I read yesterday that the semi-final of the Heineken Cup between Leicester and Cardiff was decided by a penalty shoot-out after extra-time. That is a truly obscene way to decide a game.
No game should be decided that way.
How does the poor bloke who missed feel? What about the fellows in the team who played their guts out but can’t kick for nuts?
They did not contribute to the final determination of the outcome. Nor could they.
Rugby emphasises team over individual. A shoot out does not do that.
The Laws say, “The object of the game is that two teams, each of fifteen players observing fair play, according to the Laws and in a sporting spirit should, by carrying passing, kicking and grounding the ball score as many points as possible.”
Rugby is about scoring tries and kicking goals. Not just scoring goals.
Some would argue that tries are the most important. We all want to see more tries not more goals. Furthermore, we should not want to have the same finale to a great contest that our soccer cousins think is appropriate.
A try and conversion is scored because of good play and/or bad defence. A penalty goal is scored because of a good kicker and an offending team who infringed.
A penalty-shoot out is just one dimensional.
Imagine the uproar if a Rugby World Cup was decided in such a way.
Derm
Roar Guru
Just discovered there are actually three variations of the penalty kick shootout. In addition to the one described above, according to an article on the topic in the English Times, "in the Premiership play-offs, the shoot-out changes: five nominated kickers come into play but from different positions - the first starts from the centre of the 22, the second and third from the 15-metre line on the right and left of the pitch, the fourth and fifth from the five-metre line to right and left." "In international tournaments, it differs again: if extra time has not separated the teams, plus an added five minutes in which to score a "golden point", five nominated kickers operate from the centre of the 22, and on the 15-metre line to right and left. But they go no wider, returning instead to the centre, nor do they go beyond the selected quintet, all of whom it must be supposed have some goal-kicking experience. That, therefore, avoids the potential embarrassment of a player who has never attempted to kick at goal making a soul-destroying hash of it. Under such a system, New Zealand beat Australia 4-3 in the final of the 2005 under-19 world championship."
Knives Out
Guest
Epi. No it wasn't and no they didn't.
Epi
Guest
I think it's fantastic. The one way for a team to win without referee involvement. Just think - if it came down to a shoot out the Tah's might just win a game with Jonathon Kaplan in charge! Get over it Wally.. It was exciting and the crowd loved it.
brad
Guest
PastHisBest settle, you blowing this way out of proportion. I love rugby and as a kid my brother and i used to go down to the school grounds and kick for poles just for the fun of it. he was a lock and I am a flank. We never kicked for poles in a match. Every kid before practice kicks the ball up and down the field and has a jab at the sticks. Its not that out of place
MVDave
Roar Rookie
Where's the problem? The most exciting moment in Australian sport occurred as a result of a penalty shoot out in November 2005!
PastHisBest
Roar Guru
"Kicking goals is just as big an element of rugby as is the line-out or the maul. Why not??" Problem is that kicking is maybe only performed by one or two members of a team. It's just not fair (or reasonable), to ask players who don't have a particular skill to execute it to decide a very important game. Unlike soccer where everyone has to kick the ball. You might just as well ask the players to decide the match by seeing how far they can swim underwater. It makes almost as much sense.
Derm
Roar Guru
Katzilla - glad you got the joke. I was getting worried everyone else was taking it all far too seriously. ;)
katzilla
Roar Guru
Pothale and Simmo - How would you even judge a contest like that fairly? Would each team have to engage the services of a professional just in case? Brad - Tiddlywinks would also work, but that doesn't make it right. Do you really think it was a good way to decide the World Cup final between Brazil and Italy?
matta
Guest
I blame Lote....
Craig
Guest
I BLAME THE ELV's!!!!!!
Simmo
Guest
katzilla: "Start pulling off Players Imo." the broadcasters would have a problem with that. They're not allowed to show sex scenes before the watershed
Lazza
Guest
As you are probably aware this is the same debate that Football has had for decades. Everyone knows it's not the best solution but Football fans have come to accept it. You have 2 hours to win the game, if you can't then you take your chances in the shoot out. As far as being a 'lottery' some-one forgot to tell the Germans, they never lose these bleedin' shoot outs! As a piece of drama at the end of a game you just can't beat it. The purists don't like it and it can be a cruel way to decide a game but I'm sure Rugby fans will accept it as well.
Working Class Rugger
Guest
Just finished watching it on Rugbydump. Actually its really quite entertaining. The crowd seemed to be enthralled in it aswell. Its not something were going to see all that often in fact it will a rarity most likely. An added sense of drama that could enhance close contests.
brad
Guest
Most of you idiots READ about the game and none of you actually watched it, quite a thrilling contest actually and given that it would be such a rare occasion its not that bad. The problem with playing on over 100 minutes is the potential for injury. The penalty shootout has worked in Football.
cookie
Roar Guru
Why not keep playing until someone scores? Survival of the fittest?
The Link
Guest
Why not a replay game the next day / week?
cookie
Roar Guru
The lame thing about it is that the kicks are taken smack in front of the posts and there is nothing to defend against it. Imagine a soccer shootout with no goalkeeper.....how could you miss? Only the soccerroos could stuff that up....oh and a few waratahs kickers.... If memory serves me correctly a number of years ago a player whom i very much admire missed a kick smack in front of the posts that would have got the team into the finals....mmmm....wonder who?
Hoy
Guest
I have been to a subbies grand final where the final score was 7 all, the extra time yielded no points, the golden point yielded no points, and so the team higher on the table won the grand final. I am pretty sure that the teams would have rathered a penalty shoot out. Or at least one team would've preferred it.
Gabriel Knowles
Roar Guru
In any case it was pretty exciting stuff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HeSUscHIHg&feature=player_embedded
mitzter
Guest
no wilkinson's goal was not golden point it was in fixed length extra time