
1792 Reads

Nick Bishop’s recent column about the changes in rugby from the (mostly) amateur era to the (mostly) professional era sparked yet more discussion about whether changes to scoring could change the way rugby is played, in particular whether it could make the game more open and change the balance of tries to penalty goals.

As Nick’s article highlighted, rugby has already changed a lot. A quick check of World Rugby data shows that in international matches the average number of tries and the number of minutes the ball is in play have increased steadily over recent decades.

Changes in scoring are just one of many factors that influence how the game is played – rules and the way they are interpreted and enforced (or not), the increasing levels of fitness and conditioning of players, the improvements in coaching and analysis are some of the other critical factors.

Nonetheless, scoring does have an impact on how the game is played. It may be correlation rather than causation, but the adoption by most professional competitions of bonus point schemes for scoring four or more tries or three more tries than the opposing team has increased the emphasis on scoring tries.

Various sports have tinkered with scoring in recent decades. Rugby has increased the value of tries from three to four to five points, and further increases have been trialled under various experimental laws. Rugby league increased the value of the try and reduced the value of the drop goal. The AFL has experimented with the concept of the super goal. Basketball adopted the three-point shot in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

To make an informed assessment of whether scoring should be changed it’s important to understand the philosophy of scoring in rugby and how it differs from other games and to think about what makes a good game.

(Matt Roberts/Getty Images)

Opinions vary, but a good game for me has enough scores that reward skill, initiative, teamwork and the ability to capitalise on an opponent’s mistake – or some combination of the above) – but not so many that each score becomes irrelevant. There has to be a balance between attack and defence.

Advertisement

I find football frustrating because so many games see zero or only one or two goals scored. That adds enormously to the pressure on officials and encourages behaviour that leads to penalties or free kicks.

Basketball and AFL are usually at the other end of the spectrum: there so many scores that they all blur.

Using this metric, rugby is close to the sweet spot. It’s rare to see a top-level game without at least a few tries, and most manage more. Equally important is that blowouts are rare unless teams are mismatched, suggesting that the balance between attack and defence is about right.

The frustration in rugby is that too often – though less often than people think – games are won by the team that scores fewer tries, almost always because they kick more penalty goals.

This highlights an important philosophical difference between games like rugby and most other sports. In most games there is only one way to score: you score a goal or you win a point. Think football, hockey, basketball, handball. AFL is almost in that category but offers a uniquely Australian addition: the behind for kicks that were almost but not quite good enough.

(Clive Rose/Getty Images)

These games all deal with offences by making it easier for the non-offending team to score a goal or win a point. Only the rugby family offers penalty goals or field goals as an alternative way to score.

Advertisement

I think ice hockey got it right a long time ago (1904!) when it introduced the penalty box. Losing a player for two or more minutes significantly increases the chance that the opposing team will score. In the NHL a power play (having a one or two-man advantage) leads to a goal more than 20 per cent of the time. The best teams have percentages in the high 20s while the worst teams are in the mid-teens. Average and middle teams are in mid to low 20s.

Rugby followed other sports in adopting a version of this idea: yellow and red cards. The statistics show these make a difference – teams that lose a player are less likely to win – but they don’t always lead to more tries as teams can still kick penalty goals.

The lawmakers should trial an experimental law that removes penalty goals (except perhaps for foul play) and instead reduces the number of players on the field for more offences instead of adjusting the scoring values for tries, penalty goals, conversions and field goals. The details would need to be carefully thought through. Perhaps a yellow card for cumulative team penalties, like in basketball; perhaps a yellow card for cumulative penalties in the defensive 22; perhaps shorter yellow card periods for team or cumulative offences, or longer ones for foul play or ‘professional’ fouls.

It’s important to think about the unintended consequences. Would coaches get their teams to play for penalties in order to force a man advantage, and would players and supporters regard tries scored with a player advantage as worth less than those scored when the opponents have a full complement of players? Would the laws need to be simplified to reduce the incidence of ‘trivial’ offences? Would more offences need to be punished by a free kick rather than a penalty?

Removing or severely limiting the option of penalty goals would change the game. By definition it would force teams to score tries in order to win.

close