The drop goal is seen by some as an abomination, something that belongs to another era, another dimension and sacrilege to be used in the modern game of rugby, and yet it is an effective weapon of choice by a select few.
In New Zealand it is frowned upon by many. Something that caused quite the debate when there were talks of Dan Carter practicing the dreaded drop, preparing to unleash it onto unsuspecting opponents during the 2011 Rugby World Cup.
The Aussies are torn between wanting to showcase their talent with ball in hand and their ever increasing desire to win at all costs. They seem not to have made up their minds on which side of the fence they sit.
In the meantime the South Africans, oblivious to the mental torment going on across the Indian ocean, happily slot the necessary drop when required.
Of the seven drop goals that have been scored in the Super Rugby season thus far, only one has been scored by a non-South African player.
Sias Ebersohn has kicked two for the Force. Burton Francis, Dimitri Catrakilis, Morne Steyn, Patrick Lambie and Tusi Pisi have all scored one respectively for their franchises.
I thought it might warrant further investigation to assess the effect of these drop goals.
The first match-deciding drop goal comes from Dimitri Catrakilis in the 83rd minute of the Kings match versus the Rebels in Melbourne.
Locked at 27–27, with three tries all, both teams were staring down a draw. In the last play of the day, Catrakilis snuck through a sneaky drop goal that won the match, keeping their unbeaten record intact against their Australian rivals.
Who will forget the match-up of the Bulls versus the Force in Round 3, when it was Sias Ebersohn who kept the Force in touch against sharp shooter Morne Steyn with two drop goals.
By half time the Bulls led the Force by only five points, thanks to the drop goal of Ebersohn early after the restart.
Morne Steyn slotted another penalty to stretch the lead out to eight only to be pulled back by another Ebersohn drop goal.
We often discuss the effect of ‘home town’ refereeing, and this match was a case in point. Many felt aggrieved about the influence of the referee and although the Force ended up losing the match 36-26, the drop goal had kept the Force in the game.
Another match-winning drop goal came from Burton Francis when the Cheetahs met the Stormers in Bloemfontein early in April.
The match was balanced on a knife’s edge, and in past years these were the matches the Cheetahs would lose at the death.
The score line was 21-20 in favour of the Stormers and the Cheetahs were facing the best defensive system in the tournament. The Stormers were showcasing their discipline, at that point in time the Stormers had only conceded six penalties after 67 minutes of play.
The Cheetahs, who are usually so adept at exploiting gaps, were running out of ideas. Out popped the drop goal attempt, Francis converted and put the Cheetahs back into the lead.
Both teams converted one more penalty after that, and the Cheetahs won the match 26-24, thanks to the dreaded drop.
Of the six games in which the drop goal was employed, two of those matches were directly influenced by the drop goals and in another match it kept a team in the hunt.
Joel Stransky won a world cup in that manner; Stephen Larkham eliminated the Springboks in 1999 with a drop goal; Wilkinson won the 2003 Rugby World Cup with a drop goal.
Jannie de Beer annihilated the English in the 1999 World Cup quarter final with a record five, yes you read it correctly, five, drop goals.
If Morne Steyn utilised the drop goal during their quarter final match against a team seemingly unable to concede a penalty in their red zone for large proportions of the match, Bryce Lawrence might have received less hate mail and wouldn’t still be refereeing somewhere in the outback.
The fact is, I wouldn’t mind seeing more of the drop goal. It is an effective weapon with which you can punish constantly infringing defences. It takes the decisions or non-decision out of the hand of the referees, something we have all had enough of, and it can build pressure and win matches.
It is a skill few master with aplomb. While facing a barrage of loose forwards rushing onto them, a flyhalf must remain calm in the face of impending doom and a bucket load of hurt, the drop goal can be a thing of beauty.
Long live the drop goal.
dadiggle
Guest
No they dream of playing in a WC final and winning it. We score tries by playing fairly. Not by holding French players back while the prop runs through that gap. No thats the Kiwi way and they can do it cause refs let them get away with it Cheers
Stanley the number of drop goals in test rugby is minute. And for me the counter to referees refusing to make decisions or "scared" to penalise teams. The dropgoal is the perfect foil against teams infringing and getting away with it. We could have done with one of them against the aussies in the QF.
Stanley
Guest
If goal kicks in general counted less points (to encourage try-scoring rugby) maybe infringements by the defending-side (inside their 22m area) could be penalized by a 3-point "spot kick" right in front of the posts (on the 22 metre line). That would avoid teams from giving away penalties on purpose to avoid tries being scored against them instead.
Stanley
Guest
Jeez, not more scrums - free-kick instead!
Charging Rhino
Guest
BB I'm with you. I think setting up a perfectly executed drop kick takes huge amounts of patience, pressure and skill, not only from the player kicking the ball but the whole team! England had this down to fine art in 2002-2003. I love them I think they're great!! And often more brilliant the scoring a try. Also not many South African boys in the 90's and even early 00's ever "dreamt" of or re-enacted in front of their mates on the field scoring the winning try in a World Cup final. But rather kicking the winning drop goal in extra time to win it for the Boks. Just like Joel Stransky did or Jonny Wilkinson. (Usually against New Zealand I might add :-) ) Nothing wrong with that!!!! It's beautiful I say!!!! I'd love more drop goals!!!
Matt, the quetion is how does the referee discern between cynical and non cynical infringements, once again it complicates rhe law and that is exactly what we don't want.. Apart from that it will only complicate matters. Let's use, the "accidental" impediment of the halfback or forward who "rolls" or "falls" the wrong way for a moment (which is often enough) to stop the other team?
Matt
Guest
The issue is see BB is that there are generally two kinds of penalties. One is the by product of a game centred on continual contest for possession. You want your players to push it at the breakdown etc to gain valuable possession. Likewise the game inherently requires aggression. And there is the fact that so many possible random outcomes can occur in rugby that accidents sometimes happen. The other kind of penalty is a cynical 'killing of the ball' to stop a team in a scoring position. It is this second type of penalty that would rise if penalty goals were reduced in points. Maybe we need to consider allow kicks at goal for one type of offence and not the other? The other option is to change the nature of the ruck to reduce the amount of penalty causing instances. It could just be me, but it seems like every ruck these days sees players off their feet and using their hands to keep balance. It's no longer about binding to a team mate and blowing the opposition out of the ruck. It's now about getting your individual hands on the ball or getting the opposition off their feet fast enough to eliminate any possible contest. It means you now only need a couple of guys to seal off the ruck completely.
Stanley
Guest
Good point. There is a fine balance between rewarding attacking rugby and discouraging negative rugby. Don't get to watch the Varsity Cup games where I am, but I am thinking that if a team infringes more then that would give the opposition a chance to attack more through penalties or free-kicks, and the net result should be more attacking rugby.
Stanley, the problem with reducing the value of all kicks is infringements. There is a fine balance between not having a severe enough penalties for infringements and to high a value. Currently most matches are won by the team scoring the most tries, that is the way it should be, howver in the new points sytem whereby the Varsity cup experimented with conversions being 3 pointers and penalties only 2 pointers teams are prone to commit more infringements because it doesn't cost them as much. I beleive the values of kicks are fine the way it is, perhaps the conversion should be made three as well.
Stanley
Guest
As long as a drop goal is worth 3 points your team would be stupid not to utilize this quick and effective weapon. I have often wondered though what rugby would be like if all kicks (except conversion kicks maybe) were worth only 1 point. Try-scoring would be by far the no. 1 priority then, but as things stand it isn't. So you better kick that goal if you can.
Sam
Guest
Yep in the olden days it was actually an "attempt"
Bakkies
Guest
Place kicks are too easy? Try kicking them from 50 metres or in to a gale wind on a muddy track.
GWS
Guest
Lessen the impact of kickers. Bliss
Bakkies
Guest
to ''try'' and get a kick at goal? After all Rugby is a version of football.
Bakkies
Guest
England relied on turning the scoreboard over. The Wallabies and All Blacks were both strong defensive teams so they used their main strength the forwards to set them up in to scoring positions. The All Blacks and Wallabies weren't strong in the scrum and the maul back then. England were effective at clearing out the strength of the ABs and Wallabies at the ruck to maintain possession (remember the Wallabies living of 30% possession). This is rather then pounding the line and risk coming away with nothing. There were of course games where they did score tries particularly in Ben Cohen's purple patch when he looked unstoppable coming off his wing at pace. They played different Rugby against the Boks and in the 6 Nations. Teams that came closer in terms of forward strength so they played a running and offloading game. I suggest you look at the ESPN Classic highlights from back then. They ran up some big scores against the Boks and won in SA.
Colin
Guest
Here is a good one for you all why is a try called a try?? Any ideas fellas well was reading a history book a try was an opportunity to score with a drop goal which in the infancy of rugby was how teams scored as in those days try's wornt worth any points that's an interesting trivia point!
winston
Roar Rookie
Yeah that is spot on.
Markus
Guest
I'd still prefer that to the other alternative, where a team get into position and then proceed to spend 30 phases aimlessly running one-off at a defensive wall. Not actually trying to break the wall or even move it backward, just waiting for a breakdown penalty that will eventually be called more often than not. At least with a drop goal the kick has to be made with limited time and under pressure from the defense.
Rebel
Guest
I am not too fussed on the charge down as I can not recall the last one I saw and have never seen one live. I also like the idea of scrums back where they are kicked from, I would include penalties in this. Risk and reward. Lets start a petition to ban the kicking tee. I remember the days when you used to mould the turf into a tee with your boot or a pot of sand came out.
The Battered Slav
Guest
Kotze was his name. He was amaziing in the Cup. I wonder if anyone knows off the top of their head where he is playing or what level of rugby he is currently getting around in. He really impressed me in the Cup. I remember watching him thinking, wow, and expecting him to be turning out for some SA side in Super Rugby.