Ok, look. We’ve all had enough, haven’t we? We who adore rugby union are fed up to the back teeth with games which fail to reach their full potential because of the penalty-goal scourge.
The last Bledisloe clash was a gripping, absorbing contest, full of drama and heroics, but it had no tries at all. Six penalty goals each, 18-18.
That’s not even unusual – penalties are the preferred mode of scoring nowadays, and the rules are not calculated to enrich our lives or bless us with more of what we really love about the game.
So it’s time to fix it. You’re lucky I’m around.
There are two basic problems behind the penalty goal glut: the attacking team and the defending team.
An attacking team will always go for the penalty goal when it’s available. Penalties are worth three points, so you can potentially wipe out the value of a try just by edging into opposition territory and knocking over two kicks.
Most top level teams have a quality goalkicker, so why would they risk a failed raid on the tryline when they could take three points from pretty much anywhere in the opposition half – and sometimes even further?
On the flip-side, defenders are happy enough to give away penalties to avoid conceding a try.
When desperately defending your own line, with massive muscular men charging low and hard at you, it’s a lot easier to give three points away, get yourself a breather, and get back to halfway for a reboot, than trust to your own legal tackling ability to prevent a five or seven pointer.
Penalty goals are too easy to take as a scoring option, and too easy to concede as the lesser of two evils.
So here is my Special All New Excellent Plan for Breaking the Penalty’s Stranglehold, or SANEPFBTPS for short.
1. Reduce the value of all goals to two points.
There would be an argument for cutting it to one, but in the interests of a) baby steps and b) deterrence, let’s keep it to two for now.
There will still be an incentive to take a shot when you get the chance, but you’ll need three goals to overcome a try, and four to overcome a converted try. The penalty goal would become less attractive.
2. All goal attempts must be drop-goals.
Increase the difficulty level a little. If the kicker isn’t as confident of knocking it over, teams will be more reluctant to take shots at goal from penalties.
3. Here’s the big one. Penalty goals should only be kickable within the opposition 22.
This has two effects. Firstly, it means that teams can’t engage in the cop out of going for long range shots instead of pushing closer to the line for a try. This reduces the probability of the game deteriorating into a shootout between sniping goal-kickers.
Secondly, it takes a leaf out of football’s book by making it clear that the worst offence is that which is cynically committed to shut down a try-scoring opportunity. And on that note…
4. Change the rules for restarts following penalty goal attempts by specifying that after each shot at goal, whether the kick is successful or not, the defending team must restart play with a dropout from the goal-line.
This takes away one of the incentives to infringe within your own 22: the thought of respite by taking the ball back to halfway.
This way, giving away a professional foul may result in both the concession of points, AND the prospect of the opposition immediately storming back at your line.
This is a harsh punishment, but it’s designed to stamp out the scourge of deliberate infringement, which stymies attacking play. And to back that up…
5. Mandatory sentencing.
If a player gives away two consecutive penalties within his own 22, he gets a yellow card.
If a team gives away three consecutive penalties within its own 22, the captain gets a yellow card. No exceptions.
If it keeps happening, keep yellowing. When a team is forced to defend with ten men, maybe players will get the message. We want to see attack versus defence, not attack versus ball-killing.
So there you have it. My plan reduces the incentive for teams to “roll over halfway and play for a penalty”, and increases the incentive to stay within the rules when defending your own line.
Penalty goals will no longer be the dominant scoring method in rugby. Teams will attempt to score more tries, and they’ll be more reluctant to illegally prevent tries. Peace and joy will reign. Hooray!
Or, as a certain ex-Wallaby suggested after hearing my plan, we could just increase the value of tries to ten points.
What would you do?
Ian
Guest
Blue good point about players forcing penalties on purpose due to the lack of consequence, I guess I expect the referees to hand out more yellow cards and if a player gets two yellows or a red miss next game etc. I suppose we just enjoy watching trys being scored , plus all our league friends give us a hard time about how boring they see the game. I don't think I any friends outside of the rugby community that watch it. Even most of the people I play rugby with don't actually follow it, probably due to lack of "entertainment" and tribalism (in club/super rugby). I think Australians, (and the New Zealanders and South Africans 700,000+ combined living in Australia) whinge about the penalties because we fear the popularity of rugby union in Australia maybe drop even further. I didn't even know what Rugby Union existed until I was 15 (9 years ago, only have eyes for Rugby since), a perfect example of the marketing juggernauts that are the NRL in the north/central-east of the country. Anyway these are possibly some of the reasons why we seem to want to make the game flowing i guess.
Mike
Guest
Provided people are realistic about the odds of changes going through (very small, but not unknown), there is no problem with fans debating possible changes to the rules. The laws do change from time to time, sometimes in a small way, sometimes in a big way. Those changes may well be influenced by discussion at many levels. So let the discussion flow.
nomis
Guest
The Roar won't allow me to link to an article I wrote on it, but if you type 'nomis South African rugby’s new scoring system' into Google, you'll find it on The Roar
Mike
Guest
That's what I would have expected Nomis. The idea that there will be more penalties if the points for penalty kicks are reduced is absurd. On that basis, we could increase the points for penalty kicks to say 6 points and penalties would just about vanish from the game. Which is obviously nonsense. The important point is that a penalty gives the non-offending team a choice of taking the kick or going for the try. If they end up more likely to take the try option, that is no bad thing.
nomis
Guest
The Varsity Cup trialled two point penalties and 6 point tries in the Varsity Cup recently and it made a significant difference. The amount of penalties didn't change much compared to the year before! But the way the teams used the penalties was significantly different. More teams went for an attacking line outs and an attempt for a try rather than a penalty goal. Granted, it needs to be trialled at a higher level, but worth it I think (along with better use of the card) Am I right in thinking this trial was backed by the IRB?
Blue
Guest
If you make a try 6 and penalty you take the value of pressure out of certain situations. The only way this can work is with a much more strict card regime. My team is behind with five mins to go. My pack plays brilliant pressure rugby in the last minutes and with a good kicking game I get field position. Why should pressure play not be rewarded in more situations? Now I have to go all guns blazing if I am more than one point behind. You have reduced some of the value of pressuring the opposition into errors. Again, they are not even vaguely interested in this conversation in the UK, France, UK and Ireland. They are filling stands at their club pro games and the supporters are having a ball. I have sat in the stands with people at Twickers who though I was taking the piss when I told them about these conversations in Australia. Nah. Let's all put this energy into figuring why the ABs keep scoring tries, the NH are happy and here in Aus supporters are bitching about laws because the team is basically crap at the moment and the League choirboys are having a field day pointing it out to everyone in their daily fish and chip wrappers. On scrum yes I agree we'll see less collapses that way which is good. I would like to see it trialed in a CC or ITM first though. Plus get more liberal with cards at the breakdown. Those two things will make enough of a difference I reckon.
Ian
Guest
Blue, True the Northern Unions never want to change anything, we're lucky drop goals aren't worth more than tries anymore. There definitely needs to be more yellow cards around the breakdown. What I'm suggesting is that the props bind on jersey under the armpit before the hit, there would still be a hit, just not as big. Also if try was worth 6 points and all goals worth 2 would be good.
Blue
Guest
Whilst some of the comments in this blog make sense it ain't gonna happen fellas. The NH have a stranglehold on the rules. Australia on its own has zero chance of bringing in change. Nothing. Whilst I agree that the hit should be taken out, tell that to Leicester and their fans. The power of Cole's hit and scrummaging power played a massive role in bringing them back into the game over the weekend. It is highly unlikely that the hit will ever be removed if the NH Unions have a say and they have a huge say. There is a better chance if more liberal use of yellow cards at the breakdown but of everything discussed here that is the only thing with possible traction at an International level. For the rest, forget about it.
Ian
Guest
All kicks at goal (drop goals, conversions, penalty kicks) should be only worth 2 points. Props should maybe pre-bind the jersey before engagement of scrum, although this would make the hit smaller, it would almost guaranty they would not lose their bind.
30 mm tags
Guest
Great article . An excellent example of lateral thinking.However a Penalty for dirty play deserves a 3 point penalty kick option regardless whether it is in the 22, whereas a pick up of a ball in an offside position or being lazy in retreating when a kick comes from behind is not a 3 point opportunity.
Steven Metzger
Roar Rookie
Yeah, I like this - it's the equivalent to what happens in the NFL, although only after a touchback (the rugby equivalent is a touch-down in-goal), and it makes a lot of sense. Odd that I'd never thought of that as a simple, valid change.
rob McCourt
Guest
Brett Nauru or Manus. Could work. Rob
yahyah
Guest
a bit of a stretch but still better than some of the options being proposed in this article. either way you put it really teams will find defeciencies. less points will probably mean more infringements. more points will probably mean more kicking for goals. it cant be fixed because it was never really broke.
liam
Guest
Maybe more positive officiating might change things, how many mauls of lineouts get cynically pulled down in the 22 and no penalty try is awarded
Mike
Guest
15 points per penalty. 100 points to the fly half who gets the Golden Snitch.
Sean
Guest
Give a bonus to tries scored under advantage. Tired of the professional penalty on the goal line? Attacker taps and goes, seven point try, nine with conversion. Problem solved.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Bangarang, spot on - the feed and early pushing are both ridiculous and are up there with refs letting players who make contact at the breakdown being allowed to flop. Jerseys are a furphy though, the tops are fine.
Tui
Guest
No change to the points. But how about after a penalty shot is taken (that misses) the defending team gets a scrum in the spot the penalty was taken. Many sides will have a crack at a penalty even though they are unlikely to get it because they know they will most likely be getting the ball back.
MAJB
Guest
B "The general consensus was that making the penalty kick count only 2 points and conversion counting 3 points to add value to the try only encouraged teams to concede more penalties." This is the negative playing style I am talking about. Conceding more penalties because a penalty has less value! That is an interesting mindset.
yahyah
Guest
Realised that when I finally decided to read the rest of the thread. I take that back in that case. Apologies mate. :)