Queensland Country finally broke their NRC duck at the fourth attempt with an exciting win over the Greater Sydney Rams at Ballymore on Thursday evening.
The crowd of around 1500, including Reds favourites Quade Cooper, Rob Simmonds, Saia Fainga’a and new recruit Ben Hunt, were treated to a tight game full of incident, with four yellow cards being dished out in the gritty encounter.
Queensland Country started the brighter of the two teams, and scored within five minutes when scrumhalf Sam Grasso darted in under the posts. Significantly, this chance arose after a lineout which resulted from a kickable penalty being kicked into touch, instead of for goal.
Two yellow cards in quick succession for Queensland Country fullback JJ Taulagi and centre Anthony Fainga’a allowed the visitors back into the game, the Rams using the extra space in the backs to score through Jarome MacKenzie.
With each try converted by Brandon and Volavola, the game was evenly poised at 8-8. With two minutes to go in the half, the Rams were awarded a kickable penalty on the Queensland Country 22. The two points on offer for a penalty goal were not attractive enough for Rams captain Jed Holloway, and he made the decision to kick for touch.
Just as with the earlier Queensland Country try, the decision paid off, and the Rams worked the overlap for Dane Chisholm to score in the corner.
What we cannot know is whether or not Holloway would have taken the points under the normal scoring system. But in my view, in the context of the game, taking the points would have been the logical step.
Kicking for touch and going for the try is incredibly positive. Normally only the bravest or most daring of captains would forsake points in a tight game yet, in the NRC – with its revolutionary scoring system – the decision to go for the try is an easy one, and the biggest winners are the fans in the stands.
The second half was just as hard fought, only this time the Rams were the recipients of the yellow cards.
Queensland Country made the most of their opportunities with the extra man. The Queensland pack was starting to show its dominance by this stage and forced the Rams to collapse a rolling maul from a lineout.
The perpetrator, Hugh Perrett was shown a yellow card and due to the Rams repeatedly collapsing the scrum, the referee was forced to award a penalty try. Incidentally, this was another score directly from the decision to kick for touch instead of for goal.
At this stage the score was 16-13 to the home team. On the hour mark, a great break by replacement scrum half James Tuttle and number 8, Ben Adams lead to a series of collapsed scrums and penalties, and eventually a second yellow card for the Rams, with Dave Lolohea being sent to the bin only minutes after entering the fray.
The scrum infringements lead to a series of kickable penalties, the last of which was also kicked for touch. This resulted in the game winning score for my man of the match, JJ Taulagi, who dived over in the corner after dancing his way down the line. A superb touchline conversion by Brandon, his third from three, stretched the score out to 24-13, which Queensland Country held onto for their first win of the competition.
I would suggest that a tight game such as this could easily have turned into a battle of the kickers. However, the new NRC rules allowed, or perhaps forced the players to abandon the goal kicking we have have become accustomed to and run the ball, resulting in an exciting game, that had the crowd buzzing with excitement as they left the ground, as opposed to lamenting the fact that they saw another union game without tries.
Interestingly both teams had five kickable penalties in the game, and kicked for touch each time. The Queensland Country side scored three tries directly from plays directly following the ensuing lineouts, whereas the Rams only scored once. Proving that no matter what scoring system you use, if you take your chances, you’re more than likely to win the game.
30 mm Tags
Guest
With you Simon!
Justin3
Guest
You threatened to leave on the other thread. Many on here wished you had kept your word. You have a fantastic ability to recite historical moments in rugby. You also have no ability to move on from those times which is sad. Good bye and good luck...
DanFan
Guest
Yeah, that must be why the sidelines of school boy rugby in NZ are packed with NRL scouts. Imagine how good NZ rugby would be if the cream wasn't being skimmed by cashed up NRL clubs. Think about that fir a minute.
Eddard
Roar Guru
Well I don't think the points system is an issue in that regard. And the 'morphing the game into league' line just seems to be a lazy go to argument against any sort of progression or change to the law book designed to improve the spectacle. You'd think the NRC had introduced a tackle limit and uncontested scrums.
Legend
Guest
Was your friend joking. Rugby is booming on the beaches
Legend
Guest
As Scott Quinnell demonstrated in " school of hard knocks" rugby is a simple game. Frequent stoppages and arbitrary penalties doesn't change that.
Yes, I have no issue with less kickable penalties, But I do have an issue with people trying to morph Rugby Union into League
Eddard
Roar Guru
I think you'll find that people just want to see less of 1 guy taking unchallenged shots at goal while everyone else stands around waiting for a minute or two. Less penalty goals, less direct influence on the score from referee interpretations and more rugby. And not just running from everywhere.
No, akin to League because everyone just wants everyone on he field of play to run like Forest Gump.
Eddard
Roar Guru
Completely akin to rugby league!? Because of no penalty goals? Somebody think of the children!! Rugby with 2 point penalty goals, or even no penalty goals still has competitive scrums, rucks and mauls, lineouts etc - all the things that make it different to rugby league. One thing that's not different from rugby league is the fact teams can kick penalty goals and drop goals.
I am merely illustrating to you that Rugby is a sport with many different facets, when we start taking away what we have now, we are morphing it into a sport that would most likely resemble something completely akin to rugby league, rather that the unique sport it currently is. Imagine we take away the penalty goal in soccer, or the boundary in cricket, or the double fault in tennis. Rugby has worked on the scoring system currently in play, trying to change the scoring system will change the game. I am all for scoring tries, but this is not league
Simon Smale
Roar Guru
I think that through your negativity Sheek you are missing some fundamental points. The rules are basically the same, it's not like they are playing a game akin to twenty twenty cricket in the NRC whereas everyone else is playing test matches. The biggest change is the points on offer for the different scoring methods. This is trying to force players to not just score penalties wherever they can, but try to score tries, using these "basic skills" that they apparently lack, to do so. The competition has only been going for four weeks, it's not surprising that putting a mix of professional and semi-professional players together is going to lead to some dropped passes or basic errors. Judge whether or not having a greater number of players playing at a higher level together for longer improves their skills after a season or two. Also, comparing Australia to New Zealand in terms of rugby is not really a fair comparison. For whatever reason, Rugby League is the dominant code in the Rugby Union heartland areas of Australia, and therefore gets the talented players with the better "basic skills". They pay more money, there is more opportunities to play top level rugby, and it is more deepset in the culture. And that's before you throw AFL into the mix. Like it or not, that is a fact. In New Zealand, the majority of boys who are born there grow up dreaming to become an All Black. Therefore they get all the talented players with the superior "basic skills". Please let's see if the NRC allows a greater pool of players to develop without shooting it down at every opportunity. Or alternatively we could continue down the same structure until we have no players with any skills and then bemoan the fact that nobody tried to do anything to stem the flow.
Eddard
Roar Guru
With a different points system the play may have been different too. So what you say isn't necessarily true. Some of the attempts for goal may have resulted in attempts for tries, and they may have been successful. And I have no problem with drop goals. They're scored by players in general play, they require an effort from the whole team to set up, and they're not made possible by referee interpretations.. There is also the ability to defend them. Penalty goals on the other hand are more of an interruption.
Yeah, not sure I will agree with you on this one, a pnelaty kick or dropgoal can be a game breaker, just look at the results of the RWC finals. 1995 and 2007, would have been a draw, then extra time, then a draw, then a coin toss. NZ vs France in 2011 would have been a win for France under the proposed points system. In 2003 Australia would not have won their pool and their route to the final would have been different. There are many more examples where penalty kicks made the difference to break a stalemate, or where the current points system would have offered different results.
RobC
Roar Guru
On RugbyHQ, most stats (points, tries etc) are up vs SR, except playing time - I think it was almost identical. Which I thought was strange But on 2nd thought, it seems to make sense.
Scrumpoacher
Guest
More positivity-you just can't help yourself can you? The skills are the same just some decisions are changed by these law variations. Please let there be a block button for sheek on NRC stories-he adds nothing new
Eddard
Roar Guru
BB, I don't think penalty goals are even necessary. A kick for touch, attacking scrum or tap kick is enough for most infringements, and a yellow card perfectly adequate for more cynical or repeated offences. In the original laws of rugby there were no penalty goals. Perhaps if there'd been yellow cards at the time they never would have existed. As it is, I think a 2 point penalty goal is a big improvement. It turns them into more of a tie breaker rather than a means of serious point accumulation. I don't think there should be any firm rule about X number of penalties = a yellow card. It depends on the circumstances. If a cynical penalty is given away to stop a clear try scoring opportunity it should be a yellow without any warning. But most infringements aren't that cynical. They're just a result of players competing and getting it slightly wrong.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
As long as they don't do a Ray Warren brainsnap with here's Harmichael K...
Cadfael
Roar Guru
As BB said earlier, try are pretty similar in ITM, Currie Cup and NRC. So you feel that the Saffas and Kiwis have similar short attention spans. Riiight.
It is all about positive intent, I agree with you. Whilst it may be true that in the Varsity Cup there are less shots at goal, it is still an option. I would suggest all kicks should count the same, whether they decide on two or three points is up to the powers that be. We fond this year in the Varsity cup with tw referees officiating the yellow card tally almost trebled, purely due to professional fouls being conceded. SO again, if well policed a team is likely to concede more cards that can hurt even more. SO how to strike a balance between how to penalise a team for infringing is difficult, how many two pointers make up for a yellow card?