IRB needs to reward running Rugby

Correction: All Blacks have played the Boks twice and the Wallabies TWICE (not 3 times)

That the Wallabies have kicked a lot, or have attempted to emply a kick and chase strategy at times, is hardly in dispute. I think the broader issue is that the laws, as they stand, encourage it. Eagle I agree with you' comment that "Only if you have field position can you run the ball with effect. Therefore you have to kick for field position." The stats above may at face value indicate that the All Blacks kick less. I would believe that anyway, but it should also be recongised that the All Blacks have played the Boks twice and the Wallabies three times whereas the Wallabies have played the Boks three times and the AB's twice. The Boks kick very well from hand and do so a lot. They are very good chasing and defending those kicks from the front as well. I believe, at least in part, the Wallabies have been trying to kick their way out of trouble a lot. Furthermore, it would be interesting to see how these kicking stats relate to time not just in possession but also how many times in possession in their own half each team has kicked and how many times in the opposition half each team has kicked while in possession. If, as was the case in Perth, Australia had been playing a game on the back foot and was territorially disadvantaged, it is only common sense that the amount of kicking would escalate. The Boks, to their credit, had them pinned with a great display of both accurate kicking and the application of extreme pressure punctuated by some attacking with ball in hand. I hardly think the above stats are clear cut. As Spiro wrote on this site "statistics are like bikinis: what they reveal is interesting, what they conceal is vital." As someone who deals with stats, this is one of the best quotes I have read in recent times.

The SA kick chase wasnt as effective because the ref penalised any player inside the ten. Well done Mr Barnes

Kick and chase is only good to watch when there is an actual chase ie. habana try from de villiers chase in Perth. Or when Habana and Pietersen were chasing. With poor chase the up and under is the least entertaining aspect of rugby. I would far rather see a long touch kick to the corner from the Steyns, or Barnes or Carter and an ensuing attacking lineout.

Forget this idea of more yellow cards. You'll just bring in more referees ego. The problem is not the fear of the breakdown that is forcing the kicking so much, whatever the experts an the coaches say. Rugby is simply a game of finding postion on the park from where you can score a try, and if you can get a penalty before you get there you'll kick that thanks. So to see a game where there is a lot of running with the intent to score tries you must allow teams to kick the ball out on the full, and therefor pass it back into the 22. Teams will regularly feel confident of having position to go for a try and you will have running rugby back, whatever they do at the breakdown.

As I mention above firstly no Petersen. View the videos and watch Petersen chasing throughout the tri nations. Then also ad that Habana went off. You are also right about pressure. But not on Steyn. On Du Preez, often illegally and unsanctioned, which meant Steyn did not get a lot of ball and was less influential. The Boks also were not given the penalties they would normally have gotten. So Steyn even more invisible.

Thanks for providing the stats. The tremendous irony of the Australian analysts who cannot see that their team is playing a kick and chase game, simply because they also play a phases game I find amusing. Only if you have field position can you run the ball with effect. Therefor you have to kick for field position. If the laws prohibit you from passing back into the 22, the laws will only succeed in forcing you to kick and chase. The risk of a lineout from where you kicked is far too great. If you truly want to see more ball running drop the law that you may not pass back into the 22. On Saturday SA were without their world class chasers Petersen (whole match) and Habana (half the match). On the other hand the Ausies chased the up and unders very well.

May be we let the opposite team pick who should be send off for "team fouls"

Yellow cards is the way to go.....refs have to start getting more aggressive with this. Players hate being sin binned, it's a natural deterrent to consistent, deliberate infringements. And with less players on the field, the game opens up with space and with the team with the overlap looking to run the ball. I would go so far as to suggest almost a basketball team foul type policy at international level at the least - give away 3 penalties as a team in a half at the ruck, maul or offiside line and any trangressions after that in the half are met with a yellow card for the perpetrator. Changing the value or tries or penalties goals wont do anything as if you increase the gap between the value of a pen goal and try then teams will infringe as a first thought when defending in their own half, and narrowing the gap means teams wont even try to play with advantage when it's given as they will just want the pen.goal.... So lets start sending the offenders to the bin....and if this means we see parts of some matches being played by 14 v 12 then I dont mind....players will learn eventually

I see his point, but it's hardly been any better under the post ELV laws - in fact, if anything it's worse as a team has more chance of conceding points if it runs a kick back and gets isolated.

All Black kicking coach Mick Byrne offered his opinion that the reason why kicking in general play was encouraged more under the ELV's was due to the law changes affecting the breakdown and the free kick sanctions awarded. That degree of uncertainty in retaining possession discouraged counterattacking and unintentionally made it too high a risk for the attacking team to turnover possession inside their half and outside their 22. As well as conceding easy territory with the quick tap and go. There is a place for kicking in rugby but not at the sole expense of scoring tries, which is the aim of the game.

..and I don't think the points for a penalty goal should be decreased from 3 points. If penalties decreased from 3 down to 2 (for example), the defenders will be happier to lose 2 points rather than 7 and will deliberately infringe making the game boring and less free flowing (nothing new there). Field goals points, I'm unsure about. They need to be high enough to make attacking teams want to kick them and defenders keen to stop them. Drop goals are important, because they create uncertainty amongst the defenders. Some will rush up in defence to stop a perceived drop goal attempt; this creates holes in the defence which canny fly halves like Carter capitalise on, step through and score. If points for a drop goal are too low, defenders will happily concede 1 or 2 points. They will set an impregnable defence line. Result - Teams will camp down around the try line and wave after wave of attacks will continue until someone cracks. This can be entertaining, but once again, not all the time. So don't reduce the points for penalty and field goals, just make the consequences of missing them more costly. This way the Boks won't try to hit penalties and drop goals from within their own half and George Gregan like players won't try pointless drop goals in order to get an 'advantage' quickly converted into a penalty.

Agreed. Scoring a try should always be a special thing requiring a bloody big effort.

Running Rugby is a joy to watch but it has its place. As others have said, if every game was like a Fijian 7s game it would be pretty boring. Tries are exciting, but as other have mentioned too many is also boring. In the Sydney Club Rugby competition there are scores of 80 - nil, that's not interesting or skillful. Its crap. Teams should be encourage to score tries but we shouldn't make it easier to do so. I can't recall exactly what Graham Henry said a few weeks ago, but the principle has merit. If a ball is kicked dead, if a drop goal is missed (goes dead or grounded), if a penalty is missed (goes dead or grounded), the defending team gets a scrum feed from where the ball was kicked. Result, balls aren't kicked aimlessly downfield, drop goals and penalties are kicked when the team is certain they will get them. Missing them will be too costly. Result - teams are more focused on scoring tries, but the tries aren't easier to score. Will this lead to more Running Rugby, I don't know, but its worth consideration.

hear hear

Have heard analysis to the point that it was the inability to pass back into the 22 and kick out on the full that brought about the kicking you refer to. Hence the point made earlier about kicking for the line and retaining possession regarding free kicks.

I think the boks are just analysing their opponents quite well. When they don't think they can break up a defense they kick. If they think there is a weakness they will have a go - eg Perth test, wallabies with unsettled mid-field so the boks let them have it. Tried it again in Brisbane but it didn't come off. As they say, you can't win them all.

ELV's spawned a baradge of aimless kicking, up and under after up and under. This is a someone said, a flogged horse.

I liked some of the ELVs but not the free-kick ELV. And agree about no. of tries not equally how good a match is. For example, the Blues Chiefs game in this years Super 14 to me was an example of some very poor rugby i.e. defenses and tackling but alot of people trumpeted it as how good rugby could be under the ELVs. If every game of rugby had the level of defense that that game had, I don't know if I could watch them. Agree that it is down to the attitude. What I wonder now is whether attitudes of certain teams are changing - i.e. do the Boks have some more faith in themselves now so are willing to have more of a go at the ABs in NZ, are the ABs a bit more wary of the Boks now because of results this season - so they might change their game plan up a bit. It seemed that way in Bloem when the ABs refused to kick it out because of the Bok lineout.

Indeed Wally. The direct impact on having less straight arm penalties is that there is more intent and planning around ball in hand. The appproach to the try line has more focus when planning for a match. There is more pressure applied to the team with out the ball and the try line behind them. Perhaps this ideal (ELV's) is the fall out of few trys in the 2009 Tri Nations, but only time will tell. We shall have to wait and see what the next three weeks provides! A thirst for more ball in hand, JMT