Has rugby outgrown its scoring system?

Go back to a leather ball and give it a good pre-match and half time soaking...

I actually tend to agree that the points scoring system in League is a good one. I think many Rugby fans would be against this, but League has been about the spectator product for a lot longer and the changes they made were with the intension of making the game better to watch. I also like the idea of reducing the number of players, probably just taking away two forwards (so you'd have one aerial second rower and one utility second rower ala Keiran Read, Adam Thomson etc who can be a lineout target) with the No.8 being a fetcher type player. I think this would open the game up a lot more and make it more open and lateral in attack. The improvement would be especially large at the pro level where the players are so big and fit nowadays. It would more the game more towards fitness than straight power (as this appears to be the main trend since 96). I don't think you'd need to lengthen the game to 90 mins if you reduced the number of players, as it would already be a huge aerobic demand with the first change. And getting rid of competitive scrums would be against the spirit of the game, which has always been about players contesting possession in all facets of play. I think there are other changes, see below comment, which can dramatically improve scrums as a spectacle so they can remain an important part of the game without leading to so many collapses and penalties.

Rugby used to be a game about kicking goals only. Over time the value for a try has increased and the value for goals has decreased. Anyone heard of a goal kicked from a mark? It used to worth as much as a penalty, just for catching a kick on the full and slotting it back over the cross bar!! I think it is just another natural evolution of the game to once again look at the relative value of goals and how we can make the game better to watch. I'm personally not in favour adding more points for anything, as the tallys are already getting to much like cricket scores! But reducing the value of penalties and dropped goals is something that definitely needs to be investigated. People argue that it will lead to more penalties given away, which I think isn't correct as if you give away 2 penalties worth 2 points then it's worth 4 points in total, whereas 1 penalty at 3 points is worth 3 points. So more penalties given away actually leads to more chances to kick a goal UNLESS teams instead decide to go for the try option instead. I think the biggest area of complaint right now with penalties is when they are awarded for scrum infringements, as this is often a bit of a lottery. Personally I feel that scrums have evolved into something almost totally disconnected from how they were originally intended. Sure it is a battle of one pack versus another, but they are now a very slow setting and time consuming beast. In past decades scrums set quickly and were over quickly, as a means of quickly allowing a contestable test of pushing strength to restart after a knock on. If the IRB can firstly sort out the issues around scrum time then I think we can put off the need for adjustments to the points system for a little while longer. Firstly, let's remove the hit. The laws state that no pushing is allowed before the ball comes in anyway, so why the need for a massive hit? Secondly, a straight feed needs to be policed as tightly as a lineout throw. This means that the scrum should be faster and safer to form, which is better for both players and spectators. It also means that scrums are a genuine contest for possesion. The third change to prevent any player (particularly the scrum half) going passed the middle line of the scrum. You can't go onto the other side of an opponents lineout, so why can you do it in a scrum? I think we can quickly reform the scrum, just by applying the correct laws, to make it a lot more cleaner and more like a strength testing version of the lineout. Teams form on the mark, the ref brings the two sides to the correct position safely. The attacking team has the advantage of the feed. No pushing or jumping before the ball is fed. No one can go offside until the contest is finished. The end product being a safer, faster and easier to ref contest for possession. And one which results in less penalty shots at goal!! I am also looking forward to the use it, or lose it, rule being applied to rucks. But I think this should also again be brought in line with other areas including the scrum and maul. One any contest aspect has reached it's conclusion then you have one chance to use it before possession is handed over. In mauls you strangely get two chances, which I think is unfair to the defense, and makes it different to other aspects of play. There are such simple changes available to the IRB that when combined together will make Rugby a better game to play, ref and watch! And all the while they are often changes that were already there in the book which have just been neglected too.

I'm a kiwi and I don't like the influence that penalties and dropped goals have on the game. I like the way the All Blacks play the game and they are always attempting to play an exciting brand of rugby. To isnpire and excitet those watching and show how athletic the game can be. But quite often they are doing so IN SPITE of the laws and not because of them. If you were to remove NZ from Rugby you'd be left with some pretty poor product to put on TV most of the time. Sometimes I think Australians feel too nervous about suggesting a change to Rugby's rules because they fear others will point the finger and say 'it's only because you can't scrum' etc etc. I think that's rubbish too. I think Australians are the most vocal for change to rugby's rules because it is the nation where the sport is in the most intense direct competition with other codes, particularly high level Rugby League. Being in this environment pushes Australian rugby fans to expect more from their sport as a spectator product. It is always those who are in the toughest of conflict, be it war or business, who come up with the best innovations and leaps in technology. When things are comfortable then people relax and don't look for improvement as much, it's just human nature. Sometimes the rule change suggestions go too far, or become too radical, but somewhere in between the two extremes there is happy middle ground where the game can still be about the good things that make it a sport for the participants (all shapes and sizes, variation of tactics, respect for each other and the ref) and the good things that make it worth watching (strength, speed, agility, risk and reward). At present I think there is still a way to go towards making it better to watch.

Referees are having too much influence on games. Reduce the penalty kicks to 2. Follow League and use their points system. 4 for a try, 2 for conversion and penalty and 1 for a drop goal. Also to make it more interesting have non-contestible scrums to get rid of the fatty props. By doing this the team that didn't knock-on can rightfully have the ball and it would stop the wasting of time. Reduce the number of players to 12, extend the length of the game to 90 minutes, get better referees, have 3/4 refs on the pitch for better clarification of things, have fewer substitutes to tire players out.

I think the point here is that while dropped kicks are a skill similar to rolling mauls or line-out calls you don't get three points every time you succesfully form a maul etc. The amount of points obtained for successfully completing a dropped kick is too high relative to the skill. It also adversely encourages the amount of time this skill is executed, both successfully and unsucessfully. Personally the only time I enjoy seeing a dropped goal attempted is when teams are in a deadlock and it puts one side ahead. For that to happen it only needs to be 1 (or 2 at a stretch) points. It retains the skill and gives it a special place as a breaker or deadlocks in tight games. But it would also discourage widespread use of the dropped goal where teams use it to accumilate 3 points when within range of the posts. Quite often when you miss the shot you get the ball kicked back to you from the 22m line anyway, meaning possession is returned for failure to execute properly. I'm very much in the 'reduce dropped goals to 1 or 2 points' camp. Probably better to make smaller adjustments initially though, so just drop it to 2 points, rather than 1.

I am all for running the ball, but legend has it... kicking goal was the way to go... scoring a try came later. No point pissing and moaning about the game plan, the result is all that matters.

At a cost of how many 10s of million world wide? Think outside the box by all means, but keep it within the planet at least.

Another outside the square - but such a solution to time wasting & critical technical nonsense at set scrum time - short arm penalty- no kicks @ goal - result - quick tap penalty, on going action for loose forwards & backs to run the ball to the try line.

Yeah, I must admit, I've never thought of that - not a bad idea. Although would make it trickier especially here in Aus, where most (all?) our top level rugby stadiums are shared with league, so that would pretty much rule out changing the width, but you could have a moveable crossbar?

fan thats an awesome idea. it wouldnt discourage goal kicking tho. as a kicker it would spur me on to go for more because its a bigger challenge. kickers get off on this kind of stuff. but still brilliant idea outside of the box.

thats what i meant. ok maybe quades a little better at tackling

What about something moderate, like reducing the value of penalties kicked from outside the 22? Let's be honest, that's what the problem is. Teams aren't bothering to give themselves enough of a chance to score a try when given a penalty from 40 metres out. I understand the argument that 3-point penalties are supposed to act as a deterrent to teams cheating. That's what a penalty is. Duh. But do we really think that an enterprising openside who gets carried away trying to pilfer a ball (albeit illegally) from a ruck on the 40m line is as bad an offence as a player deliberately killing the ball in the 22 to avoid conceding a try? Do we really enjoy watching proud teams like the Springboks ignoring the touchline simply because they have Frans Steyn, and they know they can milk and take advantage of penalties from any place in the opposition's half? Proponents of the status-quo will argue that referees are the ones to blame for not being more liberal with cards and/or penalty tries for the more serious offences. But an overly pedantic referee is absolutely the last thing that a crowd wants to encourage. Expecting a referee to increase his generally subjective impact on the game is not going to improve it. The changes must come from within the laws themselves, not the men enforcing them. Supposing you reduced the value of penalties kicked from outside the 22 by a single point, I think you would find that teams would opt to kick down the field more often. In doing so, they would enjoy a better attacking position - from which they might indeed earn another penalty (one worth the full three points) - but ultimately you would see more tries scored. This solution does not discriminate unduly against freaks like the aforementioned Steyn from sometimes taking the long range shots (which, while occasionally good to watch, should not be prioritised over the scoring of tries). In situations where a team is close behind or not far ahead, two points could put you into the lead, secure a tie, or put you beyond the reach of a converted try. In other words, the long range penalties would become less about an opportunistic easy three points, and more about being a pressure-cooker-game-breaker opportunity. I know that you and many other Rugby purists are concerned about the nature of the game, Werewolf, but there would be no game of Rugby if a boy named William Webb Ellis had not picked up a ball and ran with it. I think we should be trying to follow his good example.

That is the game called soccer. Games go 0-0 and the need for 'goals' is arguable.

Nobody is thinking out of the box. Why not making goal kicking harder by narrowing the distance between the uprights of the goal posts or lift the cross bar.

Rugby football is supposed to be a football game as well as a running, passing and try game. Some of the finest matches ever played were decided by kicks. 1) 1995 World Cup Final, Boks v. Blacks 2) 2003 World Cup Final, Wallabies v. Lillywhites

Penalties are there to punish those that infringe on the law. If you can't hold up a scrum, that is against the law and you should be penalised. If that's in kicking range so be it. It's a game of territory.

WQ what you are saying is true, but doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement;

Unfortunately a number of penalties do not relate to 'offenses', they are technical penalties. Rugby players are most often penalised for competing for the ball, a trait which is supposed to be part of the games core values. Hardly cynical play.

Totally with you jack