Limit the drop goal

I must say I like drop goals. Of course a nice try that has been well built by the whole team is something super exciting, but I also like drop goas. I wish there would be more! I realise I'm from the Northern hemisphere, where drop goals seem to be more popular, but in any case you might see one or two attempts per game, and only a successful goal every two games.

Well, you have heard what the people have to say about the problem, so now its up to you , get off your butt and send the people's voice to the a.r.u and get them to listen, how in the buggery do you think league got it right, by listening to the fans , cloth heads, wake up to yourselves before your game perishes. Indian cricket board could do a better job at running the rugby in australia.

Bit late on this one Michael but good point nonetheless, I completely agree and also like to point out that the only people crying about the drop goals, Kicking, scrumming and so on are in fact Australian. I cant wait to see the affect the new rules have on the S14 but fear that the only teams that will really profit from them would be Australian ones. I bet we will see much better Rugby from them this year, will they agree it’s due to the new rules... Not likely.

I find it interesting that many advocate changes that will bring Union more in line with League. i.e. further reduce value of drop goal, and or limit scope of it's use. That'd be just a further step to what probably must one day happen - and that is the re-unification of the Rugby codes. Aside from that, I like to remind folk that orignially a TRY, as the name suggests, was not the GOAL of the game. A try score no points and goals decided games. Why did this change? Too hard to score goals? Maybe. Too many drawn games? Most likely. Therefore, trys gain value effectively via countback, and then an absolute value and then got promoted in value ahead of goals and so the nature of the game changes by virtue that it is deemed a game about scoring trys rather than scoring goals (where trys are but a means to scoring a goal). People pick on behinds in AFL as a point for missing. However, an AFL goal still exists and is 6 times that point. The point is hardly worth anything unless goals are more or less even. A TRY being worth more than a goal is crazy for 2 reasons. One is that a TRY was supposed to be 'converted' into a 'GOAL'. Surely then, the modern conversion should carry a negative value! Also, if a behind is a point for missing, then a TRY a points for not yet having a shot. And so, RU is certainly at a point - if it further diminishes the value of a 'goal', whereby it becomes far less a game of foot skills (i.e. kicking of the ball) and far more a game of run/tackle/throw. In which case, just get rid of the goal posts full stop (saves money) and remove the need for conversions (saves time) and drop goals etc. or keep it a little more interesting than the one dimensional RL. Allow teams to explose the means available to them to accumulate the highest score - and thus try to win. Because, if the drop goal were further diminished, then the defensive line has one less thing to worry about and can maintain structure more easily and it again becomes more of trench warfare battle of the Somme stalemate......which, to me, is as exciting to watch as....well, you get my drift.

Just want to make a few comments about what i have read, first of all it seems like everyone is annoyed at the way rugby is going, as for no action drop goals to decide games and the like, you seem to want to make it more exciting and yet you always go back to league to put crap on it as a sport, the thing about league is it was also a little bit boring with penalties and stopaiges occuring around scrums and play the ball area, this not only frustrates the players, but also the fans. League realised this and has fixed the problem and the game as you know can sometimes, only have maybe a few penalties, or when the fans demand it, yes the fans get a say. When rugby stops trying to be only worried about being better than the other codes and start worrying about its own fans then will it be a better game to watch. Take a leaf out of the rugby league world cup 2008 which has not even started yet, but no dought will be the best yet, that is my few commets, and like always, you rugby fans will winge about your dying game and try to put more crap on league, and so the coaster continues.

Counterruck, How about this: If a "professional" foul within defender's 20 metres, then attackers have option of penalty kick or their scrum HALF DISTANCE to try-line? If attackers need more than 3 points for penalty kick, here's a chance for 5 or 7. Also, scrum means attackers have push- over chance or attackers spread out more than a lineout. Jools-USA

Isn't this just another debate about perception over reality? Because I really can't see what peoples' complaints about drop goals are. They are bloody difficult at the best of times let alone in pressure situations. Just looking at the IRB analysis document shows that in this tournament 17% of drop goals were successful and in the knockout stages only 7% (2 from 29 attempts). Moments like Janni De Beers 's outstanding kicking display against England (I'll never forget that day) are few and far between. Look what happened the next game, couldn't kick for toffee. He kept trying as I recall and SA started effectively playing without a number 10 who was lost in some pocket 20m back he made for himself. Now that was one of the dullest games I can ever remember watching at a RWC but without doubt the highlight was Larkham's "first" ever drop goal while running laterally as he took it from 40-50m out. Amazing. Bob I agree about penalties that if you drop the number we will just see further fouls. Moving the number of points up for a try however is no different then dropping the value of a penalty. It's all about the balance which I believe is right. Really the questions I think that are trying to be addressed are: 1) How do we stop defences being cyncial and conceding a pen then a try? 2) How do we incentivise attacking teams to make more territory and possibly tries? 3) How can we do this without changing the fundementals of the game? How about a missed penalty results in a turnover and a scrum from the position of the infringement. The main consequence is that the further out you are the greater the risk of kicking for the posts. For instance a penalty 40m to 50m is a much riskier proposition presenting ~50% of getting 3 points or turning possession over on the half way line. Kick for touch and territory or tap and go. Yes please. As you get closer the defending team has less incentive to foul bcause we approach the 100% 3 points margins. What I'm still hypothesising about is what would happen 10 meters out and by the touchline. Kicks from the touchline have a 50%-60% success rate. If you get a pen on the touchline how high is the incentive to kick? Will teams try to play down the center more often? Will it stop teams going wide and work against the intentions of the rule change? For those that want to get fancy and complicated with the rules and scoing (I'm not one of them), you could stagger the scoring as well. I've taken it from the angle of bringing teams closer to the "red zone" and stopping teams being cynical in defence when it really counts. 1) Try line to 10m: 4 points for a penalty - Infringements in this area are too cheap. Stamp them out I say 2) 10m to 22m: 3 points 3) 22m to 40m: 2 points 4) 40m+: 1 point - It's no easy feat. As for game time, the IRB document seems to suggest that fr world cups at least ball time is up by 42% since 1991. I guess you can't please some people.

i think it is clear to see that the drop goal and penalty goal are ruining the game. A simple fix wuld be to reduce the points scored to 2 or even one for a drop kick. The game of rugby revolves around scoring tries not kicking goals. If i wanted to watch someone kick a goal i would watch soccer.

Sorry Spiro - missed the 'r' in your name. Phat Phinga's and sknee quays...what can I say

Spio - aren't all aspects of the game relics - from the scrum to even the ball, and including the posts? Rather than thinking of these as "relics" think of them as tactical weapons that can be called on as part of the magic variety that is Rugby. Tim E - one mans opinion, even that of Steve Larkham, is not cause for radical change. I'm sure, for instance, that Percy Montgomery would have a different view, and his opinion is just as valid. All those looking to more complex ruoles - graduated scoring, limiting the number of attempts and so on, NOOOOOOO!!!!! We want the game simpler, not more complex. Complexity leads to interpretation which gives the ref more of an impact on the game, simplicity reduces interpretation and the game can get on with it! I like the ideas from Onside and Jack. Attempting a drop goal under advantage is a scoring attempt, so by definition advantage must be over, that makes perfect sense to me. Having it otherwise leads to very cynical use of the "attempt" to force advantage - remove that from the game and it can only have a positive impact. And treating a drop goal as any other kick means the risk is a scrum-back or a 22 drop out for an attempt that goes dead, so the attempts from 40m or 50m will not give a territorial advantage and likely possession if "missed." This, too, will put second thoughts in the minds of teams "attempting" drop goals with the intention only being to actually gain territory. plus these changes are actually simplifications of the laws, removing complexity and inconsistency. That can only be good for the game, can't it?

Spiro & Rachid, One of the great criticisms of Rugby is the amount of actual playing time in a match. There is far too much time wasting as one can observe when forwards go down to milk time when they are not really injured. Such breakages give the defending side time for a breather and plan the next defensive strategy. For obvious reasons these delays must be treated as serious otherwise potential litigation could result. AFL rules demand the clock is stopped once the ball exits the playing field and is not restarted until the ball reenters via Umpires or their decision[s]. This ensures that 4 quarters of 20 minutes playing time results. Some quarters have been known to last 35 minutes, even though the ball was only "in play" for 20 minutes. Consequently the clock could stop once a penalty goal was to be attempted and restarted once the ball was struck. At the moment a minute is allocated for this which should not be counted. Likewise when the ball returns to play after going dead/or goal being successful requiring restart. The clock should not restart until play resumes. Place kickers and their tees will remain an intgral part of the game even though I like the idea of a drop goal for both a penalty shot or conversion. Sevens could also adopt this approach. If Rugby adopted a similar time clock the players would probably strike unless the game was split into 4 quarters of 20 minutes playing time with say a 10 minute break between the first and the second quarter and a 20 minute break between the second and the third quarter. I realise that this time approach is moving towards NFL but I cannot see how Rugby can get more playing time into the game. Obviously this wud require further fine tuning but the fans would love it. Perhaps 4 quarters of 15 minutes actual playing time or a further variation could be contemplated as the body would be subjected to more punishment. Interchanges while in play could also be an option so as not to adversely affect teams who suddenly find themselves a player down due injury etc. Travelling around France for this RWC has highlighted how the country is embracing Rugby and there is every indication it will continue to grow. With many Soccer matches failing to get a result after 90 minutes of football their fans have little to cheer about and may be a reason for some of the crowd violence that sometimes spills over. More scoring ensures fans can get "more involved" and celebrate a score - heightening the feel good factor, even if it may only be temporary. It's like a golfer who has a shocking round, but draws hope for next time from the few good shots he actually made during his round. Rugby is definitely at the cross roads. The right policy decisions could see it replace football as the number one world game - mindful it remains the main team game that embraces ALL body sizes. With RWC filling the stadiums across France and blanket TV coverage/discussion across the media etc, the fan will demand more attractive fast play. It is now time for some fan embracing policy decisions to be made to the game we all love.

Anything done to speed up the game can only be good for Rugby. Three good things came out of the NRL grandfinal; -Melbourne the league benchmark for two seasons got their just rewards. -Inglis once again proved he is a freak. I don't care if you hate the game, seeing someone posses such a natural ability- in any sport- is special. - Cameron Smith missed conversion goals. Why’s that great? because the best team won despite the missed goals. I cannot believe you staunch rugby supporting, draconian purists still engage in ridiculous debates about the value of field goals and in the same breath expect people to take your opinions and your sport seriously. Don't get me wrong I love the aspects of Rugby [and the fact you all feel so strongly about them] that encourage the things that League is missing, like the variety at rucks and breakdowns, competition in all phases of attack –rucks, mauls, lineouts, scrums- everyone is kept honest all the time and most importantly the fact you maintain that unique concept of team. Each position promotes a set of highly skilled and intricate [nuanced] requirements not easily performed by everyone [eg an openside flanker can’t easily play blindside flanker- that baffles a rugby novice like me! But I think its great]. So now you know that I don’t hate your game, I can say that I hate a lot of your rules which seem at best relics from a bygone era. The one that erks me more than any other is the Field goal. The salient point with respect to the field goal is the effort required to kick one as a proportion of the effort required to build pressure, to actually run the ball and to attempt scoring a try. As its stands the drop goal is valued at 60% of scoring a try. I don’t care where you’re from or how many players you like on your football field this is just a ludicrous situation that must be changed immediately. It’s not the points allocated to the endeavour it’s the value of those points. The value of those points indicates what is valued in your game. I agree with Bob, Its time the running game gave value to running. It makes me wonder if the same people advocating the status quo with respect to point allocation are the same ones who lament the move to professionalism or at the very least were dragged into it reluctantly ? Its time the game opened up to people not exposed to it through blood lines or private schooling. The advantage Rugby has is the one alluded to by Spiro, namely that its limited modernisation over the years allows it to consider and view rule changes implemented by rival codes [like the RL +AFL] and evaluate how these “appeal broadening” initiatives have impacted on the game in a broader sense. The important thing being that they learn from their decisions and avoid making the same mistakes. The people in a position to effect change must have the courage to do just that but not without lengthy consideration in forums similar to this one. To my way of thinking its not dissimilar to the colonisation of a Country like Australia. As someone involved in the development and planning of the built environment it always frustrated me how silly most of our development and town planning strategies have been. But in travelling through Europe my frustration quickly morphed into outrage when it became obvious that these places existed for many years not only as places or landmarks but as examples of what and what not to do and we ignored it all. Rugby can’t afford to become the sporting equivalent of a sprawling suburbia. It cannot afford to be arrogant or egotistical as it moves forward. It's time to stop hating and start learning. rachid

Bob This is a very good point. I had dallied with an answer involving awarding a 3-point penalty for kicks inside the 22. ut this would only encourage fouls from further out. i think in retrospect that the fear of fouling will ensure that the penalty remains a significant penalty, that is 3 points rather than 2 points. but what about the idea that penalties have to be dropped goals like they are in SevensRugby, and for conversions. This would certainly speed things up and make the kick just that much harder than from a kicking tee. AFL made this conversion many decades ago when players could, up to the 1920s, I think place the ball for long kicks at goal. I know this, or think I know it, because back in the 1950s a well-known 'barracker' in Wellington 'Liittle Eric' retired and the local paper did an article on him. He was asked who was the greatest goal-kicker he'd ever seen. He was expected to say Bob Scott or Don Clarke, one of the rugby greats. 'Davy McNamara of the St Kilda club, Melbourne,' he replied. I was so taken with this answer that I checked and found out that Davy McNamara was an Australian Rules star and, again I think this is right, that he placed his kicks for long shots at goal. So perhaps rugby should get rid of the place kick, as it slowly is doing, as AFL has.

Although like most readers/contributers I would like to see more emphasis placed on scoring tries, I'm cynical enough to believe that if a penalty was reduced to 2 points we would see a procession of 'fouls " giving penalty shots away to avoid the chance of a try being scored. Unless the yellow card usage increased accordingly I see no reason to reduce the value of a penalty. However, for a drop goal ..... haven't we discussed this topic a few months ago??? So here goes again. A drop goal in general play should never equate to a penalty as it encourages players to try to circumvent the laws of the game. The drop goal is USUALLY a game breaker and 2 points sounds about right. Leave the penalty where it is at 3 points. However, I see no reason why a try should not be worth a lot more - say 7 points and a conversion 3 points. Now that would put the emphasis on scoring tries! Furthermore, being the cynic that I am do we really believe that all field goal attempts are 'attempts' or just a ruse to kick the ball dead. Any such unsuccessful "attempts" should result in a scrum being set where the kick was attempted unless inside the 22 where normal rules would apply. By the way, my forecast of a few weeks ago that France would meet the AB's in Cardiff has eventuated. I see no reason to change my prediction for this game, although over the past 2 weeks travelling around France canvassing French supporters I've only found one supporter in about 50 thats thinks the AB's can be beaten by Les Blue. The odds sound about right. Much the same odds Oz was given by most about a year sgo if memory serves me correctly!

The drop goal is a relic, fossil perhaps, from the days in the 1880s when rugby was a football game and not a running /handling game. Initially in rugby football you could only score points by kicks. A 'try' allowed you to score points by converting it into points. You could also score points by kicking drop goals, or field goals as they were called. There are those of us of a certain age, as they say in France, who can remember when drop goals were worth four points, which was more than a try was worth (3 points). Now the drop goal is worth 3 points and a try is worth 5 points. So the relative value of the drop goal has decreased. But not enough, I believe. I think the next change in the points scoring system is to reduce all kicking points, drop goal and penalties, to 2 points like conversions. There is a strong ideological reason for this in that it rewards tries being scored rather than kicks converted. I wouldn't want the drop goal to be reduced to one point, though, as in rugby league. It is a skill which should be rewarded appropriately. And 2 points is about right, I believe.

Drop it to 2 points. An advantage should be lost once a dropgoal attempt is made under an "advantage". While they are at it, they should make a ruling where the ball cannot be passed from outside the 22m back into the 22 only to have the fullback kick it out as a security measure. I believe this one ruling would speed up the game immensley, much like soccer and the ruling that if a player passes the ball back to the keeper, the keeper cannot use his hands. GO BLACK!!!! Cheers.

Tim e - Slomo's spot on ! As to what I personally thought of Wilko slotting a drop when Eng were 23 points ahead: "3 more points to Eng" is what I thought. I could be very quickly convinced it's boring but 3 points is 3 points and if Eng think the risk of going for 5 or 7 is far greater then I can't really moan at them too much for taking 3. Re-read Slomo's email for the reasons - it's part of rugby. I'd personally rather watch a game like Fiji / Wales any day of the week but then Wales either neglected to kick relatively easy penalties (early on) or kicked poorly (especially conversions) and lost by a few points. Reckon they are happy heading home having played wonderfully atrractive rugby ? Rugby's rules and point scoring options are what they are and the idea is to win ! All this post needs now is a dose of Spiro's "anti skill" babble added to it to top it off I reckon !

When you watch the Grand Final tonight you will see more excitement and action than you will see in the whole of the world cup. If its so one dimensional how come you keep changing your rules to emulate "The Greatest game of All"? Bear in mind the impulse for the Stellenbosch variations was RFU inspired not Australian. John Dyvbig the principal sporting columnist (not a leaguie) in today`s NZ`s Sunday Star Times says this: "Last week I found myself involuntarily channel between the rival codes of rugby and league. For sheer spectacle it wasn`t even a contest. I started out with the sole intention of watching the Rugby World Cup, but the flat- out acceleration of the league playoff game between Manly and Nth Queeensland sucked me in like a black hole. The league action raced by in a blur-wham! bam! kapow!- . I wa s exausted just watching. In contrast the rugby lads plodded along like a team of Cllydesdales pulling a heavy load." Perspicacious. Couldn`t have said it better myself.

Slomo Fair enough on your comment, thats your opinion and your entitled to it just like everyone else on this forum. For the record what did you think about Wilkinson deciding to hit a drop goal in the 72 minute when England were ahead by 23 points?

Yawn, here we go again. Australia doesn't have anyone who can drop kick so we should get rid of it. Why not get rid of scrums as well, since the Wallabies don't have a front row worthy of mention. I wish that whoever takes the time to write this drivel, because drivel is exactly what it is, will realise that drop kicks are part of rugby. End of story.