Nick Bishop’s recent column about the changes in rugby from the (mostly) amateur era to the (mostly) professional era sparked yet more discussion about whether changes to scoring could change the way rugby is played, in particular whether it could make the game more open and change the balance of tries to penalty goals.
As Nick’s article highlighted, rugby has already changed a lot. A quick check of World Rugby data shows that in international matches the average number of tries and the number of minutes the ball is in play have increased steadily over recent decades.
Changes in scoring are just one of many factors that influence how the game is played – rules and the way they are interpreted and enforced (or not), the increasing levels of fitness and conditioning of players, the improvements in coaching and analysis are some of the other critical factors.
Nonetheless, scoring does have an impact on how the game is played. It may be correlation rather than causation, but the adoption by most professional competitions of bonus point schemes for scoring four or more tries or three more tries than the opposing team has increased the emphasis on scoring tries.
Various sports have tinkered with scoring in recent decades. Rugby has increased the value of tries from three to four to five points, and further increases have been trialled under various experimental laws. Rugby league increased the value of the try and reduced the value of the drop goal. The AFL has experimented with the concept of the super goal. Basketball adopted the three-point shot in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
To make an informed assessment of whether scoring should be changed it’s important to understand the philosophy of scoring in rugby and how it differs from other games and to think about what makes a good game.
(Matt Roberts/Getty Images)
Opinions vary, but a good game for me has enough scores that reward skill, initiative, teamwork and the ability to capitalise on an opponent’s mistake – or some combination of the above) – but not so many that each score becomes irrelevant. There has to be a balance between attack and defence.
I find football frustrating because so many games see zero or only one or two goals scored. That adds enormously to the pressure on officials and encourages behaviour that leads to penalties or free kicks.
Basketball and AFL are usually at the other end of the spectrum: there so many scores that they all blur.
Using this metric, rugby is close to the sweet spot. It’s rare to see a top-level game without at least a few tries, and most manage more. Equally important is that blowouts are rare unless teams are mismatched, suggesting that the balance between attack and defence is about right.
The frustration in rugby is that too often – though less often than people think – games are won by the team that scores fewer tries, almost always because they kick more penalty goals.
This highlights an important philosophical difference between games like rugby and most other sports. In most games there is only one way to score: you score a goal or you win a point. Think football, hockey, basketball, handball. AFL is almost in that category but offers a uniquely Australian addition: the behind for kicks that were almost but not quite good enough.
(Clive Rose/Getty Images)
These games all deal with offences by making it easier for the non-offending team to score a goal or win a point. Only the rugby family offers penalty goals or field goals as an alternative way to score.
I think ice hockey got it right a long time ago (1904!) when it introduced the penalty box. Losing a player for two or more minutes significantly increases the chance that the opposing team will score. In the NHL a power play (having a one or two-man advantage) leads to a goal more than 20 per cent of the time. The best teams have percentages in the high 20s while the worst teams are in the mid-teens. Average and middle teams are in mid to low 20s.
Rugby followed other sports in adopting a version of this idea: yellow and red cards. The statistics show these make a difference – teams that lose a player are less likely to win – but they don’t always lead to more tries as teams can still kick penalty goals.
The lawmakers should trial an experimental law that removes penalty goals (except perhaps for foul play) and instead reduces the number of players on the field for more offences instead of adjusting the scoring values for tries, penalty goals, conversions and field goals. The details would need to be carefully thought through. Perhaps a yellow card for cumulative team penalties, like in basketball; perhaps a yellow card for cumulative penalties in the defensive 22; perhaps shorter yellow card periods for team or cumulative offences, or longer ones for foul play or ‘professional’ fouls.
It’s important to think about the unintended consequences. Would coaches get their teams to play for penalties in order to force a man advantage, and would players and supporters regard tries scored with a player advantage as worth less than those scored when the opponents have a full complement of players? Would the laws need to be simplified to reduce the incidence of ‘trivial’ offences? Would more offences need to be punished by a free kick rather than a penalty?
Removing or severely limiting the option of penalty goals would change the game. By definition it would force teams to score tries in order to win.
NaBUru38
Guest
I would give 5 points for tries, and 2 points for kicks. Simple, fair, reduces the probability of ties.
Perry Bridge
Guest
Oh dear.....Brian Clarke. I've met him in the past. He is aspirational - good on him for that. The international side of Australian Football that I'm interested in is perhaps in conflict with him. The notion of reduced side Aust footy has largely been driven via grass roots development (generally not initiated from Australia) with limited players on limited fields (both availability and size). Small sided variants and regular '9s' tournaments have become the norm. And the interesting thing is that 'AFL9s' in many respects migrated back to Australia where the AFL has wrestled with 'RecFooty' and now is working on 'AFLX' as a 7s variant. One thing for sure - Clarkey didn't invent small sided Aust Footy and he does have a way of talking himself and AFI up. For example - he isn't associated with the AFL International Cup - and that's the primary focus of non-Australian footy players around the globe. However - on the notion of rules etc - I've played and very much enjoyed 9s AFL (at 'Masters' level). I agree with the comment "As long as locals have the chance to kick, mark, handball and bounce the ball, it does not matter whether they are playing 18s or 9s." My main issue with Aust Footy is to retain distinction - i.e. around 50/50 contests. AFL is based around the 50/50 restart - so you'll see me argue against the 'last touch' rules for the ball going over the boundary - apart from anything else - that was an original rule #9. "When a ball goes out of bounds (the same being indicated by a row of posts) it shall be brought back to the point where it crossed the boundary line and thrown in at right angles with that line." This is where a sport - even for Rugby - has to consider what right the current keepers of the code have to modify something very much in conflict with the original rules of the game. The same question is put back to RU - were a move further away from the value of the kicked goal towards the RL scenario of the 'TRY' is king - were that to be followed then to me it is deviating more from the original game design. In the case of RL a 'distinct' game was branched off.
concerned supporter
Guest
TWAS, Rubbish. The ARU does not compete with the Aviva for Broadcasting Revenue. Different Countries,different hemispheres,played at different times of the year. Our friend Perry Bridge probably doesn't realise the diabolical job done by the ARU in 2017.
AndyS
Guest
I'd love to see them give the option of a drop goal conversion for 3. Would put a premium on getting near the posts, and could make for some interesting tactical choices at the back end of games...
AndyS
Guest
The NRC trialled 5+3 for tries and 2 for penalties, then strangely a minor variation in 6+2/2. Unsurprisingly there was little difference, and unfortunately they never tried 5+2/2 as it would have been more instructive. But even if they had, it would have been of limited use - the spread of abilities in an NRC team are such that there is a good probability of reward if a team attacks from a penalty. That would likely be less so in a fully professional environment, as the defense would be better organised. It is difficult to project the outcome without trialling at a higher level, but I wouldn't be holding breath. For mine the main benefit of the NRC trial was to break the mindset prevalent in Aus rugby at the time to just defend relentlessly, kick the ball away at every opportunity and brainlessly dunt the ball over the bar whenever the opportunity was afforded. 5+2/3 makes it a viable low skill option that works just often enough to conceal a teams shortcomings, but is ultimately unambitious and won't win titles. Hopefully the more attacking mindset in the NRC will survive the change back to standard scoring and we will see players developing some better skills before entering SR, but I guess we'll see over the next couple of years of it survives.
Adam Kramer
Guest
The ARU trialed tries worth 6 points in the NRC, it resulted in sides getting a penalty within kicking distance turn it down & instead go for the try. There's my evidence that more points for a try/conversion will result in less penalty goals.
Train Without A Station
Guest
What a revelation. I’m shocked to learn a code with less teams that plays less games earns less TV money. The problem is that the ARU are forced by the virtue of an open market to compete with competitions such as the Aviva Premiership, where all bar one team actually loses money. It’s difficult to compete with others that aren’t financially sustainable, and be financially sustainable yourself.
Ruckin Oaf
Guest
Hey Dave So let's say that 10 point penalties would cause "milked" penalties to double. At the moment that, on average, there's between .5 - 1 "milked" penalties per game. Still not a big deal.
Markus
Guest
"And you can’t change penalties to be 2 and leave drops because then you will just get tap drops for penalties." If a kicker can retain their strike rate after subbing a kicking tee and 2 minutes prep time with a quick tap drop, they deserve the extra point.
Markus
Guest
Yes the problem of drop goals is vastly overstated. They are rare, require significant skill as they are executed under pressure (to forward packs as well as the halves), and as tubby notes they can be a fantastic way to break up a team's defensive structures. Penalty shots I go back and forth on. Perhaps if Australian teams valued strong goal kicking a bit more, then losing despite scoring more tries would not be such a contentious issue.
piru
Roar Rookie
Bear in mind that removing a player in hockey takes 20% of your skaters off the ice, that's a much bigger handicap than one off in rugby. I think the part of the hockey model that rugby would be better off pinching is the return of the penalised player after a score. Yellow you're off for ten minutes or next try Red you're gone for the game, and can't be replaced for ten or next try.
concerned supporter
Guest
Perry Bridge, Below is a fairly recent article about changes to Australian Rules, "The pathway for Aussie rules to become an Olympic sport VICTORIANS have long dreamt for Australian Rules football going global, and now an international footy organisation believes it has found a set of rules that will make it possible. Australian Football International, which hosts and supports Aussie Rules matches around the globe, has developed a nine-a-side version of the great game, which could be played at stadiums in major cities outside Australia. Behind posts and the oval-shaped field are among aspects of the game that would be abandoned in the slimmed-down ‘Footy 9s’ format, that has been trialled on soccer, rugby and gridiron pitches in 20-minute quarters. READ THE FOOTY 9s RULES BELOW Australian Football International CEO Brian Clarke said the format could break through obstacles to Aussie Rules taking the world stage, such as the need for cricket-sized fields, large teams and the cultural challenge of explaining parochial rules. “It would no doubt surprise them to learn that over the last 20 years, Aussie Rules has recorded impressive international growth at the grassroots level. There are now many vibrant clubs and leagues all over the world, including North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia and the Pacific,” he said. “But one of the major barriers to our game reaching its full international potential is the size of our playing field. http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/cfa99610d8d8373ed3e020ed442e2f37?width=650How a nine-a-side Aussie Rules field would look. Digital image. “The other football codes — soccer, union, league and gridiron — all enjoy a huge advantage in that they can play their games in any major stadium in the world. “If Aussie Rules is to become a truly global game we must be bold and embrace innovation. We must aim high and start sowing the seeds for a 9-a-side version of Aussie Rules to become an Olympic sport.” WHAT DO YOU THINK? TELL US IN THE COMMENTS BELOW Mr Clarke said Rugby 7s provided an example of innovative code morphing to help drive international success. “It is not the size of the field or number of players that matter,” he said. “As long as locals have the chance to kick, mark, handball and bounce the ball, it does not matter whether they are playing 18s or 9s. What matters is that they are playing our game. “If they have a connection to the game they are far more likely to support the AFL competition, an AFL club and the game itself. “It is often claimed that Aussie rules is the greatest spectator sport on the planet. If we make it easier for people all over the world to play our great game, that claim can become a reality.” http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/f490c69d57ecd0e414376fc45be89deb?width=650Australian Football International supports matches around the world, including in the UK. FOOTY 9s BASIC RULES Playing field Footy 9s can be played on soccer, rugby or gridiron fields. Teams: Each side has nine players on the field and a maximum of three reserves. Interchange of players may take place at any time. Teams consist of three forwards, three midfielders and three defenders. At the start of play and after each goal, the midfielders must line up in the centre of the playing field. To prevent congestion, forwards and defenders must line up in the goal area at the start of play and after each goal. Players can otherwise go anywhere on the field and there is no off side. Playing time: The game is divided into four quarters of 20 minutes. This can be varied to two halves of 20 minuhttp://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/fb45f0a1f4928e024e1f74ce2d482aeb?width=316Buddy Franklin in an imagined Australian Olympic team jumper. Digital image. Start of play: The game starts with a jump ball between two players in the centre of the playing field. A player may not grab the ball at the jump ball and play on. They must knock or tap the ball to another player. After a goal, the ball is taken to the centre and restarted. Out of bounds: When the ball goes out of bounds by either foot or hand, the nearest opponent shall kick the ball in. If there is doubt as to which team forced the ball out of bounds, the umpire will throw the ball up. Tackling: There are two versions of Footy 9s — contact and non-contact. In the contact version, when a player is tackled by an opponent, they must dispose of the ball by handball or kick. If the player fails to dispose of the ball, possession will be awarded to the other team. In the non-contact version, when a player is touched by an opponent, they have 3 seconds to dispose of the ball by handball or kick. If the player fails to dispose of the ball, possession will be awarded to the other team. In both versions, if a player has had prior opportunity to dispose of the ball when touched or tackled, it is holding the ball and a turnover will occur. Marking: Any player catching a ball directly from the kick of another player, provided the ball has travelled at least 10 metres and is not touched in flight, will be awarded a mark. Bouncing the ball: A player in possession must bounce the ball after running with it for 10 metres. Kicking off the ground: A player is not permitted to deliberately kick the ball off the ground. Scoring: Goals are scored by kicking the ball into the net (soccer fields) or through the goals (rugby & gridiron fields). There are no behind posts or behinds. WHAT DO YOU THINK? TELL US IN THE COMMENTS BELOW "
Johnno
Guest
I think field goals should stay at 3-points and penalty goals to 2-points. The card system needs reviewing and they are trailing some new card systems I think. I think there should be a "white card" system where as some offences should only carry 5 minutes not 10....
Perry Bridge
Guest
#Concerned Supporter I understand that - however, from the AFL perspective it's egalitarian in that respect - you earn it, you get it, you do it. i.e. a player takes a mark or wins a free kick and he doesn't get to put the ball on the ground and let the best kick in the team come in and take the kick. That's where defensive strategies will focus on defending the best players etc etc. I just find it odd - especially soccer where penalty goals count towards 'golden boot' awards and in reality there should be two separate categories (goals in general play and goals from stoppages taken as the specialist kicker). Anyway - I enjoy seeing athletes 'stretched' in the capabilities and skills. If the hooker puts the ball over then let him have a crack at converting it. (my father in law was a hooker in his day back in NZ).
Concerned Supporter
Guest
Perry Bridge The answer ìs simple, the best kicker(s ),have the best conversion rates
Perry Bridge
Guest
#Russell Neville - "Why should so much focus be on the goal kicker when all players contribute to winning" Pardon my ignorance - what stops anyone having a kick at goal? It's a code of football whereby kicking is a rewarded skill. Which then brings me the conversion kickers - I still dislike that soccer for example permits a specialist penalty taker, and the Rugby and Amer/Canadian games allow designated conversion kickers. Why shouldn't whomever achieves/scores the 'run in/try/touchdown/etc' be the person to take the kick. Then there's far more valid focus on the goal kicker because he/she was more likely to be the 'play' winner.
AndyS
Guest
I would have said quite a lot, especially if you factor in playing the ref. There are a lot of teams with lacklustre attacks happy to play for penalties rather than really attack the line. It was one of the key motivations for introducing bonus points.
Dave_S
Guest
I’m using the term “milk” to include “induce”. At the moment, how many? That’s not my point - I’m saying the inducement to do it will be much higher if penalties were worth 10 points. Not hard to make a tackler’s arm slip up too high by dropping down in the tackle, or for a front row to pull back and induce a collapse.
Ruckin' Oaf
Guest
How many penalties given in the typical rugby match would be "milked" ?
Dave_S
Guest
... or with issuing penalties within kicking distance in the last few minutes of a game? I strongly suspect that the higher the consequences of a ref’s decision (a card or a late kickable penalty), the more reluctant many become to use the sanction. Similarly when politicians try to make sentencing tougher, Magistrates tend to push back.