Be that it may, the All Blacks could have won if the goal kicking had been more accurate by Beauden Barrett.
But the heart of rugby is all about scoring tries. Winning by penalties outside the 22 line is like winning through the back door.
If ever union is going to lose favour from rugby fans, it is the spoilage of the game by ridiculous penalty kicks some 50-60 metres away. And that means all you need to win are some chaps with big rugby boots and steroid-filled legs.
It is about time for the old men in suits managing the code to take another look at how existing rules of allowing penalties to dictate the outcome of the game are actually ruining the code. They are spoiling the fun of supporters wanting to watch teams aiming for touch-downs to win.
Here are some suggestions to reduce the impact of penalties on the outcome of the game.
1. Long-arm penalties, only for serious offences, i.e. high tackles and other yellow card offences. They could also be introduced after repeated offsides, repeated scrum spoilage or other scrum offences.
2. Except for dangerous play, the above breaching of the rules as first time offence in the run of play should only be short-arm penalties and allowed to kick for touch and subsequent throw-in at a line-out – but not allowed a shot at goal.
3. ALL existing penalty rules as first-time offence in the run of play inside the 22-line will remain.
4. Existing red and yellow card rules apply.
5. Of course, teams can drop-kick for goal from anywhere in the park.
These changes will put emphasis on scoring tries by each side for teams to win.
However, a stringent application of the exiting penalty rules for first offence should be applied with play inside the 22-line of the goal. First offence inside the 22 line will incur long-arm penalty and/or penalty try as currently applied.
Right now, teams try to master the dark art of creating penalties and getting rewarded to get a shot at goal from all over the park.
As a close body contact sport, we can expect unanticipated infringement of the rules by players for instance offsides in defending their line or in the rush to attack the opponent’s defence. This should not be allowed to be exploited to win games.
Spectators want to see more tactical play by teams to go for tries than teams exploiting penalty rules outside the 22 to win the game.
Richard
Guest
Here are couple of suggestions; 1. most penalties become 10-20m territorial and then a free kick. Can play on whenever the ref is happy. so you can get quick tab an goes with the defence off side or otherwise out of position e.g. all the forward stuck in a scrum. 2. defending inside 22m - Attacking team has the option of a penalty kick as per current rules or removing an defending playre for 5min (not a yellow card). Since this isn't a yellow, won't become a red but you get a similar affect to a short handed defence. Thoughts?
piru
Roar Rookie
I never liked the hands in the ruck rule, but it did make breakdowns much easier to referee. So too the scrums - you just kind of let them have at it
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
Have you ever played any form of football that uses your hands? I am a rank amateur and I will unconsciously grab at anything that goes near me.
Brett
Guest
It's a simple fix really reduce penalties to 2 points, by maintaining 3 points you're almost courting cynical type behaviour and putting to much of an emphasis on interpretation, you reduce the reward you reduce to the reliance on the reward...
Everest
Guest
Penalties in side the 22 worth 3 points, 22 to the halfway line 2 points and eveything over worth 1 if kicked. Then teams are rewarded if they have worked into the 22, or punished if they are stopping an attacking raid illegally.
In Brief
Guest
People always throw out that old chestnut. Truth is people from all nations want the laws changed - just ask Brian Moore.
In Brief
Guest
That's actually a very valid point. I believe the the tide will turn - we are all ready seeing a massive change in focus in the English Premiership. Open attacking rugby is the rage. With the increased commercialisation, the competition needs to be seen to be entertaining. Despite the games growth people do want to see the scrum fixed and the they don't want to see pedantic laws ruining games.
In Brief
Guest
As Dannie Craven said, rugby should be working towards the same level of simplicity as attained by games such as soccer. There is no merit in complexity and murky laws. The game is great, but would be improved with the removal of the grey areas.
In Brief
Guest
Actually the ELVs proved that doesn't happen. When you remove the incentive of a penalty, teams have no reason to collapse.
In Brief
Guest
It was quite ironic how many ELVs were adopted, but unfortunately, the most fundamental and most effective laws were not. For example, under the ELVs the scrum became an attacking weapon. With no incentive to collapse (with no cynical penalty incentive) teams instead used the scrum to launch attacking plays. Removing a number of technical penalties from the scrum increased the number of scrums in the game (teams could choose a free kick or scrum) but made those scrums more effective. I thought hands in the ruck was brilliant too. It gave new definition to 'no holds barred'. The breakdown became a ferocious battle for possession, real rugby you might say, and meant space was created for the backs to play attacking rugby. Simple, and effective.
Londoner
Guest
All good ideas, would be great to see these ideas trialled in a reasonably high level completion, i.e. Welsh national league 2, or Shute Shield.
FrancisF
Roar Pro
Brett, to be honest, I will be the first in the front line of any cheering team to proclaim rugby players in our union code are all free from drugs and steroid use. But can I honestly tell my self that I have 100 % confidence that is true? No I can't. Enough years wrapped and wrinkled in my old bones of knowing what was ( and, is ) going on in the sporting world, and also as a sports person myself in my younger days, not only playing rugby but other sports, to tell me that view is most improbable. And make it worse, it is not helped by reading news artcle such as this (see below) from the rugby world ( well you may say that was in Nov 2015... to me that is still within the time frame of "recent"): FROM GUARDIAN UK , Nov. 2015 Full article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/26/rugby-steroids-olympic-games-rio " ... Doctors told me they had seen former players struggling with heart conditions after years of steroid abuse. People in rugby spoke privately about coaches telling young wannabes to “bulk up” and even sometimes handing out the tablets. If cheating were the only concern, you could argue that there is a level playing field in rugby because so many players are using or have used steroids. If admitting a problem is the first step towards solving it, I don’t yet feel overwhelmed with optimism about rugby. Leading voices tend to shrug and say “all sports have their problems”. - Steve Howell, THE GUARDIAN UK (15 December 2015) ( Steve Howell is a former UK sports journalist whose novel, Over The Line, tells the story of an athlete whose Olympic ambitions are threatened by an affair with a banned rugby player)
Brett McKay
Expert
Drug testing is compulsory in rugby, World Rugby is co-signatory to the WADA code, and players are subject to random testing like most professional sportspeople are. It's a very curious figure of speech then, Francis, I must say. And you used it twice, so you must believe there is some truth to it. And I have no idea what the point of boot size is, I'll be honest.
double agent
Guest
It would stop resets eating into game time but won't stop spectators being bored rigid watching them.
FrancisF
Roar Pro
"Can I take it to mean that you’re standing by this frankly incredible accusation that goal-kickers all steroid users." No, Brett. But it would be interesting if drug tests are compulsory for rugby. "... big rugby boots and steroid-filled legs." . Used as figure of speech. Surely you would not ask me whether these kickers really wear BIG boots.
Brent Horstor
Guest
Funny how the laws of the game must always be changed as soon as something doesn't go the All Blacks' way.
Brett McKay
Expert
Yes you can, Francis. Kicking successfully at goal is a skill in itself that only a few players on the field at any one point have, and kicking them from distance is rarer again. Can I take it to mean that you're standing by this frankly incredible accusation that goal-kickers all steroid-users? And I ask this quite seriously. My point is backed up by goal-kicking stats. How do you back up your claim?
FrancisF
Roar Pro
Brett, so just to be clear on my part, can I take to mean you are pretty happy with the status quo in the code, in particular with regard to the current rules on infringements which allow teams to take a penaty shots at goals anywhere in the park, including the quantum score for a successful penalty goal, which Peter FitzSimons questionied in his write-up in SMH?
FrancisF
Roar Pro
Brett, so just to be clear on my part, can I take to mean you are pretty happy with the status quo in the code, in particular with regard to the curent rules on infringements which allow teams to take a penaty shots at goals anywhere innthe park, including the quantum score for a successful penalty goal, which Peter FitxSimons questionied in his write-up in SMH?
Timbo (L)
Roar Guru
I am not saying he can't have an opinion but I just wanted to put it in context.There has always been a Piggies/Backs rivalry with forwards wanting to keep ball in hand. It is like asking Cheika about tactical kicking....Although Peter has a much better balance in his journalism