The experimental scoring system being trialled in this 2016 edition of the National Rugby Championship (NRC) provides excellent incentive for attacking rugby.
There will be better reward for tries, which will be worth six points, compared to penalty goals, worth just two points (try conversions will still be worth two points).
Penalty goals in rugby have been overvalued for too long. Laws to devalue penalty goals to two points should be introduced to all tiers of rugby worldwide, including international rugby, without further delay.
The 2015 edition of the NRC introduced two-point penalty goals and three-point conversions while keeping the value of a try at five points. That scoring system, combined with a number of other experimental law variations, resulted in the incentive to score tries and therefore play an entertaining brand of rugby.
With tries being valued at six points, teams will more often go for the line rather than the sticks.
Nothing frustrates me more than teams playing for scrum penalties in their opposition’s half. Let’s face it, rugby scrums are still a mess and referees are plucking decisions from their proverbial… hats. Teams are too often harshly penalised when a 50-50 scrum penalty goes against them and costs three points.
While we’re on the matter, let’s stop the clock between the first scrum set until the ball exits the scrum to the referee’s satisfaction. This move would prevent time wastage due to multiple scrum resets and also prevent the type of cynical, time-wasting play we see from teams near the end of close matches to shut out the other side.
Back to the NRC 2016 points system, I hope that in 2016 we continue to see plenty of tries scored like last year. Also, I am certain we will see fewer matches won by teams that score fewer tries than their opposition, like two of the matches in recent three-Test series between the Wallabies and England.
Interestingly, if you apply the NRC 2016 points system retrospectively to the three Test matches, the series result is much closer, although England would still have won. The Brisbane (36-36) and Sydney (42-42) Tests would have ended in draws and in Melbourne the score would have been 20-8 to England. The calculations for each match are below with a comparison to the NRC 2015 points system as well.
First Test, Brisbane
Tries (T) – Conversions (C) – Penalty Goals (PG)
Aus: 5-1-2
Eng: 3-3-6
Current system (5-2-3): Eng 39 – Aus 28
NRC 2015 (5-3-2): Eng 36 – Aus 32
NRC 2016 (6-2-2): Eng 36 – Aus 36
Second Test, Melbourne
T-C-PG
Aus: 1-1-0
Eng: 2-2-3
Current system (5-2-3): Eng 23 – Aus 7
NRC 2015 (5-3-2): Eng 23 – Aus 8
NRC 2016 (6-2-2): Eng 20 – Aus 8
Third Test, Sydney
T-C-PG
Aus: 5-3-3
Eng: 4-3-6
Current system (5-2-3): Eng 44 – Aus 40
NRC 2015, (5-3-2): Eng 41 – Aus 40
NRC 2016, (6-2-2): Eng 42 – Aus 42
soapit
Guest
to be fair rob the nrl itself doesnt really have a great presence on youtube.
soapit
Guest
or just allow lifting in front of the goal as happened briefly in the late 90's
J_D_J
Roar Rookie
Just to be clear, I am not anti-scrum (rugby scrums that is, I think league scrums are ridiculous of course). I just highlighted that part of the game because that's where it appears there are a lot of 50-50 decisions made by referees. Of course, there are many other areas of the game where 50-50 calls are prevalent, e.g. the breakdown. A key premise of my article is that 3 points (relative to 5 points for a try) is too high a cost to pay, especially for being on the wrong end of a 50-50 call. Therefore, as Danoz suggests, maybe short arm penalties for scrum offences is the way to go. A dominant scrum is still rewarded and the penalty for 50-50 (or straight out wrong) calls is not so severe. However, I've got a strange feeling this may have been trialled in a previous edition of the NRC. Can someone let us know?
wardad
Guest
I wonder what the test scoring stats were when a try was 3 points then 4 and now 5?Be interesting to compare eh ? But then again it was harder at times to kick penalties and conversions when grounds looked like the Somme when it rained and balls were heavy and greasier .Sometimes games were decided on penalties being given in an area that wasnt churned up . Balls seem to be more consistent now as well as being better to handle and grounds have improved hugely compared to some of the tussock strewn cow paddocks of yesteryear [ nematodes and soccer pitch like grounds aside ] and lets not forget kicking tees !
RobC
Roar Guru
Paulo, the NRC scrums have a 1min time limit to start, so they happen pretty quick too Having said that, there is also an unofficial break at 20'. Which is understandable, considering the cracking pace
RobC
Roar Guru
hm, whats the best thing for the NRC? Exposure. two games a week is good, but no one knows its on. Will it be on free to air?? 1. Showreels promo. eg Some beautiful tries in 2016! Where is it? A 15yo with minimum skills on SEO could do better than this.
RobC
Roar Guru
Thanks JDJ. Scrums are here for good. Even league cant get rid of it, after a 100 years - though they seem to be doing their best. Having said that 8 (6/2) point tries, is nothing new. Nor is it rare: - SA's Varsity Cup have been on it for years. - This year it is being trial around the world - NRC is the last to pick it up, along with NZ Heartlands btw here's the world's first 9 point try, in a Varsity match by NW Uni (west of Jo'berg,) against UP-TUKS (Pretoria): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GINutYJtAu0 Might also note two things: - these guys still looove scrums - they are a lot more blacks in Varsity. So its coming to higher tiers in due course
ClarkeG
Guest
See I knew you would say that. :-) But that is my point. There are always consequences. There are certainly areas where we can go back in terms of laws of the game and also in the way it is refereed.
Apelu
Guest
The two points for a penalty will encourage teams to give away penalties. In that case, something has to be done to deter teams doing just that. Perhaps, yellow card for defensive penalty at 5 meter line, or yellow for every second penalty at the 5-meter line. I'd like to see the basketball system of penalising foul play. Perhaps, yellow card after a third personal infringement, red card if penalised again after serving yellow card. I do like the 6 points for try, but perhaps, 1 point for the conversion.
elBastardo
Guest
Penalties are not points scored, but Points lost by the penalised team. Just because it happens to go into the same bucket as tries and dropped goals, its not really a result of the attacking ability of the team credited with the points. As such, I think that the potential cost of a penalty should be expensive, otherwise the penalty for inaction is to light on offenses.
Danoz
Guest
I dont have a problem with the current point system. Possible tweaks would be short arm penalty for scrum infringement unless repeat within side 5M and make conversions 3. I personally dont have an issue with penalties and the 3 points they offer. Maybe reduce the kickable offences if its such a concern and give teams either a scrum or line out to promote more set piece attacking. This new system makes it like league where there is no reason to kick for goal as they are worthless, so you have no choice to attack for a try. Not sure what the desire is to change what is rugby union and why it seems to be Oz constantly trying to do so.
J_D_J
Roar Rookie
Good point GP. However, I would still prefer to see a try from the lineout or good lineout and try line defence than a penalty goal from 40-50 m out any day of the week. Under the new system a try scored wide, e.g. from a line out maul, is more likely to yield 6 points rather than 8 due to the relative difficulty of the conversion. So a 6 point try is worth 3x more than a penalty and a relatively more difficult try scored closer to the posts will more likely be worth 4x more.
mad mick
Guest
100% to the Sheek
Nobrain
Guest
Well, that will alter passes end punts as well.
ClarkeG
Guest
Don't get too far ahead Matthew. These laws are being trialed at this point. Wilkinson did kick a number of penalties in that 2003 tournament but to say he changed the game is a little far fetched don't you think. He just happened to be a very good goal kicker. The outcomes of games of rugby were already influenced by penalty goals long before that. Interestingly, in the final of that tournament Aust scored just as many penalty goals as England did.
AJ
Guest
Even cheaper, take some air out of the ball.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Clarke, you're an unbendable nostalgic :-) I'm a believer in continuous improvement, and one of the challenges are always the unintended consequences. For example, the changes to the scrum laws generated a bunch of resets and 50/50 penalties. Didn't quite work, so back to the drawing board. It did reduce the number of front rowers that become paraplegic, so can't quite go back. Other things you could go back, then it's a judgement call on whether it became better or not.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
I actually find it curious how many Aussies have this fixation on how popular rugby is compared to the other local codes. In my mind, I want it to be world class (second place in the RWC says it is), want my club to be successful (Tahs won it two years ago, several close calls) and I want to be entertained (I am, love watching most games). Whether it's the fourth or the twentieth sport in Australia, really don't care. Agree, though, that we need to work the base to ensure a good number of young players are developing, and I don't think enough is done at the moment. More needs to be done to keep it going well, but not really to beat the other codes IMHO.
ClarkeG
Guest
I could debate whether or not several of those law changes over time have been for the better but then you would just say I'm not moving with the times and then you would call be an unbendable nostalgic.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Game as it is has changed significantly from when I started playing 30 years ago. Tries were worth 4 points back then. Going from 5 to 6 is a small change. I coached in England for five years, club uniform for the coaches was a impermeable rain parka. Yes, it was muddier and less conducive to backs, but we trained our backs to do well when the ground was dry. Just because forward play is stronger there doesn't make it more right or pure.