N.S.W Waratahs Benn Robinson scores a try despite pressure from the Queensland Reds Scott Higginbotham and Van Humphries during their Super Rugby match at ANZ Stadium, Sydney, Feb. 26, 2011. (AAP Image/Dean Lewins).
Is it right to lose a game of rugby if you score more tries than the other team? At times, it doesn’t seem fair that if you cross the line more than your opponent you still lose the game.
This recently happened when the ACT Brumbies lost to the Queensland Reds in round three of the Super Rugby, but did the Reds deserve a victory or were they granted a win due to the structure of points awarded on the field?
Rugby pundits, armchair referees, commentators as well as the IRB officials have debated the points allocation system for many years, and it has been changed numerous times since rugby was first played on the distant fields of the past.
Not too long ago, a try was only worth four points, but since then it has been given a value of five points. As all rugby union fans know, the scoring system is as follows: a try is awarded five points; a conversion from a try is awarded two points, therefore the total amount of a converted try is seven points.
A penalty and drop goal each are awarded three points.
These are the four ways to accumulate points for the team, but this is just basic mathematics. The argument then lies in the fairness and sometimes relative easiness of a penalty versus the difficulty and hard work to be given a try.
If a team scores two penalties or drop goals, then they are awarded more points than a single try, therefore it’s easier to win by only kicking penalties or drop goals. It would seem that way, wouldn’t it, but there is a lot more to the argument than simple maths.
Penalties are awarded because of indiscipline, for the most part. Yes, some penalties are head scratching and only the referee knows what they were thinking, but generally a penalty is the likely outcome of an infringement.
The team that loses concentration and infringes are penalised, giving the other team a chance to move down the field or have a crack at scoring points.
To score points from a penalty, you cannot simply just toe the ball over the crossbar and have a guaranteed three points, you have to have the skill to strike the ball well enough so that it travels between the uprights.
Kicking is not as easy as it would seem. I’m sure a few fans out there reckon that kicking a ball off a tee isn’t that difficult, and it isn’t if you are dead in front of the crossbar standing 10m or so out, then most of us are able to get it over.
In a professional game of rugby, those positions are not that common and the penalty mark is sometimes at an angle and more than 10m out. This is where skill and composure come into play. Most teams have a specialised kicker, if not two for different circumstances and environments.
The best kickers are men that are normally rock solid under pressure and are willing to place the ball at sometimes unrealistic angles and distances.
Dan Carter has shown his kicking skills throughout the years and is able to play with the elements to achieve a good kicking record. Morne Steyn is as accurate as you can get with the boot. Francois Steyn is known for his monster boot and distance. Kurtley Beale has sunk teams in the last seconds of a match with his composure and accuracy.
The old boys of the past are legends due to the skills acquired as a kicker and the telling tales of matching winning boots, as in Naas Botha, Joel Stransky, Stephen Larkham, Grant Fox, John Eales and Andrew Mehrtens, just to mention a few.
These men were not only rugby players, they had a skill that generally no one else in the team has, and that is the ability to kick, either off a tee or in open play. (I did only mention the Southerners as I’m not too familiar with the Northerners and mean no disrespect.)
For a team and the man, to develop these skills, they put in the extra hours on the training field. Stories of kickers staying on the field long after the rest of the team has hit the pub, have circulated through rugby folklore and some of the stories are true. The amount of dedication and work to become a world class kicker is immeasurable and teams are fortunate to have such players in their ranks.
This hard work is translated into strategy and points come game day and they are normally the players that are called up to tick over the score board.
The kickers have a chance to kick due to a penalty awarded and sometimes the penalty is near the halfway mark, which is around 50m. If you are able to kick a ball, any ball, 50m with great accuracy, then three points should be just reward.
If the opposing team is continually infringing, then they allow themselves to be put into a position to give up three points. To avoid penalties, a team needs to maintain discipline and concentration, not allowing the other team to have a shot.
People may argue that the focus should be on try scoring allowing a more entertaining game, but if a team continually disrupts play without being penalised, then the entertainment factor is jeopardised.
Once a team realises that they are giving away too many penalties as well as ‘free’ points, they begin to play within the rules and allow the game to flow.
Even though a try is only worth five points, which can be scored by anyone on the field, the extra points, which sometimes can win or lose a game, comes from a specialised player. The dedication and training that is emphasized by these players should be rewarded as a team spends time and resources to have these men kicking right.
It may be true that two penalties or drop goals are more valuable than a try, but isn’t that fair? Shouldn’t training and dedication be rewarded in the game of rugby? A kicker will spend hours on the training pitch getting his accuracy right, the tight five will spend a comparable amount of time in the gym getting their strength up, a winger will train on softer surfaces with a weight attached to improve speed.
Each position on the field is required to do a job and some of these jobs are to score points, others to power up field. Shouldn’t the player that hones their skill to score points be awarded a chance on game day?
If a team loses discipline, they should be justly penalised and allow a skillful and dedicated player to put up three points.
djfrobinson
Guest
Leave the system as is. A team that infringes on defense should be able to lose regardless of how good their attack is.
Josh Burnell
Guest
Remove the conversion - make tries worth a strait out 7 points - reduces the effects of goals, encourages tries and while it does provide some encouragement for teams to give away penalty to stop a try that is what the yellow cards are for and that gives the attacking team 3 points and 10 minutes 1 man up everytime it happens
ohtani's jacket
Guest
I'm not an advocate of changing any of the present laws. The first thing I'd ask is if the Reds were playing well and weren't in need of a win, would they have played the same way they did against the Brumbies? Because there's plenty of other sides who are scoring tries. The other point of contention I'd make is that the Reds using these tactics once doesn't mean they'll be successful against every side. Indeed, if the Brumbies had played sensibly, they would have beaten a Reds side using such a game plan. Better to file it in the "ugly game" category, IMO. That's one thing I can never understand about people who dream up ways to help the attacking side. You can have all the incentives in the world for a side to attack and they would still knock the ball on and ruin the whole thing. Rugby is a game that comes alive every now and again, and when it does those passages of attacking play can be breath taking. I don't really see how you can change the fundamental nature of the game.
sheek
Guest
OJ/PK, Perhaps the biggest problem for the Reds 2011 compared to 2010, is that no-one is taking them for granted this year. McKenzie still has the same problems in 2011 that he had in 2010 - he doesn't have a complete team from 1 to 15. Last year he got away with it to a certain extent, but so far this year, the other teams are onto the Reds. OJ, The Reds-Brumbies game was interesting for the 4 tries to one by the losing side - that doesn't happen often. So when it does, it is inclined to create a stir. As an experiment, keeping the laws & ref's interpretations the same, but reducing penalties to two points, would the Reds have followed the same blueprint as last Saturday? And if the ref had been more brutal on professional fouls with yellow cards, would the Brumbies had played the same way?
PeterK
Roar Guru
I agree. Same thing re professional fouls and wanting yellow cards. The teams wanted that, then a lot of players got yellow carded, the teams had a big cry and so they shelved it.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
I read that this morning and thought it was a poor excuse for the way the Reds have started the season. The lawmakers do seem aware that it's the so-called jackal causing all the trouble at the breakdown, but let's not forget that the no tolerance policy was waived pretty quickly last season why teams started complaining about arriving players having rights to the ball. Anyway, singling this Reds/Brumbies match out is a bit like the fuss that was made out of that high scoring Chiefs game in South Africa last year. It's too extreme an example to be used as a catalyst for change.
sheek
Guest
I don't think it's a matter of just changing the scoring alone. You also have to look at intent. And consistency from refs, which is often inconsistent most of the time! The Reds played a clever field position game last week against the Brumbies because of changes to the interpretation to the tackle at the breakdown. Now after only 3 rounds, we hear we're going back to last year where the attacking team had the advantage. So if the Reds were playing the Brumbies again this weekend, there's a good chance they would play their game differently. All because of perceived changes to refs interpretations. The refs & lawmakers continue to be the principle problem, because there's no consistency of interpretation.....
sheek
Guest
OJ, The 'new' Sheek says simply - very well said! (It will probably take a while for Vinay's spirit to return & grace me...but I'm working on it).
soapit
Guest
increasing the conversion would still make it more desireable then it is even now to kill the try by giving away penalties. yellow card is the way to do it
ptovey01
Roar Pro
Nothing wrong with the current system. No need to make tries 6 points. Players shouldn't be giving away penalties so that penalty goals can be kicked. As for Field Goals. It is a part of the game. Deal with it. Make it so that your defence keeps them out of the attacking part of the field.
Bjornthor
Guest
Cattledog, like the scorers kick idea, Cld make it opposite number takes kick for penalties too Rich, if attack doesn't have reason to kick for goal (ie only worth 2 pts) defense will keep infringing to prevent tries -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
CK
Guest
I agree that penalties and drop goals should be reduced to 2 points, howvever as you've well highlighted, the situation of deliberate penalties could be exagerated if you reduce them to 2 points. Counter to this of course is the constant problem of refs interpretation, which can be very costly on the penalty count. I would suggest the following:- 1. reduce penalties and drop goals to 2 points 2. any penalty infringement outside the 22m line is a short-arm penalty 3. any infringement within the 22m may be a straight arm penalty and only 1 warning applies before yellow card if it is straight arm 4. any (deliberate) infringement within the 5m ("red zone") may be a straight arm and immediate yellow card. Whilst the big downside is the defending team is down a man for 10 mins,the upshot is the attacking team cannot gain ascendency by taking 2 points - so they're likely to go for the try. It should set the scene for more "running rugby" as the 2 points isn't more than half the points for a try and the attacking team has the advantage of playing with one more player in the squad. Also, it will make players think more carefully about a deliberate penalty within that "red zone" as they know they'll be sin-binned immediately - leaving their team down a man. Players like McCaw - the worlds best cheat - will really have to play the rules.
Rabbitz
Roar Guru
Leave the points as they are. If you infringe enough to allow the other side to kick their way to victory, then guess who is to blame? How many tries would they have scored if you did not infringe? If you must make a change then "professional" and "cynical" infringers (is that a word?) need to be penalised and carded into submission.
Brett McKay
Guest
all valid points Cattledog. Love the 'scorers kick' idea, it reminds of me of Andrew Logan's 'one kick per player' idea. Ben Alexander might throw more dummies, too ;-) Rugby could do worse!!
bjornthor
Guest
1. the try is a team effort, the kick an individuals. 2. the try is the true skill of rugby that people and players enjoy not kicks, so reward it so. 3. why should tries scored under posts be worth more than in the corners? Some of the best tries are scored in the corners.
OzFootballSherrin
Roar Pro
if as a team, you are able to (esp in RU/RL with the off side rules and limits on forward passing), so, if you are able to so decieve and defeat your opposition in general field play that you end up with someone seemingly alone effectively on the goal line for what looks like an easy 'tap in',.........it rarely is. However, just like in golf, don't show the 1 foot putt,.....show the glorious tee shot or the superb approach shot onto the green within a foot of the pin. The outcome is the result of the process.
Cattledog
Guest
Brett, the crux of the argument is to award more yellow cards. That will slow down or stop the infringing on the line. No three strikes. Infringe, penalty, infringe again and yellow card. First couple of weeks will be a card fest, then they will learn. However, as an incentive for more tries, by increasing the conversion to 3 points you are still rewarding the team who scores more tries, as long as they haven't Giteau kicking! So a converted try is 8 points rather than 7 with an un-converted try remaining at 5 points. Love to see 'scorers kick' introduced as well. That would be a hoot! Ben Alexander may look to off-load more...lol. The reason for changing the conversion rather than the try is to change the dynamics somewhat. Seeing players attempt to get nearer the posts will make for some interesting changes to running lines, passing etc.
Chris
Guest
Leave tries as they are. Increase a conversion to three points (rewards the kicker's skill directly and the try scoring effort indirectly). Reduce drop goals to one point. Reduce penalties to two points (still punishes infringing team, but not quite as heavily). If the defending team is continually infringing the ref should be using the yellow/red card system instead of an endless stream of penalties.
Cattledog
Guest
Why?
Rich
Guest
I think either increasing the value of a try or decreasing the value of a penalty goal may not neccesarily see an increase in infringing as commonly thought. What I think is critical is that incentives are given to the non-offending team to go for the try instead of attempting the goal. Everything will follow from that. The incentive then is to increase the differential between the value of a try and the value of a goal. This makes going for the try more of the attractive option. Let's say we'll make a try worth 5 points and a penalty goal worth 2 points (or 6 and 3) What will this mean? Well, let's say a team gives away penalties because a penalty is only worth 2 points and is nowhere near the value of a try. Following this reasoning, they expect the other team to shoot for goal. But the non-offending team may say, "2 points is not enough, we'll go for the try". In this case the offending team's tactics have failed - the very whole reason for offending has failed. So therefore, is there any reason to infringe if the other team will continue to put pressure on us instead of kicking the goal and going back to halfway when they can start again with none of the pressure of defending the line? And of course, we hope that the refs get on board too with the cynical fouls.