How to boost the number of tries scored in rugby

Dave Surely the whole point it changes the mind set and encourages teams to go that extra mile. Of course the first step will be to secure the win but if they know there are extra bonus points even in a small tournament as the 6N's it will make a difference. Looking back at old 6N's may not be relevant, because all teams will start with a blank sheet of paper, the bonus structure and perhaps awarding 4 points for a win would enhance what is, regards of the quality of rugby, an exciting, unpredictable and engrossing championship. Imagine a final game say between Wales and France, France needs one bonus point to secure the 6Ns, Wales needs the win plus a bonus point therefore they must score 4 tries. France will strive to keep Wales within 7 points and Wales would go all out for the big win. great drama, seat of the pants time. For teams such as Italy it would reward more accurately there efforts throughout the tournament and probably lift them away from the wooden spoon. Many pluses few negatives, If there was a tie then it would come down to points difference, if still tied than trys scored by each team.

I think in general the bonus point system is a good idea but for a standalone contest of six teams it might have drawbacks. For instance, it is possible for a team to win the grand slam and still lose the championship. Unlikely but it could happen. Back in 2002, for example, if bonus points had been awarded France and England would both have finished on 21 points, even though France beat all other teams that year ie won the Grand Slam. (yes I've been doing more lucubrating but not exhaustively as believe it or not I have a semblance of a life away from my computer.) England would have obtained five bonus points that year, four for tries and one losing bonus. France would only have earned one and that was in the last game of the season when they gave Ireland their customary thumping in Paris. Had France only won narrowly that day, or even won handsomely but not scored four tries, they would not have won the championship despite winning the Grand Slam. I don't think we should run the risk of that happening, which could happen very easily in a small tournament like the 6N.

Dublin Dave You are to be congratulated on an excellent piece of work. Judging from the posting the general consenus is that we are like to see attacking play, but that is always tempered by the unpredictability of the union game and the close tense contests that have us sitting on the edge of our seats as both team strives for supermacy. The excitment is heighten by the knowledge that any loss of discipline could lose the match and a penalty given away. Remember the QF Eng v OZ, great drama, the result hanging on Mortlocks kick, difficult wind, long distance and the miilions on his back . Crikey what pressure and what a cracking effort as it just drifted pass the posts. I was nervious enough just watching, how Mortlock kicked the ball that distance under that pressure I don't know. I don't believe tinkering with the points for either trys or kicks for goal will make any difference. In close games in league how many times do teams use the sets to gain field position to kick the defining drop goal, eventhough it is only worth one point, I would suggest quite alot. Instead of urging about the points look at awarding extra bonus points for the side scoring four tries in a game. Shaun Edwards has suggested that the 6n's should follow the lead of the GP and introduce the same bonus points system. At the Quins v Bath game, although well beaten Bath still played at full tilt and oressed hard as they strived to get with 7 points of Quins and gain that extra bonus point. Eventually they scored after 3 minutes of injury time a converted try to finish at 22-16, a exciting conclusion to an excellent game of rugby in difficult playing conditions.

It's analysis, mate. It's the product of many hours of lucubration and working out how to use a spreadsheet. It's not meant to be FUNNY! If there's a conclusion to be drawn it might be: careful about what steps you take to change the game. They may not have the consequences intended.

This analysis is as boring as the English team. Where's the punch line?

Midfielder - as with Dublin Dave - I had the same thought reading your ideas. It's interesting. Cricket has 3 product offerings - quite distinct. Test, 50 over ODIs and 20/20. Rugby Union has regular Union and Rugby 7s. I do know of AFL 9's in Bali, Dubai and I think Dublin are kicking off an annual tournament. Not at the level of 7's at all. Now - I am just curious & ignorant - is 'touch rugby' a deliberate off-shoot of Rugby or a separate entity all together?? Matty P - re the ELV's, just a line I'd heard. I wouldn't really know the intricacies of it all.

Great article Dave, interesting analysis. Interesting to see the spikes in both charts after professionalism, then the slow drop off. Obviously the field did level off - I think it has a lot to do with the fitness of the players. In recent years, in very few games have you seen the top players completely gassed, nothing in the tank, like in Sam's example of Zinzan and Fitz after the SA games in 96. That's why I love the ELVs, on evidence to date. As Michael Linagh said in commentary during the first round, they've brough fatigue back into the game. Fast fit teams wear the others down by quick taps and exciting running play from wing to wing. Big strong teams wear the other teams pack down by grinding their scrum into the dust, leaving backs to pick up some slack in the loose. So to Michael C's point about ELVs making the game more like league - no way. The scrum is back, and more important that ever, it's how the backs get their best ball. Maybe in a couple of years even the wallabies will re-develop their scrum to international level... And let's stop comparing union to league please. The games were divorced 100 years ago. Rugby fans should focus on what makes our game great, not what makes it different.

OK you may be right, but in 7's there are no real scrums, with six forwards you do. Dave you are being a bit kind to me on football forums when I suggest the modern sportsman is fitter faster so comparing ears is hard because of the overall rise in standard, meaning the more skillful can be closed off and given less space so when I reduce to 9 or 10, people say we already have a 6 a side game. My point is one from an occessional watcher of Sydney Park rugby (my son has played for about 14 years now) and test match watcher. But the greater defensive efforts by teams now and stabding only one yard apart given fitness levels I still ask does modern rugby need 15 players. Just a point of frustration with rugby is in the maul you cannot see the ball, you can guess by the position of the half who is winning but I like seeing the ball. A scrum is Ok I see it go in and come out reasonably quickly so that is OK. Sorry Dave wondered off the point, but my question to rugby bloggers do you need 15 players as les would open up the game.

Midfielder, Far be it for me to put limits on what can and cannot be debated here. :) But isn't there a game like that already called seven a side rugby?

This is an old chest nut,...............one which I support as I like attacking styles regardless of code. Reduce the number of players. So as not to speak of things I am no expert in, I will discuss football and ask bloggers with more union knowledge to apply similar logic to union and consider. Football has 11 plaers per side, and the laws of football have changed little over the past 100 or so years. However the fields are better as is mentioned by Dave, the plaers are much fitter, than ever before, clothing, footwear have improved so much as players depending on position wear diferent shoes (boots no longer appiles) shirts are designed to capture allow the shirt to take in fresh air so as to keep the body cool. So many in football believe to open the game up a bit more the number of players should be reduced to 10 maybe even 9 a side, thereby creating move space to use in attacck. IMO I think it is a good idea but I must admit most dieagree. What about union dropping say 3 players leaving six forwards an six backs,......................a lot more space, ball control and winning the ball in the ruck would be even more important than now. Imagine you have scrun half, and fullback not in the defensive line, leaving only four players to cover the width of the field. Sorry Dave if this is all rubish and totally out of left field..............but it would be exciting to watch, and the centres better learn how to tackle and cover defend.

Sam Taulelei, Thanks for refreshing my memory on the 1993 Lions. I almost had it, was going purely off suspect memory!

Sam tauleei, Thanks for refreshing my memory on the 1993 Lions. I almost had it, was going purely off suspect memory!

Michael C Yes I agree with you, outside of the traditional followers of the game both codes do appear to be the same. I know my wife who grew up following AFL had a difficult time understanding the complexity of rugby however she surprised me by enjoying watching rugby better than league which is a simpler game to explain and understand due to its laws. By the way looking forward to another AFL season and seeing whether Collingwood will kick on from last year that promised so much and challenge Geelong to be Victoria's premier team. Enjoy the weekend.

JimC point taken - please accept my apologies. I do need to remeber the tensions that may exist. btw - let me state my opinion: "the drop goal has been devalued so much in rugby league that they should scrap it and I do find the sport repetitious due to the 6-tackle rule." cheers ;-) 'ave a good weekend, off to my AFL fantasy team 'draft night' - the best night of the year!! btw - Sam to the more casual the observor - it's all just rugby.....but, aside from that, I've heard the ELVs as being bringing Union more alike to League, and certainly, the moves to reduce the goal values similar to League - those things combined make me just wonder about the overall direction, just who's' in charge!!!! Where does the game want to be in 150 years?? anyway, as above, off for the weekend, cheerio!

Fine - but you could have said the drop goal has been devalued so much in rugby league that they should scrap it and I do find the sport repetitious due to the 6-tackle rule. Instead.... you said: "League is boring, and predictable, and along with the 6 tackle rule - it just drags on, your turn, our turn, etc etc." That's just an attempt (maybe unconscious) to start a league vs union fight which is not the subject matter of this thread. Why can't you just use "I believe, I find, I think, My preference is" instead of making a positive statement like "league is boring" which some will disagree with, and which is likely to provoke a response. Poor form in my book.

For what it's worth I believe the only similarity between the two codes is the defensive alignment from the rucks and mauls and objective of scoring tries. The current style of forward play in rugby involves punching the line to advance the ball a metre forward or so to try and suck in defenders which closely resembles the dummy half in league trying to burrow under defenders to score a metre out from the line. Otherwise the two codes are very distinct: - in the setpieces, the contest for possession, the scoring values, the number of players, the overall physical builds of players, restarting play, kicking, tackling techniques, speed and dynamism of the game, the visibility of the ball, the number of laws and in Australia anyway the hold each code has at the junior and grassroots level. I think the decision has already been made - both codes are cousins but definitely not alike.

JimC - Hmm, I thought it WAS the Union people who hated and loathed Rugby League - y'know, the 100 year war and all that people are celebrating this year. I simply gave my opinion - that to me, Union is more dynamic strategically than League and better for it - there are other elements that can be improved - and I'm not alone in that thought - and, by crikey - what do we have, the Stellenbosch Rules......go figure!! My main point still is that some people have to decide whether they want both codes 'more alike' or 'more distinct'?

Micheal C So you hate rugby league. We get it. Don't soil every thread with your predjudice.

Dave Agree with Sheek, well written and researched. Thanks for your time and effort and I too love the contest, even if it means the result sees the All Blacks finish up on the wrong side of the ledger.. It brings into stark daylight the fallacy that many of us had believed regarding the number of tries scored in the "modern" game as opposed to earlier years. It is a pity there is no comparable tournament in the southern hemisphere over the same period that we could run our eye over to see if there are similar statistics. I support your logical conclusion with one rider that even with two evenly matched sides, their quality still generates many scoring opportunities and tries as a result. As an example my three favourite test series of recent times have been the 1992 Bledisloe Cup that we lost 2-1 however the series was so tightly contested that both sides scored the same number of points and the winning margin of each test was 1 point, 2 points and 3 points. It was a brilliant series. The next is NZ's historic series win in SA in 1996, a monumenal achievement beating the world champions in their own backyard and I'll never forget the sight of a physically spent Zinzan Brooke and Sean Fitzpatrick who were too exhausted to even stand and celebrate at the end. The Lions series win in SA the following year also stood out to me, what a forward contest, like watching the classic heavyweight boxing bouts with Ali and Foreman, jousting toe to toe, last man standing type of stuff. However they weren't dour, penalty ridden kickfests and featured thrilliing attacking passages of play and skill. I much prefer these games over the high scoring, exhibition type games where the scores threaten to hit the century mark, if there is not much effort required to score the try then how can you treasure and relish the score? Sheek, the 1993 Lions series in NZ saw them lose the first test to a controversial last minute penalty that Grant Fox kicked from over 40 metres, they were then far more convincing than the scoreline indicated in narrowly winning the second test and the third test could have been a much tighter affair if a disallowed try (I think to Scott Gibbs) had been scored early in the match. As it was NZ ran away with the game in the second half and the scoreline blew out but they were not that superior to the Lions as opposed to the 1983 version.

Alas, I lament that the art of kicking is being lost to TWO codes of football. Originally the try was not worth any points. It allowed a try at goal, fair enough, not a direct one, but a kick back to seek a marker who could kick the goal. And, it was all too hard? Or just too many drawn games. And so the Try gained a point, and progressively to today where the tacklers and runners continue to dominate the kickers and aim to exclude the Johnny Wilkinsons of this world from the game. A game is won by accumulating MORE points. Not Trys. Devaluing a goal even more - such as in League, means that the ONLY use for a field goal is to break a dead lock with 30 seconds remaining. Why not just flip a coin?? If you don't encourage that elelment of play the rest of the time - then why let it DECIDE a contest. The fact that field goals are still a valid means of accumulating points means that Rugby Union is multi-dimensional compared to League. League is boring, and predictable, and along with the 6 tackle rule - it just drags on, your turn, our turn, etc etc. The fact that field goals are worth attempting now and then means that the defense needs more than one focus. Is that too tough? That actually should mean there is a greater chance of scoring tries in a scenario where the defense is not entirely certain what play is coming at them. Surely. Please though, if you do legislate away the field goal - then, please, don't call a 'TRY' a 'try' any more. It is the OBJECT of the game, a try is the new goal. Don't call the 'conversion' a 'conversion', because, the 'CONVERSION' converted the try to the value of a goal. That's long since NOT been the case. Is it now, simply that it 'converts' a minor try to a major try? Maybe that stays. Decide now though, DO YOU WANT a game clearly distinct from Rugby League - or, are you nudging the 2 games ever closer towards the economic rationalist demanded re-unification of the code of Rugby? As the author says - the quality of the opposition has a bit to do with it. Hmmmm, a long way to get to an obvious point one might think, but, at least proven scientifically? If the game on the day demands a one sided thumping, then, better that be what happens - rather than a contrived negatively geared game that produces close but insipid and mediocrity rewarding results.....otherwise, why bother TRYing?