After being announced earlier in the year there are currently some new scoring laws being trialled in South Africa’s Varsity Cup, recently endorsed by Rod Macqueen.
But basically field goals and penalty goals are only worth two points under the experimental laws, while a converted try is worth eight points instead of seven – with conversions increasing from two points to three points.
The aim of these experimental laws is to increase the incentive to score tries, while maintaining an emphasis on the skill of kicking (with conversions becoming more important).
Many people in the past have talked about the idea of reducing the value of penalty goals, but the usual reluctance was that reducing their value would just cause the defending team to purposely infringe more often.
The logic was that defending teams would rather concede a potential two points from a penalty goal rather than allow the attacking team to potentially score a try.
This is also what I use to think, but under these particular experimental laws, I’m not so sure anymore.
Follow the logic. If the defending team purposely infringes in an attempt to stop the attacking team from scoring a try, what is the attacking team going to do under these new laws?
Will they simply take the potential 2 points on offer with a penalty goal?
My thinking is that more often than not, the attacking team will instead, kick to the corner for an attacking line-out, and go for a potential eight points, rather than go for a penalty goal only worth a potential two points.
And if attacking teams increasingly start to take the option to kick for an attacking line-out and a potential eight points when the defending team purposely infringes, then the defending team are going to want to stop purposely infringing, and find some other (legal) way to stop the attacking team.
While it is still very early days, this appears to be what is happening already in the Varsity Cup.
Here is a scoring summary of the competition after four rounds:
Tries scored
2011: 39
2012: 50
28.2 percent increase
Penalties in game
2011: 183
2012: 193
5.5 percent increase
Penalty kicks aimed at goal
2011: 45
2012: 16
64.4 percent decrease
Yellow cards
2011: 3
2012: 3
No change
Total points scored
2011: 359
2012: 379
5.6 percent increase
There is a statistically significant increase in tries, but no significant increase in penalties.
There is a hugely significant decrease in penalties aimed at goals.
And there is no significant change in total points scored, but a difference in how those points are scored.
To increase the personal enjoyment and thrill of rugby, and to widen it’s appeal, many ideas are often suggested.
These include making it easier to score tries by reducing playing numbers or widening the field. Other suggestions include reducing the amount of penalties by simplifying the laws, or changing the referee!
But when I see the possibility of such thrilling games like the Crusaders verse the Blues in the opening round of the 2012 Super Rugby season, compared to the possibility of slower games like some other games in 2012, it makes me think that the problem is not the game of rugby itself, as it is.
The problem must be the way it’s played (and possibly coached).
What these new laws in South Africa’s Varsity Cup attempt to do is not decrease the amount of penalties awarded, nor create a try-fest, but instead, they attempt to increase the incentive for teams to score more tries instead of going for penalty goals.
If teams are wanting to try harder to score tries, then this might mean more games consistently like the Crusaders verse Blues.
nomis
Guest
You're right soapit. It could be a different story if trialled by professional teams. It remains to be seen. But so far so good I reckon. Your suggestion that the defending team would just purposely infringe so that they only concede a 2 point penalty goal rather than a potential 8 point try is exactly what I use to think. But so far in the trial this doesn't seem to be happening. Perhaps in the Varsity Cup so far, teams are not purposely infringing any more because as you suggest, it doesn't actually lead to only two points. It seems the attacking team is keeping the pressure on by continuing to go for a try (potential 8 points!). So purposely infringing is not the tactic the defending team is using perhaps because it doesn't lead to conceding a penalty instead of a try. But maybe you're right about coaches of a professional team purposely infringing anyway. In that case, I'd say they wouldn't get away with it for very long before a player is sent off.
soapit
Guest
because it rewards tries that are easily scored and can then be run round under the posts.
soapit
Guest
penalties are fine imo as long as they are earned through attacking. if the whole premise of your game is to aimlessly give the ball to the opposition to pull a penalty out of them then we have a real problem as this is not what anyone watches sport for. i think the tweaks of the last few years have brought us back behind that line but need to be vigilant on that point.
soapit
Guest
all sounds good, except maybe number 2, a little too complex for me (more complexity isnt what we need i reckon). i would also say with 3, make it a scrum from where it was kicked only if it runs dead, so the same as what happens in general play. number 4, not sure about all short arms but definitely set number of resets needs to be made. if the refs got no idea after three scrums then lets get on with the game. number 5, or we could make it lineout only (ie take away the scrum option). everyones set up for a lineout, the indiscretion was at a lineout, let hand the ball over and have another lineout to settle it. number 1, i've been saying for ages if the refs are too chicken to yellow card people and decide the match there and then, which they usually are (understandably) they need to put them on report for professional fouls and have them suspended for the next match (if they reach a set number).
soapit
Guest
the thing is a university comp as a rule may not give away professional fouls when under the pump as they dont have as much to lose but once you take this to the professional ranks wait and see how many penalties are awarded inside the attacking zone. if giving the penalty only means a quarter of a try how wouldnt a professional coach advise his players to do it everytime to prevent a try? i guess its possible that after the penalty is given the attacking team would then go for a scrum and try and score but then you'd just do anything (including illegal) off that as well to prevent the try. this will only work if yellow cards are more prevalent to give greater disincentive. ps just finished typing and realised kovana kinda said the same thing in the post above.
nomis
Guest
I wouldn't say it was a massive change though, Football United. How about this, I'll accept the current points system if you accept my article.
nomis
Guest
All codes attempt to improve their game for a wider audience. There needs to be some awareness of the what entertains the wider public. It's not a dramatic change though.
kovana
Guest
The problem with those stats IMO, Is that once these new trialled laws are introduced to the 'pro' system.. Things will really change in regards to the stats. In my opinion. Dont change the point system. However a few ideas. 1. Refs pull out the yellow card faster in the defending teams 22... That way, they dont wanna infringe anymore. 2. Borrow from 7s in regards to PKs at goal... Have them only allow Drop kicks in the defending teams 22. Heck make it a drop kick within the defending teams 40m line. However, anything outside that 40m/22m is a Place kick. I really do enjoy seeing those far place kicks actually getting over. 3. IF the PK is missed. The team in possession now with the ball should be given rights for a kick out of the 22.. Or a scrum where the kick was taken. 4. Only 2 scrum resets allowed. All scrum penalties are either free tap or Kick into TOUCH. Attacking team retains possession. 5. Lineouts that are not straight... Instead of doing another bloody scrum. Have a tap kick.
Cattledog
Guest
Seems there are some who are afraid of change. Change is good, when well managed and introduced. Rugby needs to continue to evolve. I think there is little to no chance of it turning into league, especially with talk of point changes only. The vast majority of rugby supporters appreciate and want to see more of the 'running game'. There's a couple of other codes available if it's kicking for goals that turns you on. Conversions, penalties and field goals all have their place in union. It's how these aspect influence the running game that is at the crux of this particular argument.
AndyMack
Guest
Think people are allowed to want improvements to their game. It's not about justifying it to anyone, its about coming up with some rule changes along the way to continue to keep people interested in the sport. Think the ideas have some merit.
Sircoolalot
Guest
I agree FU this attitude of basically turning rugby into league really gets tiresome
Sircoolalot
Guest
Exactly
Cattledog
Guest
You work for the current Government FU?
Football United
Roar Pro
ffs only in australia do we have this mindset that it is a sin to do anything but run the ball and penaltys are an abomination, like we a constant need it to justify our game to fans of other games. The rest of the world get on fine with penalties, the points system and a territorial style of game, thus nothing will change. wtf's so hard with accepting that.
Mella
Guest
The problem with the free kick option under the ELV's was they made it tape and go. That just made the game look a bit too much like league as the defending team would have to scurry back 10 meters each free kick and then fan out across the field. It should still be a full arm penalty, but without the option for kicking for goal, so you still have the set piece restart Whoever designed that ELV (Rod McQueen?) just got it wrong, the tap and go was never going to get through the NH boffins.
sledgeandhammer
Guest
All those advocating harsher penalties are forgetting that a lot of penalties are awarded incorrectly (referees do get it wrong) or are 50/50 calls or are technical rulings which have no impact on the play. If you really want a contest for possession, you can't call players who are trying to win the ball cheats. Therefore awarding a 3 point opportunity for an indiscretion which may not have occurred is way too stiff. So I agree with this trial, however, the free kick option used under the ELVs was a success in the trials ,and was not adopted due to political pressure, so I doubt this will get across the line either.
mitzter
Guest
I don't think lower level trials can at all be used as evidence though. It needs full professional teams to find the weak points in the system and it is exactly like what Geemacatch has said. I'd much rather subtle and streamlined changes like missed penalties going to a scrum for the non-kicking team at the place of kick. Should stop kicks from halfway from plays that weren't even leading to a try
mitzter
Guest
yeah why not have it right in front, in fact then we don't even need to touch the ball down in the in-goal (Sarcasm!) No not all tries are the same!
mitzter
Guest
I have no problem with field goals (no that's not a rugby league term for it???) They are over quickly, unlike place kicks
Nathan of Perth
Guest
They're actually trialling it though and empirically speaking it looks like you were wrong. Although I certainly wouldn't mind cynical penalties getting a stiffer response though.