Below is the text of a letter I have sent to both John O’Neill, CEO of the ARU, and the IRB Laws and Regulations group.
It may sound like a cry in the wilderness, but this was prompted by a long-standing dissatisfaction I have had with the outcome of matches unduly influenced by penalties:
Dear Mr. John O’Neill
I read with interests the comments of British and Irish Lions manager Andy Irvine in today’s Sydney Morning Herald and have taken this opportunity to address my comments to you.
Irvine notes that too many matches are decided by penalties, penalties often awarded on 50-50 calls.
Countless games are won by teams that score fewer tries than their losing opponents.
The Wallabies results this season are a clear indication of the issue:
• The match against Scotland was a try-less draw won by Scotland on a higher penalty-conversion rate.
• The first Wales test was won by the Wallabies three tries to one, but the Welsh stayed in touch through penalties.
• The second test was won by Wales two tries to one, but was awarded to Australia through conversion of penalties.
As noted by Irvine this distortion affects the way teams play, particularly northern-hemisphere teams.
He makes the point that many penalties are 50:50 calls on technical interpretations.
What is a legal action at one moment becomes a penalty offence a moment later.
An example is David Pocock legally playing the ball when on his feet but a penalty being awarded when an opposing player pulls him forward.
The referee decides that at some point he is off his feet but still playing the ball.
Another point I would like to make is that many infringements that attract a penalty arise from the offender being outplayed or having a technical deficiency exposed, particularly in the scrum.
The penalty awarded against Australia at the end of the Scotland match, which won them the game, is a good example.
Penalties are not awarded for a failure in skills for the knock-on or forward pass.
It makes no sense for a front rower who is outplayed by his opposite number to be penalised to the extent of giving away points as a direct consequence.
Offside calls are another source of penalties that are by definition borderline, as are many others.
Leaving aside the difficulties in making those 50:50 calls and infringements that are clearly dangerous or foul play, it is worth considering why players infringe.
They do it to slow down, deny or steal possession from the opposition.
Taking things too far should not gift the opposition points. A simple solution is to address the intention of the infringement.
That is, to return possession to the team infringed against.
When a referee detects an infringement the penalty should be awarded as normal but a shot at goal should not be allowed.
The team awarded the penalty can decide how to utilise the penalty.
That could be through a kick to the sideline, retaining the throw to the lineout, feeding a scrum, taking a tap, passing it back for a field goal or whatever available action they feel suits their strengths or field position.
In this way teams will need to score tries to win games and will also be penalised for infringements.
There may be a need to consider alternative sanctions for repeated offences within five metres of the try line.
Otherwise the change could be made immediately, without any significant change.
I trust these comments of use and that action is taken by the IRB.
Your sincerely,
A Concerned Rugby Follower
I have been fortunate enough to be able to discuss this with Spiro Zavos by email. He made the point that the ELVs addressed this issue in a large part, but were rejected by the European unions.
There is little chance we will see them get up in the short term.
He also made the point that penalties are needed to discourage negative and spoiling tactics. I agree with the last point and am happy for penalties to continue to be awarded.
Removing the shot at goal as an option will still punish teams that infringe by handing the ball back to the opposition, with an additional disincentive of also losing field position.
The referees will still have the sanctions of advancing the mark 10 metres, yellow cards and penalty tries.
It is not right that a team should lose by three points because one of them was too eager to come off the line in defence, or for numerous other “technical” offences.
Sure, award the penalty, but just take out the shot at goal as an option.
The ELVs got the kibosh from the British unions on the grounds that they were an attempt to speed up the game in Australia to help the ARU take on league.
Perhaps taking out the shot at goal from penalties, which doesn’t speed up the game appreciably, will open the door to moderating the offences that draw a penalty.
The players don’t have to play any differently and the referees don’t have to referee any differently.
All that is needed is the elimination of the shot at goal and the subsequent restart.
I’d love to see an exhibition game played this way.
It’s worth a try (no pun intended).
Mike
Guest
I couldn't agree more: All Craig Joubert has to do to stop the complaints is put in a very good refereeing performance every time. Fuil stop. :)
Chris
Guest
What an unbelievable whinge. I heard Craig Joubert reply (over the referee's microphone) to a captain who was complaining about being continually penalised during a game not so long ago "if you don't want me to penalise you, all you have to do is play by the rules". Full stop.
ScarletAussie
Guest
Depends what you consider to be "thriving". "Turning point" I think is a better name for it. Ireland have got their nuggets in a pile from a structural perspective it seems. England are threatening to withdraw from the HEC (along with France) because it's all getting too hard to balance Premiership survival with HEC success. Nobody wants to get relegated but England does not want regional rugby. Catch 22. Wages have a cap that will see even English players heading to France (as long as their club system doesn't fall in a heap) and the club v country argument is about to get even more heated. Leicester will always get 16,000+ and Saturday afternoons a Twickenham are marketable. But the system is not faultless Wales have conceded on wage caps, and unless the WRU does the reasonable thing and pays out central contracts on its core 20-25 players, the exodus will continue and crowds will continue to fall because all the players will be in France and people actually want to go to the ground to watch games at 3pm on a Saturday, not 7.30 on a Friday or 4.30 on a Sunday. Scotland have only 2 top tier sides, who have had good seasons, but regularly play to 2-3000 fans. Also, I call BS on the 2.5m registered players in England. How many of those play every week? I would doubt even half. There would be more actual players in England than anywhere, I have no doubt. But nowhere near 2.5 million regular players.
SamuelKT
Guest
Marcus Daniel you bloody beauty- the best article by far!!! I really do hope you get the message through to STOP THE PENALTY KICK FOR GOAL!!! in the attacking half! after awarding technical penalty - watch the game flow and become more open - such a simple solution to the time wasting technical nonsense that is turning traditional lovers of the best world game away. Meet the competition for the spectator dollar head on and blow the others away. A quick tap- kick for line, up & under-- so many options open up. I hope the referees are able to keep up to the extra pace and flow of the game though!!
sixo_clock
Roar Guru
'could' have been, perhaps, if, if...
BennO
Guest
Mike, please read my first reply to sheek.
Marcus
Guest
Your point is taken (no pun intended) Mark. We all know the games were awarded on the accumulation of points. My language was to draw attention to points accumulated from penalties, which altered the results.
Mark Roth
Guest
I'm rather surprised that no one has said this. Apologies if it was something that I missed. "The match against Scotland was a try-less draw won by Scotland on a higher penalty-conversion rate"---No, Scotland won by scoring more points. " The first Wales test was won by the Wallabies three tries to one, but the Welsh stayed in touch through penalties"--No, Australia won by scoring more points. " The second test was won by Wales two tries to one, but was awarded to Australia through conversion of penalties"--No, Australia won by scoring more points The problem that people have with penalties deciding games is not a problem with the scoring system, though it may be a problem with the law book. A rugby match is decided by who scores more points. All points are equally valid. A try is a means of scoring points, not the goal of the game.
We are not off topic. My point is that all the rhetoric in the world about changing aspects of the game like penalties etc doesn't change the fact that the ARU is a small union in comparison to the more powerful home unions and so such rhetoric is essentially a waste of time.
First they're not my figures they are the IRB figures and secondly I think it is more important that he no's in player talent comes from the youth coming into senior rugby. Once in the seniors I doubt it matters how many play club rugby, training once or twice a week before playing a poor standard of rugby and then havin a few beers and pies after the game. I doubt that will have a bearing on who gets selected for the wallabies. of course the wallabies are selected from 5 super xv franchises, who in turn get selected from sydney and brisbane club rugby, who all come from the junior set ups.
Marcus
Guest
Well said Gatesy. Talk about red Herrings!
Kane
Guest
Werewolf based on your figures that you provided Australia have 43% more senior males than NZ, which is where the national team is picked from
Gatesy
Guest
Have read all of this artitcle - the bottom line seems to be to make it harder for teams to win by goal kicks - use the drop goal, or limit the points - either or..
Gatesy
Guest
What's with the whole debate on stats - you got completely off the point! I agree - at least limit the amount of kicks at goal in some way - simplify the over complicated laws and give teams less opportunity to kick at goal - don't necessarily abolish the kick altogether.
No thats fine i see what you're saying. It has a lot to do with cultural significance and infrastructure in a country. For example New Zealand have low no's compared to the UK, France and South Africa. Political sway though comes down to money. The UK has the majority of revenue and so they have all the say.
Some good negotiating there Mike. I am sure you are very successful at your vocation no doubt! For change to occur there needs to be a critical mass of persuasion or action and that needs to come within the home unions. It is not going to come from Australia harping on about it. That will just gain further resentment to what would be better laws i admit. I want the ELV's but the critical mass needs to come from within the UK. an example would be the USA trying to impose its democratic ideals in areas of the world that resented it even though blind freddy can see the advantage. The arab spring was what was needed to provide democracy in that area because it came from within. Is that too deep for this discussion. sorry.
Mike
Guest
Sorry WW, my last post came out the wrong way. I just wanted to say that I agree that number of registered players isn't really relevant to whether a test team has good number of "cattle" or not.
Mike
Guest
i agree 100% werewolf. No-one should get hopes up on these things, just take them as they come. I actually don't blame the Home Unions for saying they don't care about our problems with league - they shouldn't have to. And as you rightly point out. league in UK is negligible compared to union, even in its supposed heartland. The real issue is that European unions want interaction and compeition with us. They want us in RWC (just as we want them), they want international tours, bi-lateral tours, Lions tours etc etc. Hence the strong commitment by all Unions to the Spring tours and this June series, even though there are plenty of practical reasons not to have them. That in turn means that we all have to listen to each other. If a case can be made that it improves international rugby, some sort of ELVs may well become reality, but there will need to be a major (two-way) listening process first.
Is it a negotiation Mike? It's more of a dictatorship with the home unions. Yes to making another tilt for the ELV's but what I worry about is the false hope this gives our fans many of whom do place a disproportionate amount of billing into Australia's status on the world stage. I worry that another inevitable ELV failure will only drive away the frustrated fickle fans that we can not afford to lose. the home unions don't care about them but we should. O'neill has begged the home unions to consider our viewpoint that we have to compete with league. In the uk they couldn't give a monkeys because australia is a relatively small union and league is viewed as a joke.
Wolf, yes as they are provided to the IRB, however the problem lies within the record keeping back in SA.