I like penalties, but I love tries

Just reduce the amount of points for a penalty in line with a conversion to 2 points. So we argument against this is that players will deliberately foul more, particularly in the red zone: well the solution to that could be to make the position of the restart dependent upon the location of the foul- instead of a 22 yard dropout or kickoff from the halfway line, the defending him starts with a free kick from the point the infringement was made. So if you foul under your posts, you give away 2 easy points and have a clearance kick from deep in your half, bringing the opposition straight back onto you. If a team gets a penalty in borderline kickable distance though, the incentive to kick for the corner instead of going for the posts will be higher than it is currently, because they would only get 2 points, and even if they miss, the attack would be pretty much over.

Require that opposing tighthead and loosehead props be Siamese twins. Pros: Opposing props would never drop their binds, thus removing one of the 36 potential opportunities for penalties at scrum time. Cons: Shortage of Siamese twins.

hahahah

Embrace subjectivity in referees' decision-making. Instead of scrums, interpretative dance.

The ref brings two small portable gates onto the field which he places behind the hindmost foot at each side of the ruck whenever a breakdown occurs. Pros: - Removes confusion among players and spectators about where players should be entering the ruck. - Requires one player to hold the gate open while others (legally) enter the tackle ball area, thus freeing up space out wide. Cons: - Potential for injury depending on gate construction material - Require stronger refs who are able to run fast with gates under their arms.

Good post Matt. Rugby has the potential to be consistently more intereesting that league with ball in play, multi-dimensional varying tactics and non-repetitive play. Paddy O'Brien has done damage to our game and kept it from rushing forward (notably in Australia) by constantly fiddling with the rules and never settling on the ones ideal for attacking ball in hand rugby where penalties are secondry to scoring points(2008 Super14).

Rugby has to acknowledge that it is now about entertainment as much as participation. Comparisons are often drawn with Rugby League, which obviously went pro a LONG time ago and has had 100 years to evovle the laws, almost entirely for the betterment of entertainment. The result is a sport that is generally more entertaining (I'm only recently comfortable as a Union fan to admit this) but which has probably suffered for particpants as a result. Changes like the removal of lineouts and competitive scrums, and an increased in fitness requirements have meant League is no longer a sport to be played by people of all body types. Backs and forwards are somewhat interchangable. This evolution is possibly a factor in why League has never achieved the same participation rates globally as Rugby Union? However, Union fans seemingly feel ashamed to go down the same path as League, as though making changes to the game are somehow admitting the game is wrong. But facts are facts, League adopted facets from other sports (in isolation or inspiration) such as substitutions, night time kick-offs and reduction in numbers to make the game more entertaining. But facts are facts, Rugby Union is now in the entertainment business and the game must seek to appeal to the fan as much as the player. Sometimes we Union fans don't like to admit our game has issues when it comes to entertainment. Penalty shots at goal alone and endless scrums are not fun to watch. Sure, they can become entertaining when it's a close game, but they don't get the bums on seats. These factors DO need to change to make the game better. But the sport itself is not inherently broken. It is full of great athletes of all kinds of shape and offers a variety of tactics and play that can make it more entertaining than the repetition sometimes shown by rugby 7's and Rugby League. But I only say CAN, but the potential is there but it hasn't been realised yet. So we need the willingness to have this kind of debate and to accept more trials so our sport grows and seeks improvement. It is yet to properly define itself as a mature pro sport, but the more willing we are to critique and evolve the faster we'll get there.

Short arm free kicks encourage a cheats charter as teams don't get shots at goal as you do off a penalty. Defending teams will infringe consistently as they won't have to worry about conceding points.This encourages teams to take the scrum option which leads to countless resets. You rarely see set tap moves in modern day rugby. One solution is don't concede penalties, the reason why there are a lot of penalties is that teams infringe frequently. Some referees do badger some teams though. Ireland in particular. There were large periods of time in their recent 6 Nations matches referees wouldn't give them a penalty for up to 30 minutes of play, while their opponents are getting away with infringing. That can kill a team off when tries are at a premium. I would like to see the French bonus points system trialled in Super Rugby. It is different to what other comps have (the 4 try bp). A team gets a bonus point if they score three tries more than their opponent. If the team that has scored three tries and their opponent has scored 1 for instance they won't get a bp. they will have to get another one without conceding. This encourages teams that are leading to keep going rather than dropping off intensity after scoring tries and let their opponents in for easy tries. The risk of losing the bonus point will encourage teams to attack for the full 80 mins ''The essence of rugby has always been about running with the ball, and scoring tries is what everyone wants to see, not endless shots at goal. '' No it isn't. the original point of the try was to award a team a shot at goal.

Also, duct tape the props to each other for the whole game to stop them breaking their binds. Could open things up round the field, mess with lineouts though.

If you do away with the hit you don't need the pause or the touch. The whole touch thing came about to reduce the hit by bringing people within arms reach. I don't see why they don't just specify that front rows must be no more than X apart and quit messing with the call sequence.

Let's not go nuts, aw hell let's go nuts: Make all penalties an automatic 1 or 2 points, no shot at goal. Restart with a tap from the spot, no waiting around.

An alternate option to dividing penalties into full option penalties and reduced option penalties based on the infringement type is to base it on possession of the ball. If you have the ball when the infringement takes place you can kick at goal, if you don't you can't. As a onetime very average goal kicker I can tell you a kicker that can slot a kick from 55m out deserves to use this skill.

your last sentence just about sums it up, redsnut. how can the players or even us fans adapt or understand what is going on if the ref is so incredibly inconsistant during each match. im fine with the points system itself, the issue is more about getting the referee on board with his own consistancy. its hard enough for players to play the sport at the elite level, without the ref and his interpretations making it even harder. it is to no end frustrating to be allowed to play a certain way all through a match and then out of the blue get pinged for something that decides the game with a penalty. if a ref has been lax at the breakdown, then, remain so for the whole game and dont pull out some arbitrary nonsense to hand one team the victory at the end of a game. there are numerous examples where this has been the case (blues/force '11, reds/saders '11, boks/wbs '10 etc etc) and we are all supposed to look away and accept it. again this does not mean to eradicate legitimate penalties that have a large effect on how one team is playing, just remain consistant with how one is reffing the game. people are complaining about the force and the lack of penalties the reds got, but i saw the reds doing exactly the same thing on the weekend and the force still didnt get anything from the ref in the last quarter of the game.

IMO, three things would improve scrums 1. Do away with the hit 2. Have a small "flap" on the props shirt so that a proper bind can be made. It doesn't have to be a foot long, just enough to grip 3. Standardise the ref's call to - toutch, pause one two engage, with the word pause immediately following the word engage. At present the time gaps between the three words varies from ref to ref, and sometimes with the same ref in the one match How the hell are teams supposed to adapt to such ridiculous variations of officials.

If you read the news, GTW, league perhaps haven't sorted the issue entirely. I'm happy for rugby to debate and investigate completely before committing. This leads to well considered and managed change ;)

I can't believe League sorted this issue out many, many years ago......and rugby can't swallow their pride to follow suit.....unbelievable.

I think this would go a long way to helping the game Hoy. My only comment would be that I would still prefer to see a team think it's in their best interest to kick for the side - go for a line-out - and keep aiming for a potential try, even when they receive a penalty in the red zone. Not all the time mind you, but more often than not. There are plenty of carrots and sticks they can use to get a team to want to score a try. I personally think the scoring system being trilled in the Varsity Cup ATM, is providing a really nice carrot for teams to want to score tries rather than kick penalty goals. But it's still early days to know if it's the best way fwd. But maybe it doesn't have to be an either or. A red zone could also have it's place.

Yeah, I agree - tweaking the laws is not about making it more like league. It's trying to bring the best out of rugby. We've all seen the potential rugby has to thrill people, but we just want to encourage teams to play like that consistently without it being in conflict with the desire to win. I don't mind if the attacking team fails to score a try, but teams TRYING to score a try more often than taking a penalty shot at goal, would do the trick methinks. But a team has to first think it's in their best interest to go for the try instead.

And I remain very firmly in favor of the 3 point conversion :)

This article is in line with the change to points and both delve into ways of enhancing the game by having teams contemplate scoring tries rather than kicking goals. Whilst I support the experimental points changes for the competition in SA, we should also continue to debate other ways of improving the game. Some argue that any change such as those being discussed just bring the game more in line with league. This is a myth as there are still the three key components remaining in union, regardless of other changes, that keep the codes well and truly apart. The first is the contest for the ball at every tackle. The second is the lineout contest and the third is the contest at the scrum. Whilst scrum laws are certain to change, I will assume (and hope) the contest will remain. Having said this, there is still a requirement to keep the game a spectacle and tries seem to do this. The 'free kick' whilst speeding up the game did little else, except give the attacking team the benefit of a scrum, which could use up several minutes. I like the idea of having defined penalties, mainly for foul play but mainly free kicks (off-side and the like) giving the kicking team the throw in to the lineout. Additionally, throws to the lineout that are not straight should be a free kick (tap only not kick for touch) rather than a scrum. The above changes retain the penalty kick, be it somewhat reduced in use, speed up the game and provide more attacking opportunities for sides than there were previously. Like the article says, I like penalties, but I (also) love tries!