The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Rugby's penalty systems needs to be revised

Wallabies vs Lions - Lealiifano kicks for goal (Tim Anger Photography)
Roar Guru
22nd October, 2013
163
2942 Reads

By all accounts, Bledisloe three was a cracking game. Fast, free-flowing rugby from two of the world’s top rugby nations (cue the claims Australia should not be considered ‘top tier’).

However, if it weren’t for the entertaining try-fest from both sides, this game would have left a far different taste in spectators’ mouths.

It could so easily have degenerated into a dour contest of penalties, and behind the scenes, it was!

There were eight penalties (24 points) in the game, which is more typical of the combined score between two teams facing off at Test-level.

In other words, take away the tries, and we’re left with a rather boring Test match, decided by sometimes confusing and often controversial penalties.

It’s hardly the kind of spectacle that retains current fans and attracts new ones.

I’ve argued here before the penalty system needs to change, and our game would be vastly improved if it were.

Examining this game, the eight penalties consumed approximately 24 minutes (over a quarter of the game), assuming each penalty takes three minutes.

Advertisement

Three minutes is a fair estimate of the time taken between awarding the penalty and the time taken for the 29 other players we’re paying to see to clear out of the way so the designated kicker can ‘tee up’, scratch his nuts, block out the crowd and focus on taking his shot at goal, execute the kick, retrieve the ball and reset on halfway for play to re-commence.

So, over a quarter of the game was spent in limbo!

All for the sake of a penalty system that too often puts the result of the game in the referee’s hands/whistle (not that this was the case in this particular match, but often is in others) for infringements that are often dubious at best, inconsistent or inexplicable at worst.

Imagine how much better the game could have been if that extra 24 minutes was spent deep in the attack/defensive zone (depending on which team you’re supporting), where the pressure is on and both teams are working in desperation to score or defend a try.

That’s where the excitement is in rugby, not back in the middle.

So what’s the solution?

In the past, I’ve advocated dropping penalties to one or two points to dis-incentivise teams from taking a shot at goal instead of going for a try.

Advertisement

It has been counter-argued this will have the unintended consequence of encouraging the defending team to infringe even more to prevent the opposition crossing the line. Fair enough.

Then how about at least restricting shots at goal to infringements within the attacking 22?

I have no idea where to get stats on this, but I’d hazard a guess that around 50% of all penalties are awarded outside the 22, so this would immediately cut the problem (and the ref’s influence) in half. Win!

This would also create a better balance between infringements and reward:

Is a scrum penalty on halfway worth three points? I think not.

Is a scrum penalty on the 5m line worth three points? Absolutely.

Same could be said for just about any offence, aside from high/dangerous tackles, and even then it’s not really fair that a team is denied three points if this type of infringement occurs outside kicking range, so it’s probably best these remain penalised via yellow and red cards.

Advertisement

The other big benefit of this is that with fewer penalties, the often inconsistent and spurious penalties awarded by the referee will have a lesser impact on the final score.

And less restarts would certainly benefit the Wallabies, as we clearly have no clue how to get this right!

Appreciate thoughts and comments from other Roarers.

No doubt our collective wisdom will not be heard, or we’d have a third tier competition by now, Robbie Deans wouldn’t have remained at the helm past Rugby World Cup2011, and Topo Rodriguez would be running a national scrum initiative to fix our engine room from the nuts and bolts up. But it’s fun to debate!

close