Let's change the scores!

[palitu]

no no, i didn't understand what you were saying, but now i do (should this go in the "i didn't know but now i do" thread??).

If they are getting flogged, i don't understand going for penalties, but if it is 6-0, you have to keep your self in the game.

The RWC in france was a good example, AUS v JAP, they got a great try through forward work, pick and drives, after the siren. And if i was a Japan supporter, i wouldn't expect them to win, but to get a try like that great to watch.

I was at a friends 21st, and i brought a TV with me so i could watch the game.

[brokendown gunfighter]

no no, i didn't understand what you were saying, but now i do (should this go in the "i didn't know but now i do" thread??).

If they are getting flogged, i don't understand going for penalties, but if it is 6-0, you have to keep your self in the game.

The RWC in france was a good example, AUS v JAP, they got a great try through forward work, pick and drives, after the siren. And if i was a Japan supporter, i wouldn't expect them to win, but to get a try like that great to watch.

I was at a friends 21st, and i brought a TV with me so i could watch the game.

was at the ground for that one

[palitu]

was at the ground for that one

bastard....

[pieter blackie]

The points for a penalty are reduced to 2 along with the field goal.

My prefered situation would be:
Try 5
Conversion 2
Penalty 2
Drop Goal 1.

Drop goals - 1

How many of you smart asses still believe that a drop goal is worth to much




.

[Burgs]

Me.
Though I wouldn't consider myself a "smartarse" for thinking it...

[brokendown gunfighter]

yep,with a penalty worth 2 & a droppie worth 1,we would have bolted in 12-10

[James]

Can we not just have drop goals worth 3 unless you are a South African in which case you get -1. Fair?

[Lee Grant]

As I wrote earlier in the thread. Change nothing. Let the refs keep going with the strict observance of the laws and the game getting better pill. The tries should come.

One criticism I have with the crackdown on the laws is that the Foul Play law for cynical play is not invoked enough and likewise not enough yellow cards are issued. There is nothing like a card to make a player focus better on fair play when he returns.

Start playing cards and the ball will get quicker and quicker and more tries will come.

As Danie Craven said about the laws as they are: beware of changing things because there will be unexpected results.

[shasta]

One criticism I have with the crackdown on the laws is that the Foul Play law for cynical play is not invoked enough and likewise not enough yellow cards are issued. There is nothing like a card to make a player focus better on fair play when he returns.

.

Can only agree with that after last night. Burger was warned and penalised at least 3 times, could be more (I've not seen the tape yet), for fould play and got another warning after Bam's try. Yet no yellow card?

[OzFUB]

I would much rather see teams attempting drop goals and then getting on woth the game then spending 2-3mins waiting for a goal kick.

I think the place kick for a penalty should be dropped (excuse the pun) and teams should be force to take a quick drop kick.

We would see more rugby and less time wasted on place kicks

[Blackswan]

The points system has been changed several times over the last 100 years or so. For the record -

Try Con Pen Drp Mrk Yr
1 2 2 3 3 1891
2 3 3 4 4 1893
3 2 3 4 4 1905
3 2 3 4 3 1948
3 2 3 3 3 1971
4 2 3 3 3 1992
5 2 3 3 -

year = last year of northern winter season in which the points applied
Mrk = drop goal direct from a mark (1978 was the last year that this applied). The laws were later changed such that a mark could only be taken inside your own 25/22 instead of anywhere on the field of play.

It would be interesting to see if there was any correlation between the points system and the number of tries scored. I suspect there isn't as the nature of rugby has also changed over the years and one might only be able to make a sensible comparison through analysis of a few seasons either side of a change in the points system.

If anyone has nothing else to do this easter ...........

A couple of other observations -

The historical trend is clearly to increase the number of points awarded for a try. Whilst I wasn't around in 1948, I can clearly recall that the reason for the change in 1971 and 1992 was exactly what is being quoted as to why the points system should be changed again. Did it make any real long term difference ? Methinks not otherwise why would it be changed some twenty years later or called for change another twenty ?

Secondly, the drop goal is historically THE way in which points were scored in the original years of rugby. The 'try' was just a means of winning an attempt to kick a drop goal. So before we go overboard with the attitude towards the drop goal, let's give some consideration to the tradition of this great game. And yes I hated Mr Wilkinson's score in extra time as much as any other Aussie but that is not a justification for changing the points system.

By the way, think of the comparison between Wilkinson in 2003 and Dave Hill last Friday. England forwards took the ball upfield twice to get a better position. Dave Hill called the move to take the ball up twice after the scrum to get a better position for the drop goal. And he told rabbit to stand ten yards to his left in case he was closed down.

---------- Post added at 10:59 ---------- Previous post was at 09:42 ----------

As I wrote earlier in the thread. Change nothing. Let the refs keep going with the strict observance of the laws ..................
Start playing cards and the ball will get quicker and quicker and more tries will come.

There are only two positive ways a team can score in rugby - a try and a drop goal. Penalties are awarded for transgressions due to a team's preparedness to cheat in order to prevent the other team from scoring (aka winning the ball).

The points awarded for a try have little to do with an attacking team's desire to score tries. However it does have a big impact on a defending team's preparedness to transgress in order to slow down the recycling of the ball. To my mind there is a direct correlation between the margin in points awarded for a try and a penalty and the preparedness of the defending team to transgress at the breakdown.

If we look at some of the best matches over the last few decades they are invariably those where tries have been scored directly as a result of a teams ability to quickly recycle the ball at a 'breakdown' - ie multiple phases kept going rapidly so that the defending team has less time to organise its defensive patterns. Obvious examples are some of the better Bledisloe matches in the last decade and the Welsh team performance through the late '60's and '70's. (Check out YouTube where there is a lot of video available of both.)

The points scored by Wales from 1965 to 1971 (when the points for a try were increased to 4) are comparable to those scored during the remainder of the '70's. Whilst not conclusive proof, it is an indication that points awarded for a try do not influence a teams gameplan to score tries.

All of which is the long way of saying "leave the points system as it is but card the players for cheating at the breakdown".

As Danie Craven said about the laws as they are: beware of changing things because there will be unexpected results.

Especially pertinent today when the game is professional and there is much more focus at coaching and deriving "tactics" that provide an advantage either within or at the limits of the laws.

[Darren]

I think I've said it in another thread, I think teh only changethat should/could be made is increase conversions to 3 to make it a consistent score for all conversions. It also would have the side effect of making try scoring possibly worth more

[Zaaak]

This is all pretty fair and good. Make Rugby what people want. Rugby is a game, it may be the game of Gods, but still a game and games are all about the final result. It's not how I play my rugby but ultimately it comes down to who wins and who loses. That spot in the Grand Final is only yours if you can WIN. Penalty kicking rugby maybe boring and non-theatrical but if that's how you can beat a team, that's how you have to beat a team.

If you were playing a side with impenetrable defence yet were unable to score tries, would you still keep playing for the 5points? No. You'd kick for goal and get points.

I see all of the opinions and do agree with them. DG should definately be worth 1-2 points and penalties lowered to 2 points to coincide with conversions. However, as I said, we play to win and if kicking is how you win, it's still a win.

If you all see my point.

[GIGS20]

Spoken like the true unwashed there Zak!

---------- Post added at 00:09 ---------- Previous post was at 00:09 ----------

ps I would take an ugly win over a pretty loss, but I'd be pissed if they didn't at least TRY to win pretty!

[Zaaak]

That's what I was trying to get at, ha. Like, if you can score tries, score them. But don't blow away guaranteed points for a try you're unlikely to score. "A miss is as good as a mile."