Isn’t it curious that rugby union still gets a crowd? In top-class game, there are less than 30 minutes ball-in-play time out of the 80 minutes available.
These days, there are more penalties than tries and many top games are determined by penalties.
However, it is worth noting that the recent rugby-union Test between Australia and Wales attracted just 34,000 in sports-mad Melbourne.
This was at a stadium that holds 56,000 and the atmosphere was lukewarm at best.
There were nine penalties and just three tries.
By contrast, the National Rugby League State of Origin match completely filled the same stadium one month earlier with great atmosphere.
Queensland beat NSW three tries to two, with zero penalty goals.
Could it be that the sporting public are less prepared to support a game that is dominated by penalties and obscure breakdown play and relatively little ball running and open play?
As a lifelong rugby player and referee, with 50 years’ experience on the field in eight countries, I feel qualified to say that the ‘running game’ has lost its way.
It is now a kicking game, with penalties dominating and determining the results of many top-class games.
To illustrate, over the past weekend the penalties-tries ratio has been in favour of the former.
The ratio was 9:3 in the Australia-Wales game; in the New Zealand-Ireland match, it was 8:2.
In the South Africa-England fixture, it was only 5:7.
As a whole, there were 22 penalties scored over the weekend for 12 tries.
Why is it that some games are monotonous and frankly boring, while others produce more of what pleases the crowd?
That is, open-running rugby and tries though still with a heavy overlay of penalties.
The reason is that the scoring system is biased towards penalties.
Two penalties kicked are worth six points, while a try is only worth five – or seven with a possible conversion.
The solution is to increase the value of a try, relative to the penalty.
To make a real difference – to signal that the game is more about scoring tries than winning penalties – the value of the penalty could be dropped to two points.
The field goal would also drop to two points.
There is logic behind this.
Modern international teams are much bigger, stronger, fitter and better conditioned than those of yesteryear.
With up to seven substitutes, on top of 15 starters, it is hard to exhaust one’s opponents.
With limited commitment of forwards to the ‘ruck’ – which has virtually been eliminated from the game by current law interpretations – defences are very difficult to penetrate.
Finally, the modern ball is synthetic and does not absorb water to gain weight.
It can be kicked from a tee, over the crossbar and from anywhere within 50 – 60 metres.
It is much easier to kick penalties than score tries.
In closely matched games, teams opt for this as a deliberate strategy.
But nobody in the crowd prefers penalty kicks to tries.
Few prefer to watch a scrabble between the forwards, with repetitive ‘pick and go’ or ‘drive and dive’ until the penalty is awarded.
The simplest solution is to reward tries more or penalties less, while dealing with persistent infringement by the sin bin.
Reducing the value of the penalty kick (and the field goal) would re-align rugby union towards running play and try scoring.
This would surely be an improvement for everyone involved in the game.
RFFU
Roar Rookie
I liked your article Jim and it is "curious that rugby union still gets a crowd". It's mind boggling that so many Roarers would defend it especially since the game they're watching these days is nothing like the game they grew up playing/watching. That is Rucking, Mauling, No lifting and No holding the ball on the ground.
RFFU
Roar Rookie
"I think union is in a brilliant place right now" You're dreaming mate or are you sure you're not John O'Neil? Rugby Union in 2012 is dogsh*t. It shouldn't even be called Rugby Union but Rugby Product instead. I have had "the exilarating experience of a pick and drive up field, a rolling maul from a lineout or a game played in -5C with sleet followed by a warm shower after" but that's not what you're watching on telly mate. Jims' article is right on the money but the solution is to go back to proper rucking/mauling, no lifting in the lineouts and no passing off the ground.
James
Guest
I get so bored of the league is better than rugby articles - if you don't like rugby just go watch league. They are different games and not everyone is going to like both of them. Why roll out the same boring and largely biased view points and arguements that have been talked through a thousand times before... just accept that the games are different. Rugby isn't going to turn into league - kicking is a legitimate and cherished element of the union game and simply because league has mostly removed it from their version of the code due to pressure from TV bosses doesn't mean it detracts from the spectacle in any way in union provide it is done with intelligence and purpose. Union and league are similar but different games - don't try judging one from the perspective of the other... just accept they are different - not better or worse - but different.
kovana
Guest
Cheers attraction. Yep, Rugby in Canada seems to be on the Up.. Also there has been a good increase in Registered Rugby players in Canada... I think 70K IIRC.
kovana
Guest
Also a well done to the 20k who rocked up at Cordoba, Argentina to watch the Argies beat France.
p.Tah
Guest
Old Rugby Boy are you Jim Lawrenson?
Illattraction
Guest
Hi guys, A Canadian here. I follow many websites to get my rugby fix. Was suppose to go to the Can vs Italy game at BMO field... I must admit, since the olympics rugby is getting a lot more attention (the game was live on TSN2).
PeterK
Roar Guru
I think the 36 mins in play is a myth. I would like to see that broken down to what ball in play actually means. It may be the amount of time a player was running with it. I enjoy watching lineouts and scrums (to a lesser extent), and certainly enjoy mauls. I wonder if these are included. In league if you exclude the dead time from once a player is tackled to when the ball is played (since this is dead time since it cant be contested) and the boring scrums since they are non contested I wonder how much ball in play there is. Not much.
Johnno
Guest
-The best advertisment in my mind for total rugby was the following 2 matches in history that i can think off. 1) South Africa VS British and Irish lions Loftus Pretoria 2nd test 2009 just had everything tries but just great defence and tries hard to get and really physically brutal rugby 2) 1996 South africa vs NZ in south africa tri nations or it could of been 1997 what a great running game it was 3) 2000 Australia V NZ at staidum Australia and jonah lomu's winning try And i always thought rugby league lost appeal when it devalues set pieces scrums, and the interchange rule i have never liked i want rugby league and have always only wanted rugby league to be 5 replacement rule max. Like in the old days no subs when your off your off. ANd it should stay that way and i hope rugby never goes down, the interchange route.
King of the Gorgonites
Roar Guru
great crowds all round
p.Tah
Guest
Great post Sheek. Compelling rugby... Great term.
sheek
Guest
There is a mistake to assume that plenty of tries, & too few penalties, is all that is required to fix rugby. 7, 8, 9, 10 or more tries a game, many of them against feeble defence, won't improve rugby as a spectacle. It will more likely bring groans at a loss of the contest. Some weeks ago, I decided on a different tack, by urging Australian rugby teams to play 'compelling' rugby. Compelling rugby might feature 6 vibrant tries, or it could even be tryless. Most importantly, compelling rugby is two teams ripping into each other, & repelling each other, with the contest for possesion fierce, & the scoreline close & perhaps changing frequently. Above all, the spectacle must be a gripping contest displaying commitment, desire, guts, determination, skill, athleticism, invention & enterprise in turn. That's compelling rugby. I think the scoring system is just fine. But I agree we need more use of yellow cards to weed out the recalitrants. And I would like to see some decisions taken out of the ref's control. Discretionary penalties, those at the scrum & breakdown where often no-one but the ref knows why he penalised a particular team. Otherwise, it would just be encouraging if players played & coaches coached, as if they REALLY loved rugby, & wanted to showcase its virtues to the max.
Bakkies
Guest
If you watch league games from the 80s their game was more similar to Rugby back then. Why? Here are a few reasons. . There were contests for the ball at the tackle and play the ball. . Players pushed in the scrums. . Captains opted for scrums off penalty. . There was more field position kicking for territory. . There weren't as many substitutes. . The game was more close to the defence at each stoppage with the 5 metre rule.
The ball is in play steadily more each world cup when the IRB really pay attention. I must say the state of origin in comparison was monotonous. Thats not a complaint, it is just all that league has to offer is 4 hit ups a couple of passes off the ruck and a kick chase. This happens for 80min and although some people love it..... I don't. I prefer a game that has more to it ie Union. The game is the game. If you do not like it and you can't gain anppreciation for the variables it offers then don't watch it.
Skills & Techniques
Guest
I'm with you guys. I loved the 2nd half of AUSvWAL PART 2 but only because I have played and totally "get" what's happening out there. The nuances in rugby still make it fundamentally more interesting than "five tackles and a bomb" but my wife thought the 2nd half was boring and so did most of the people in Melbourne it seems. We probably should be making it appealing to new markets rather than just us old battle axes. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Penalties and then yellow and red cards for time-wasting will fix that.
Bakkies
Guest
''These days, there are more penalties than tries and many top games determined by penalties?'' As a so called ref you should know that Rugby is a game that has many methods to contest for the ball so there will be a lot of infringements. You have to take the opportunities. I cringe when my team goes for the try. Coughs up the ball and comes up with zero points then goes on to the lose the game. It's about winning matches not looking pretty. We aren't in the amateur era anymore. Ever tried to kick a penalty from 50 metres? It's pretty damn hard. Most club kickers struggle with kicking conversions.
Dasher
Roar Guru
It's clear that players snatch a break by kicking the ball out, lying down with "injuries" until a trainer comes on with their magic hands, etc. However, if we were to stop the clock for all set pieces, I think the players would only take longer breaks and we'd be left with a gridiron-like situation. Then again, we'd still be guaranteed a full 80min of game time. Sorry to sit on the fence.
Dasher
Roar Guru
...or using the shoe to keep stray hands and bodies away from the ball.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Sailosi, Back in the day, Wlliam Webb Ellis allegedly picked up the ball and ran with it. Thats what we'd like to see more of !