Let's change the scores!

[Rugby Incursion]

New scoring system may be just the fix!


It would appear the IRB have done little to appease the rugby public by only accepting a small portion of the ELVs, arguably to favour the boring northern hemisphere style of rugby. We have seen in a number of tests now the outcome whereby teams will play for field position, cause their opponents to infringe and kick a goal. Until the test in Perth, the Springboks had adopted such a strategy very successfully. This has won numerous games but done nothing for the long suffering public’s attitude towards such tactics. Rugby must be a game that inspires and excites. Who could forget the epic All Black vs. Wallaby test in Sydney where Jona Lomu broke the Wallaby supporter's hearts, but everyone left with the feeling that they had possibly witnessed the greatest rugby match ever, in front of a world record crowd!


We need to get back to matches such as these. Why is it that a roar goes up from the crowd when a team elects to kick for touch rather than for points? It is simply because they want to witness a contest and see running rugby...a team who backs itself to score 7 rather than 3 points. Often fortune will favour the brave.


To make this more a reality, I have a simple proposal. A try should remain 5 points but a conversion from a try becomes 3 points. The points for a penalty are reduced to 2 along with the field goal. I believe this will have a significant effect on a team’s decision making and will place the priority on running rugby with ball in hand. Now the puritans will tell me that the infringement area will increase significantly. This is where the use of the ‘sin bin’ will once again reduce these indiscretions and the flow will return. A team scoring more tries than its opponent should win a rugby match.


I would be interested to hear your views on such a proposal. You may contact me at laws@rugbyinc.com.au

[joblot]

I agree wholeheartedly, but would go one further. The field goal should be one point as in league so it would be used as a game breaker not an accumulator of points.

[blueandblack]

I'd like to see less kicking. At least in the first ...3 phases of possession.

[GIGS20]

You make a good case RI, but I can't see it happening, even with the furore that is apparently ocurring in England ATM I just can't see the northern unions supporting running rugby at all.....what they want to do is support set-piece rugby, because if they don't they're f@cked they are getting heat because nobody's scoring tries...so they'll try and make some small adjustments, but they really want to see everything come down to either a scrum, a lineout or a penalty kick, because that's what they're good at.

The only way they'll change their minds is if the southern teams can play worse than them at the set piece and still win with running rugby (which is possible but bloody difficult)

[frontrow]

I for one love the idea, running rugby is a great spectacle, and the forwards can still go for rolling mauls and one offs from the back of rucks near the line and claim thier glory as well, rather than the lame goalkicking. Look at the Baa Baa's game against the all blacks, they reverted to kicking points and the crowd was pissed off, boring as batshit...

[Em-Forcer]

I agree wholeheartedly, but would go one further. The field goal should be one point as in league so it would be used as a game breaker not an accumulator of points.

I was going to suggest this too! Field goals frustrate me.

[Burgs]

My prefered situation would be:
Try 5
Conversion 2
Penalty 2
Drop Goal 1
But also retaining many of the ELV's Free Kicks (Short Arm) instead of Penalties as well. Too often an attacking team gets a three point reward for a very minor infringement that, if it is against the attacking team, just means a lineout still in their attacking zone, far from fair.

When people talk of "running Rugby", while I know others mean flair and backline moves, to me it also means rolling mauls as well, basically multi phase play rather than kicking or continual restarts. An overall desire to score tries.

[Em-Forcer]

But also retaining many of the ELV's Free Kicks (Short Arm) instead of Penalties as well. Too often an attacking team gets a three point reward for a very minor infringement that, if it is against the attacking team, just means a lineout still in their attacking zone, far from fair.

Yup, what he said

When people talk of "running Rugby", while I know others mean flair and backline moves, to me it also means rolling mauls as well, basically multi phase play rather than kicking or continual restarts. An overall desire to score tries.

Yup

[Lee Grant]

I'm not a big fan of changing points. It seems like a good idea to award more points for a try, but like many ideas about law changes, including my own, there is the effect of unintended results. [But no, I don't want to go back to 3 points for a try.]

Take an idea of 5 points for a try, 3 for a conversion and 2 for a penalty. Sounds good, looks good and probably smells good – but what is going to happen in practice?

Team A is attacking the goal line of Team B. If a converted try is worth 4 times that of a penalty, what is Team B going to do? Think about it. They won't be standing on feet and they won't be behind last feet or the goal line, they'll be doing what their coach told them to do: give up 2 to save 8.

And don't point out that the Foul Play law will be invoked time after time and cards issued. Give me a break. [Burgs this is rhetorical only mate]. If refs used yellow cards as they should do, we wouldn't be having this discussion about changing points. The rugby laws path would have taken a different turn and we'd be in a parallel rugby universe.

Hold that thought and I'll explain it later.

[Stone Cold]

Tries - 5
Conversions - 3
Penalties - 3
Drop goals - 1

[beige]

Tries = 6, leave everything else the same.

[AndyS]

Leave scoring the same, other than either a) making DG = 2 points to correspond to conversions (as a DG can be used as a conversion), or b) allow the option of a 3 point DG conversion.

AND all ELV short-arm penalties to be reinstated, but as full penalties without the goal option (i.e includes line-out option) rather than as free-kicks.

[Burgs]

I want to know why it is portrayed that a team has achieved something (ANYTHING!) by losing X-3 or X-6.

Who gives a toss if you were 6-3 at one stage of the match if you end up going down 38-3?
Teams like Italy should totally ignore the whole "accumulate points" doctrine if they ever hope to beat a top side.

[palitu]

I want to know why it is portrayed that a team has achieved something (ANYTHING!) by losing X-3 or X-6.

Who gives a toss if you were 6-3 at one stage of the match if you end up going down 38-3?
Teams like Italy should totally ignore the whole "accumulate points" doctrine if they ever hope to beat a top side.

what?

[Burgs]

I assume your "what" is more disagreeing than not understanding Palitu?
The point I'm attempting to make is that weak teams (for arguments sake Italy) seem to feel good about themselves if they manage to kick a penalty goal against the top teams (such as New Zealand), even if they end up getting belted by 20-30+.

I would respect them more if they totally ignored penalties and continued to play position and possession as they are never (unless it is absolutely pissing down or blowing a gale) going to get within a bulls roar of the top teams kicking penalties while conceding converted tries. It is an absolute waste of scarce possession and hope under the misguided belief that it is more honourable to lose 38-3 than 38-0.
Especially in Tests, how often do you see the weaker team actually kick together a competitive score against teams who are several rungs up the ladder?