- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Though it comes up every year without fail, the annual debate about what penalty goals should be worth seems to have popped up earlier in 2012 than ever.
The motivation for it all is quite simple; there are too many penalty goals in rugby, and teams that score tries shouldn’t be getting beaten by teams that don’t.
Ultimately, rugby fans just want to see more tries. On that count, it’s hard to argue.
And in order to fix this apparent issue of disparity between the value of penalty goals, drop goals, tries, and conversions, every man and his dog has aired a theory on how many points each is worth.
My new column colleague, former Brumby and Wallaby Clyde Rathbone, had his two cents’ worth just last week.
“The change would encourage attack as a first priority and it would negate the effectiveness of teams who deliberately slow the pace of a game,” Clyde told us, on the theory of upping conversions to three points, and dropping penalty goals back to two.
And maybe it will. In fact, it seems it already is, if the early observations from an IRB-sanctioned trial are any indication.
In South Africa’s Varsity Cup, the top level of rugby for tertiary students in the Republic, the IRB gave the competition special permission to tinker.
For their 2012 season, which is already under way, conversions are worth three points while penalties and drop-goals are now only worth two.
After the first month of competition, the early conclusion is that the swap has had the intended effect. Attempted penalty goals are down, while the number of penalties awarded remains about the same. The number of tries scored is up, as are the total points scored.
Excellent. More than anything, I’m just glad to see a new idea being trialled at a relatively meaningful level.
Other theories and systems are thrown in to the air every day.
Some say leave penalties alone, but increase conversions. I’ve previously suggested increasing the value of tries would have the same effect as decreasing penalties. Others have even proposed that we increase tries to six points, but decrease conversions to one.
All of them work on some levels, but fall away at others.
The most common belief is that decreasing the value of penalty goals will only lead to an increase in the number of infringements in the defending team’s own 22, and this is my opinion too.
Under the current methods of scoring and refereeing, it seems a no-brainer what would eventuate.
Picture this. You’re an openside flanker, who for the sake of illustration, we’ll call Richie McRoar.
You’re defending on your own line, in a tight game, and the attacking team are up to their 10th phase, with a try a matter of when, not if. Before your eyes in the breakdown, the ball drops on the ground and is at the bottom of the ruck.
Knowing that putting your hand on the ball is illegal and that you will be penalised for it, you also realise that conceding only two points now for a penalty is a far lesser evil than conceding seven possible points for a converted try.
As such you “take one for the team” and play the ball with your hands.
Is it really fair that you can deliberately infringe to stop a likely try, knowing that further punishment isn’t likely? It’s a cynical, deliberate infringement; the very definition of a professional foul.
But it matters not in the wash up of things, because in conceding the penalty you’ve kept your team within touch of the opposition with no major consequence.
And therein lies the answer. It doesn’t require any tinkering of points at all; the current points system is just fine as it is.
The answer, friends, is in the rectangular shape of a small, yellow piece of cardboard in the referee’s pocket.
Simply put, the International Rugby Board and its refereeing body just need to tell its whistleblowers to deal with these calculated infringements with a more liberal use of the yellow card.
If that same scenario from above plays out then you, Richie McRoar, are now being shown a yellow card and you’ve conceded three points.
The attacking team – as they should – get the advantage of playing against 14 men for the next ten minutes. And the message is received loud and clear that cynical, deliberate infringements have no further place in the game.
In my view, all these theories and hypotheses about new point systems actually miss the point (if you’ll pardon the pun) of what is truly trying to be achieved here.
Reducing the value of penalties may push attacking teams to go for more tries, but it still doesn’t prevent the defending team giving away penalties.
The Varsity Cup figures show this is the case; yes, tries are up and shots for penalty goal are down. But the number of penalties hasn’t really changed. In fact, it’s slightly increased.
Therefore, the points system isn’t really the problem. The problem is that penalties are still being conceded, and this what we should actually be trying to reduce.
So leave the points as they are. But send the refs out with instructions to punish own-22 infringements with the yellow card.
The incentive to attack remains, as does the disincentive to infringe, only now this disincentive to infringe is coupled with a real risk of leaving your defensive line one man short, and incurring the wrath of an angry coach.
More yellow cards will in time decrease the number of penalties given within kicking range, as attitudes toward line-defence discipline from coaches and players change.
Ultimately, fewer penalties means more ball-in-play time, which literally equates to more rugby for the viewing dollar.
This, after all, is what this debate should really be trying to accomplish.