A small score change will bring the crowds back

To bring the crowds back i have a great idea : -First, the scrums don't have to be contest, the crowds hate when the same scrum is played 3 times in a row. -Secondly, the players are now too much bigger and stronger, as we know we can't extend fields so let's reduce the numbers of players in each team from 15 to 13, it will have more space to play "real rugby" like someone says in a comment. -third, as we all know, The defence got the upper hand over the attack, so it should be placed in ten metres of the ruck. -Then, as for the rucks, the crowds actually hate it because it's too often draft , it should be better to forget it, The carrier of ball should simply make roll the ball between its legs with its foot, and it'll be two markers in front of him, while the defence can't play since the ball is played. - And last but not least, every 5tackles the attaking team will have to kick the ball or it'll be a turnover. As for the score change, this is not very important i think, but we may bring back the try to 4points and the conversion to 2points like the penalties and the drop goal should be 1point, to become a match-winning point to make suspense and emotion, all that the crowds enjoy! So we could become the greatest game of all, isn't it??

Very, very interesting!

The value of a try was introduced in 1992. Did this change the try/penalty ratios. I checked on Australia V New Zealand in 2 period: 1982 - 1992 and 1992-2002. 1982 to 1992 Tries per match = 3.24 Penalties per match = 4.96 1992-2002 Tries per match = 4.17 Penalties per match = 4.83 On the principle of "lies, damn lies, and statistics", I declare Cattledogs proposition to be "true and correct". Cattledog, please write to the IRB on our behalf and demand an immediate change to the points allocations.

G'day Simon, thanks for your thoughts. I perhaps should have qualified a little more with 'one of the things' that distinguishes union from league! Changing points has a far greater chance of being trialled than reducing numbers or widening fields. To give a team the motivation to run the ball, you must give them a goal. Sure, teams are trying to score tries, but to get back to my original point, that is, the crowds roar (no pun intended) with delight when a team elects to kick for touch rather than for goal. That's because they are going for a try, rather than a 3 pointer. What we have to do is give them the motivation to do this more often. Whether more tries have been scored is for the statcian...statitic...number crunchers! But there's lies, damn lies and statistics! Don't go on them much. Made refereeing what it is today. Abysmal! Anyway, we agree we all want to see more running rugby. I haven't seen any compelling argument to date that would indicate what I originally suggested would not work. Some have value added, but the overwhelming thing is it must be simple. Wander what the outcome would be if the premier Sydney and Brisbane sides trialled a new points system for all trial matches prior to the 2010 season commencing. Then do an analysis of the matches under both systems and publish the results. No new laws to comprehend, only the refs needing to be more diligent in rewarding positive play and penalising negative play...probably with more use of yellow cards. Will only take a game or two to come to grips with this aspect.

It is an interesting question then. I wonder to what extent kicking penalties is a remnant of the days when a kick was the only way to score, and therefore the only meaningful punishment for foul play? That no longer being the case, perhaps the basic justification could be re-examined.

Cattledog, 15 players is hardly what distinguishes rugby from league, and while decreasing the amount of players is not very popular, it would still not be like league in structure or dynamic. If a penalty is not worth as much in value compared to a try, infringements in the ruck will definitely increase (to stop the try). The irony is that it may lead to more penalty goals than tries. This is where the argument for the card comes in, and I concede that this might be the best solution. However, I can see a potential nightmare if it is ruled incorrectly for minor/ accidental infringements, which occur all the time BTW. The problem with laws is that they cannot rule the spirit/motive of the infringement very well. However, perhaps I have been too hasty. Maybe the second ref idea would help in this area. To think that teams are not already trying to score tries is a fallacy I think. I think teams want to score tries because they are already worth more. Teams are not intentionally setting out to not score tries. They simply take the penalty because they're more easier to come and tries are harder to come by, rather than penalties being worth so much in value. If you really want teams to run with the ball and chance their arm (and have this mindset) then the best way is to make tries easier to come (somehow) rather than increase their value compared to a penalty. Have more tries really been scored on average per game since they increased the value from 4 to 5 points? This would determine it for me. Invictus, you are probably right about decreasing the amount of players or increasing the width of the field having no chance of happening, but not much more so than changing the points. grahamcreid, critics are always saying rugby is boring because they kick too much instead of run with the ball. So I think there is a place to relate crowd attendance and running rugby (rather than try scoring) generally speaking.

I read a gem of a quote on the BBC sport website last night from Sean Lineen: "There was a good crowd again." The good crowd consisted of 2,582 spectators. Bless. We really do support such a strangely isolated sport.

So you weren't watching the Six Nations this year, then. On reflection, the simplest thing to do is make Australian and New Zealand stadia smaller - that way the crowds won't feel so isolated.

Spot on. There can't be a rugby fan in the land who would disagree with that. Although that could spell the demise of English rugby haha

My original concept was to change the mindset of teams to play more ball in hand running rugby by increasing the conversion to 3 points. As a result, more tries will be scored, however, this would be as a consequence of the change in mind set. But that's not a bad thing, I suggest. I agree the bonus point system was a great idea (adopted by numerous local competitions I might add) to occur. It could be reviewed as you suggest but regardless of how it's achieved, I think the overwhelming agreement here is seeing more exciting ball in hand, running rugby and only kicking for goal when tactically necessary.

I would prefer "what a great game. The two sides really went at it" as opposed to "we were robbed by the bloody ref" as a talking point.

Thought they must have changed your dosage there for a minute.....

If the entire back row is in the bin you will definitely have a fast open game...... I'm pretty certain it would only happen once and it would be a different back row next week.

Another thing, I don't think more tries is necessarily the answer to attracting crowds. When every possession become points it makes it less of the contest, and more of a lottery. Everyone likes to see the ball thrown around a bit, but it has to be with style and precision. The ELVs mistake was that players just began chucking the ball around with no structure, thank God they are (pretty much) assigned to history! The bonus point system is the best idea to come out of recent years. Could that be improved? i.e. a point for 3 tries, maybe 2 points for four tries?

Would increasing the try's worth on the other hand, lead to teams clogging up and become scared to concede? It could turn matches into a defensive game of chess. Much more kicking and positional play, and only attacking rugby would come in the final third. I think a good idea is decreasing DG and Pens to 2 points. Nowadays, players can get over the posts from their own 10! Part of the attraction of rugby is the skill and art of pushing and bending the rules. Every good flanker knows how, it's all part of the tactics. I think to just totally expose any slightest discrepancy with the rules would be a bad idea, and we'd see most games played with 6 backrow players in the bin.

Does anyone like the mistakes that cause controversy and talking points for years? I for one do! For every decision that goes right, there could be a decision that could go the other way. In sport, it tends to even itself out. Give more power to the referees to make their own decisions, before it becomes even more stop/start.

AndyS/Invictus No place kicks for penalties. Bascially you have three options. Tap and go, scrum or kick for touch. It's not a serious suggestion. It would have the same chance as a snowflake in hell of being ratified.

Australia is the only country in the world that seems to have a problem with the laws and somehow correlates this to crowd attendance. Rugby Union worldwide is in rude health, the economy might not be but the game itself is fine. No, the game is fine, it is the tactics and strategies of the teams that need attention.

We can't get consistent rulings week-to-week, can you imagine if they changed end-to-end?