The problems with Rugby Union - Part I

For mine, there is no point changing the laws if they are not being consistently interpreted and applied now. It would be quite possible that symptoms are being treated rather than causes, so focus on getting consistency and then see what sort of game we have. If it then becomes clear that some laws are being generally ignored or interpreted differently than written, delete or correct them accordingly. But we have to know what we have before trying to modify it.

That was where I was heading with my suggestion that the laws need to be clarified - to eliminate those 50-50 decisions. While I am only partly serious about 5 point penalties, I am still convinced that the heart of the issue is making the breakdown more clear-cut and minimising the infringements there. I tend to agree with the suggestions in the original post about having the tackler roll away. I hate seeing the attacking team penalised for eaving their feet when they have no option as there is no opposition to hold them up.

Also as i made the point some penalties are 50-50 (the old holding on vs tacklers in the way preventing clearing out schism) and refs do get some wrong (admittedly less than they get blamed for)

haha I knew someone would say this. But my point is, sure we need a deterent, but if the penalty wasn't in the 22 (ie trying to get a try) why should it be worth so many points. A penalty on halfway should be seen as an opportunity for a kick at touch and attacking play than as a free score.

I have a theory (and only a theory) - that we might be better off if penalties were worth 5 points, or even 10. This is based on what I see as the real problem - too many infringements. Make the penalty goal worth more and the players will soon stop infringing. You'd probably need to clarify the laws around the breakdown to make it work but it could make the game a bit more open and free-flowing.

Be careful with this rugby union is a hard game to understand. It is the attitude with which you play that can often determine the spectacle. i think theproblem for some is not that rugby's future is in jeopardy or that its future is not positive. It is simply that the decisions we make now about the direction of Australian rugby will determine the prospective rate of growth and perception of our game in Australia over the next twenty years. I believe we made mistakes in 2003 that are having repercussions today. Hinds the AFL journalist refers to rugby league surviving if they can get enough players out on parole but then does not leave rugby union untouched refering to some nice young gentlemen in buttoned blazors going to play in Melbourne. The problem in Australian rugby union is we do not understand that one is as much an invalid categorisation as the other and that it is done intentionally. At least the leaguies understand they are being attacked.

not bad idea with the drop kicks.

The drop kick penalty is actually not a bad idea - but the lower accuracy might actually increase the amount of infringments (teams would feel emboldened to get away with more). This idea reminds me of the old League 7s pre-season carnivals, remember those? From memory, the conversion was with a drop kick, and boy, were there some pretty ordinary attempts at times!!

Mitzter I appreciate what your trying to say. Rugby's rules evolve with time. Let's keep them evolving. Rugby is hard enough to understand now so I think your differential scoring system for penalties is too complicated. Can I suggest something else? Up until a few years ago kick-offs were place kicks. This was deemed to take too long so the rule was changed. Now restarts are taken with drop-kicks instead of place kicks. How about applying the same thinking to penalty shots at goal making them drop-kicks only? What would the outcome of this rule change be? First, it would take less time for penalty kicks at goal therefore spedding up the game. Second, the accuracy would reduce so teams would (probably) elect to kick for goal less often. Your thoughts? And bring on Part 2.

Mitzter, Perception can be everything! When I watch rugby league, I "know" the teams are trying to construct tries, even if it's a dull game. In rugby union, I "don't know" what I'm going to get. I get the impression that in rugby union, players are more afraid of 'conceding penalties'. So I agree with you that the penalty goal carries far too much weight in rugby union. The players are distracted, attempting to ensure they don't infringe, rather than concentrating on the task at hand of crafting tries. But how do you come up with the correct balance? How do you circumvent crafty players & coaches who are going to be looking at ways to take advantage of any & every law? The obvious answer is to make the laws such that players' primary concern, is creating & scoring tries. But that's easier said than done. And it's beyond my brain capabilities at the moment. Most rugby fans still want to see the continuous contest at the scrum, lineout & tackle/breakdown. But we want to do so knowing that teams are trying to score tries. The fact that one side can 'skip away' with a number of penalties immediately changes the innate nature of each game. The team behind on points suddenly feels compelled to play catch-up, but might only achieve giving away more penalties & making more mistakes. The game shouldn't always be like this. But like I said, I will have to leave it to better minds than mine, to find the right balance.

I believe a penalty goal should remain at three points. Hover, a kick at goal shouldonly be allowed for foul play, professional fouls and repeated infringements. All other other offences should be short arm free kicks. If a penalty kick is me=issed then the game should restart at the point of infringement with a scrum with the non-offending team having the feed (or a free kick ). In this way, the attacking momentum can be continued. It seems only Australians want the value of a penalty goal reduced. It is vnot on tha agenda of any other Rugby playing nation. In gridiron there are no penalty kicks, apart from the extra point after a touchdown, all kicks are field goals with a value of three (3) points. No-one is clamouring there for a reduction, either.

Interestingly, what is written down as the letter of the law, and what people, including refs, understand of the rules in actual game time can sometimes be two very different things. I like to think that the soccer off-side rule is a very easy rule to grasp - and it is - although you ought to try reading the actual rule in black and white, and if you can make sense of it, you should join MENSA immediately. As for the intepretation of the rule during actual game time, well two problems emerge: 1. it's physically impossible for a linesman to be looking at two different spots on the field simultaneously to know whether a player was offside when the ball was passed forward; and 2. despite FIFA giving instructions to always favour the attacking team whenever its line ball - it rarely happens. Why? I put it down to culture - an official would rather stop a dubious goal being scored than allow one through - and that's a cultural reaction, i.e. the officiating is at odds with the actual rules coming from headquarters. I mention these two points here just in case these elements are present in officiating a game of rubgy (and I supect they are): 1. physical limitations in proper adjudication - the game of rugby is such that the visibility for the ref is often impaired; and 2. history and culture weigh on the minds of rugby refs every bit as much as they would on that of linesmen - words on a bit of paper are insufficient at times. As for the remainder of the article, I think many would quibble with this line: The purpose must be to win by primarily the greatest number of tries. Many fans like to think along these lines, but clearly, for over a century, the team with the most points has won, regardless of tries scored. Using the soccer example again, if your team wins the game via one goal, having come from a penalty, absolutely no one is going to complain (even if we would all rather see a well crafted goal from field play). Which reminds me, the game of rugby is as much about stopping your opponent from scoring as it is about scoring yourself.