Referees, penalty goals and bugbears

Yet there are more drop goals in league. Go figure.

Well one reason would be that in league you're less likely to lose the ball if you take the tap, as long as you don't drop it you get six more tackles. In rugby you could be robbed at the first breakdown, it's more of a risk. But yeah I reckon they might go for a few more tries if kicks were worth less points.

Give that to me again?? Why then in RL when they get a penalty even in front most of the time they will look to tap kick and to a score try? Your argument makes no sense. Rugby Union in this country unlike most in the world is competing against 3 other football codes. It is running last in the key areas of participation, TV audiences, attendances and finances. Ever wonder why?

While I understand the frustration of fans at the interpretation of ref calls, I don't think the ref is to blame in this regard on most occasions. Take the scrum for example, the front rows are fully professional highly paid players, but it is they who collapse the scrum, not the ref. If the ref see's what he considers an infringement at a collapse, the laws instruct him to to sanction the offending player. But at the end of the game, I never hear a chorus of criticism for the front rows, who can't perform a basic of their role. The focus needs to shift from the ref's decision after a collapsed scrum, to why does it happen so often, perhaps then a long term solution will be found.

Ah this takes me back. I think it was at the time of the last Lions tour to Ausralia (2001) that I first came across a similar site to this with many of the same contributors (Spiro, jameswm, PeterK) and started polite discussions on the differing viewpoints from opposite ends of the world. I think one of the first items of strenuous disagreement centred on the value of the drop goal. Many Australians seem to think it should be reduced. I disagreed then and still do. I will resist the opportunity to reiterate longwinded old arguments on points values; just make the simple one against reducing the value of a kick. If you narrow the scoring options to one method, the try, you also simplify the task of defence by focussing all its efforts on stopping that one scoring method. The unintended result is fewer scores of any type. As for the influence of the referee on the contest: this is always going to be an issue in a complex and potentially violent game like rugby. But there are a few things we could do. The first is let's give the bloody referees a chance. Stop fecking around with the laws or their interpretation every few years or so. Give them a chance to bed down so that coaches and players can learn to adapt tactically to the inevitable changing trends in the game. There is always the temptation to tweak laws to prevent some new innovation in play. The problem in doing that is that you not only have to get the A-list of top referees who handle test, super Rugby and Heineken Cup on side, you also have to ensure that all those changes are permeated across the world down through the playing ranks until you finally get to the "Dads with whistles" who referee kids and junior matches. People like me, in other words :) Where, after all, is the next generation of players going to learn the game? We all have to be singing from, or at least whistling to, the same hymn sheet.

AFL players would take a long range drop kick every time!

Try soccer! Decided frequenly 1-0 down to a single penalty goal, or worse.... a single penalty shootout

Sheek and Blinky Not sure what's happened to you two Having just watched a fantastic contest with momentum shifting back and forth, great commitment and some fine displays of individual skills, you both agree on the poor standard of todays rugby players and blame all the games problems on them ! ! ! WTF???I can't believe it ! By all means praise Folau's exceptional skills (they were exceptional in League too) But don't go bashing union players. I'm disappointed in you both.

@ajax - Because he didn't take the defender out? I realise that is a bit of facetious thing to say but it is true. It's not like league where the guy just needs to gently tap the guy (complete with requesit fall over by the defender as if he has been crashed into) for the ref / video ref to consider it obstruction. Basically the defender (think hooper but was loosing track by this stage!) bought the dummy runner all day long - shame for hooper but well worked by the lions who clearly targeted that move at him. As a by the by - love union but it is not moaning to say that things need to change. First, the scrums have to change. At the very least the clock needs to stop. It is ludicrous that the clock is ticking down all the way through the interminable resets etc. second, couldn't agree more that the contest for the breakdown is really the heart of rugby union but It would be nice to get a bit more consistency in the reffing of it.

If that happened Hosey G, it would be much harder to get the long distance penalties. And help the team doing all the fouls.

How about penalties be taken by drop kick rather than off the kicking tee. And there really does need to be another ref marking the off side line so defenders don't creep up offiside.

Spot on.

I do love rugby, but the way penalties are awarded is illogical. When each penalty is based on 'perception' not fact, you have a lottery. It must be frustrating for players who are trying to constructively compete for the ball to be penalised. There are some cynical penalties, which are never in doubt . So, once again here are the problems: Scrums: The only facet in rugby in which the dominant team automatically receives a penalty. Can you imagine if each win against the throw in the lineout equated to a penalty? If each dominant tackle was given a penalty? In which each counter ruck was given a penalty? Well that's what happens at the scrum Breakdown: Players competing for the ball are NOT cheating. On the one hand we claim union to be all about the contest for possession, than we call players 'cheats' for doing so. Crazy. The solution: Bring back the ELVS. Penalties should be given for foul play, offside, cynical play or repeated infringements only. The ELVS worked (in the eyes of the players and fans), and were killed off for political reasons only. They must be reinstated and will be sooner or later. Let's not forget that humans are inherently irrational and will oppose change as an emotional, not rational response. Who was it that said the earth wasn't the centre of the universe? How did society respond to the theory of evolution? Even DNA testing was the subject of much vitriole. The ELVS are rugby's evolution, it may take 20 years, but eventually, as history has shown, logic will prevail.

"They know the rules and choose to break them". Utter hogwash. The majority of penalties do not stem from broken rules, cheating or any such thing. Was O'Driscoll cheating when the referee accused him of not supporting his own bodyweight? Was Ben Robinson cheating when the first scrum collapsed? Was the B&I scrum cheating when they were penalised at the end of the match? No, no, and no. Of course scrums are a law into themselves as the referee penalises the team which is 'weaker' not necessarily because they have cheated or infringed, but just because they have been dominated. But clearly at the breakdown there are many instances of players doing the right thing, but for some reason being pinged. Penalties will stop being awarded when players stop trying to play, and no they are not a deterent.

Ajax in regards to the advantage. It cost the Lions a penalty when he called off an advantage for offside even though they had made no territory. A try was scored at the other end. That could have been the difference in the end. The way the advantage is refereed these days it's a problem. In the past the NH refs were criticised for not properly playing advantage. It's now happening on the other side of the world.

and Basketball. Free throws from fouls. Easy points but often players miss.

The difference in Rugby is that you have to hold on to the ball. If you drop it after 10 phases and come away with nought you might as well take the points. So many close games have been decided recently by players kicking the corner and getting nothing. Taking the points is a sign of respect. If you kick for the corner from the beginning the opposition will think you are arrogant and don't respect them. How many matches has that cost the Reds lately by not taking the points? In League you kick it in to the goal to force another set or cross kick to the corner. So many tries are scored in League off kicks or by getting repetitive sets of six.

re the critisism of the ref, I thought he was the main reason the game was so enthralling to watch.. he let the game flow, played advantage.. sure some calls didnt go the Lions way.. but they didnt all go Australia's way either for example, why wasnt O'Driscoll called for obstruction when he took out our defender for their second try? I thought the rules in union stated dummy runners cannot run in front of the ball carrier? If Brian O doesnt take out our defender, they dont get that second try, simple.

Visionary

The criticism is against the refereeing not the game. And its not suggesting bias. Its suggesting that the game would be even better if teams were looking to score tries rather than force penalties. The game itself was very entertaining and I'm not criticising the basic structure of the game. I'm saying that referees should have as little to do with the process as possible. I know with League, the best games are those where the ref allows the game to flow and you are barely aware that they are there. Penalise blatantly illegal play certainly. But lets get away from these discretionary technical flaws that result in 3 more points on the score board while such things as blatant forward passes are ignored.. And further this has nothing to do with who wins, its to do with making tries what the game is about.