There was a skirmish in the rugby Law War on Saturday night in Hamilton, New Zealand. In this 61-point game, Whistle Rugby lost narrowly with 30 points from 10 penalty goals, to Real Rugby’s 31 points from everything else.
Meanwhile in the Tri-Nations campaign to date, Whistle Rugby with 204 points from 68 penalty goals easily leads Real Rugby on 159.
Attentive readers will know that the main aim of Whistle Rugby is pretty mad. It is to bring about a whistle-blast within a particular 40 percent or so of the grass. It is a negative game dominated by the punishment of misdemeanours (no small number of which are actually milked).
Attentive and thoughtful readers will know that Real Rugby has the sane aim of rewarding positive behaviours, the strength, speed, skill, athleticism, courage, toughness, teamwork and intelligence needed to score tries, convert them and pot drop goals.
It is not too hard to imagine a 21st century rugby dominated rationally by rewarding the positive rather than penalizing the negative with large numbers of much-rewarded penalty goals. A game with laws that enable this despite the vastly improved defensive methods of the modern game.
Meanwhile, as is well known, useful change in any established organisation is usually brought about by people of goodwill looking and planning beyond current personalities, politics, policies and power-plays. This might take a couple of years.
Doug Buckley
Guest
Mathematical zig-zagging at the ARU I’ve been trying to work out why the ARU publishes its lists of Wallaby teams in a whacky order. In case you missed it, here it is: 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22. Make you seasick too? Obviously crazy, but maybe there is some method or other lurking in the madness. Is it in so as to keep the forwards together on the page? I don’t see what good that does. In any case it keeps the backs apart. Is it to make an old-fashioned distinction between the first 15 and the rest? Surely modern rugby is 22-man game. In any case does it do the cause of the first 15 any favours by listing them backwards ? The eye tends to move to and remember the first and last items in a list. Does someone want to draw attention to the perhaps more glamorous backs? The ARU might be mad but not that mad. The ARU’s mathematical zig-zagging slows you down when you most need speed, that is when taking a quick glance during a game. Normal human brains – and there may well be some amongst rugby followers - operate nice and simply from 1 through to 22 (even beyond, some of us) and in that order . Then the newspapers bugger it up even more by actually omitting the numbers of the bench players, the very ones whose faces you might not recognize. Is the ARU still fighting some hoary forgotten battle in the interests of a different player-numbering system? Alternatively, the ultimate persuasive reason: is it because they’ve done it that way for a hundred years?
grahamcreid
Roar Rookie
Take away penalty kicks at goal? The positional advantages would still stand....yeah, I know, I'm not even sure if I agree with this one either!
mcxd
Guest
i would say no. 3 is the most important !
Even looser
Guest
CraigB as you said this has been done "ad Nauseum". By the by, there's some good points being raised on Rugby Roar's 'A small score change will bring the crowds back' that may be of interest too. My views in a nutshell are: 1. Refs to use the card system (see other blog for interesting suggestions on a white card). 2. Introduce rucking; and 3. Get the refs trained and consistent with interpretations.
CraigB
Roar Guru
Sorry Jay - As has been mentioned on this site ad nauseum is that reducing penelty goals to 2 points will actually increase penalties due to the fact that their is less at risk for the offending side. What need to happen is a new kind of penalty be applied. A 1/2 way house between the current free kick and the penalty. One where an error in skill, eg falling over in a ruck, not being able to get away from a ruck when on the ground for example, is penalised with a kick that can go out on the full AND have the kicking team maintain possession. Deliberate pelanties (deliberate diving to block the ruck contest, offside, coming in from the side) they are penalty offences where shots are allowed. Couple this witha more liberal use of a yellow card system (say 3 penalties within 10 minutes given away 30 mtrs from the try line = 5 minutes off) or something similar should provide a suitable deterrent while at the same time eliminating shots being awards for skill errors like knock-ons. That and bring back rucking!
Jay
Guest
There is nothing wrong with rugby with the way it is. It just needs a few minor changes. 1. Bring back rucking. 2. Reduce penality goals and drop goals to 2 points (possibly 1 - more incentive to score tries and convert them). The result is you will see a return to running rugby.
Mitch O
Guest
Classic! Excellent read, well done.