NRC Law Variations - have your say

[Braveheart81]

It's like the rugby league mentality of sin bins and send offs ruin games, not the players committing the infractions.

Changing the points will change the options taken a bit. Like you've currently got where teams will base their choice on the likelihood of their goalkicker slotting the penalty, it will make teams go for touch a bit more because the probability of the kick being successful is still the same but the reward is less whereas the reward for going for the try is better.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

With a guaranteed 2 points for the penalty shot, as opposed to 8 points for a converted try, a team would always take the 2 point option.

Losing a player for an arbitrary 10 minutes rest in the Bin may still "reward" the cynically offending team, if they can lift, regain the attacking momentum and prevent the enemy from getting a meat pie.

If the bloke is off the field until the next try is scored by the non-offending team, then the cynical act is punished by 7 (or 10) points not just 2, and it is made easy for the non-offending team to score the extra points to "properly" punish the cynical play.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

It's like the rugby league mentality of sin bins and send offs ruin games, not the players committing the infractions.

<snip>

Time in the penalty box in Water Polo is an accepted part of the game ebb and flow.

It actually opens the game up, rather than ruining it.

The Mungo mentality is just so lowest common denominator it is no longer funny. In the 21st century, what sport would hope to prosper with a key media personality advocating "Bring Back the Biff".

 

[Braveheart81]

Time in the penalty box in Water Polo is an accepted part of the game ebb and flow.

It actually opens the game up, rather than ruining it.

Same with ice hockey.

We're talking about sports where it's generally easier to score points (particularly water polo) and often easier to defend a player short (ice hockey).

I don't agree with the penalty lasting until a try is scored (even if it was until a try is scored or 10 minutes, whichever comes first). Often teams are taking a punt to give away a yellow card rather than giving up a try. Sometimes that choice should pay off because they can hold the team out and sometimes it should cost them dearly because the other team really pulls it together and puts 2+ tries on during the 10 minutes.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Could not agree with that last sentence more. The risk should be able to pay off or completely blow up in their face.

 

[Dctarget]

The other strange one is if the lineout is uncontested, you can just throw it straight to your teammate. That'll be thrown out after a game.

The rest look good.

- Even if not straight, the ball must be caught within the line of the outside shoulder – i.e. the ball may not be deliberately thrown not straight

8. Quick throw-ins allowed even if touched by another player or person; must be same ball
- Frees teams from a technicality that will allow for quicker play.
- If support staff or reserves deliberately touch the ball, a penalty kick is awarded 15m in.

I reckon this is going to catch a lot of people unaware and end up with a quite a few teams being very angry at their bench/staff.

 

[MarkJ]

Agree completely with this. Why would a country that on the whole struggles with goalkicking further dilute the attention we pay to it?

Stopping the clock so it doesn't eat into game time whilst still allowing the 90 seconds would be a much better option.

For many kickers, 45 seconds will mean a changed kicking routine. As goalkicking is all about the routine and trying to replicate it exactly every time, this can't be a good thing.

I'm guessing FoxSports had a say in this - better for the TV audience

 

[Omar Comin']

I told you guys the value of the penalty goal would decrease. Happy to see it. First step on the road to removing it completely.

This will not result in any general changes (beyond when a team needs more than 2 points to take the lead) in the motivation to kick for goal. Teams will still take the points on offer. It will only result in further penalties due to intentional cynical infringements.

I disagree. You'd be dumb to go for goal all the time with such a points system. Going for goal gives up your field position that you might not get back for a long time. Kick for touch, keep the territorial advantage. Turn that pressure into tries, an extremely easy kick at goal, or to a yellow card from the other team if they keep infringing.

This exact points system has been used in South Africa and from the initial stats I saw a couple of years ago resulted in a significant decrease in the number of penalty goals with only a small increase in infringements.

 

[TahDan]

I must say, whilst I agree with most of these, I don't get the points change... I feel like it's just a little too far.

I'm all for change penalties and drop goals to 2, but why increase conversions to 3? At 2 points, dg and pens are worth less than a third of a converted try already, so is it really necessary to make it a quarter? And if that's what you're after, why not just make the try 6 points so all kicks can be 2?

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Keeping the try at 5 points makes it easy for the non-mathmatically inclined to work out the score.

Also helps those players and spectators from other codes that are programmed to think in multiples of fives.

 

[TahDan]

Fair enough I suppose, but why conversions to 3?

 

[Train Without a Station]

Omar Comin. If a team had cynically stopped your play and only get penalised, why would they not do it again?

As an attacking team you decide, do you wish to risk them getting away with it and you just losing possession.

 

[Benaud]

Fair enough I suppose, but why conversions to 3?

Exactly. That seems like a strange ad hoc call without any real thought given.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Oh and teams don't kick for goal because they sit there, crack out their calculator and say "Oh, if we kick this that's 42% of a converted try". They do it because it's an opportunity at points which the defending team has no opportunity to try and stop.

Nothing changes that now.

 

[Hugie]

My views on how the law variations will play out:

The team throwing the ball into the line out won't know if the defending team is going to contest, so will always have to try and throw in straight. The defending team will always have to appear to be about to contest.

Both teams will have to have a runner with a kicking tee moving up and down the sideline to get the tee out quickly on awarding a try i.e. the kicker will end up with the same amount of time, the teams have to be more organised. The time limit should also apply to penalties.

The half backs will now cover the close in inside channel (in defence) and the flanker will stay bound and pushing for longer then cover further out (say about the 7m) i.e the blind side winger coming in is going to get hammered more often.

I don't like the extra point for the conversion, can't see why it isn't 2 points for any type of goal and 5 points for a try.

Like the scrum set time limit.

On balance seems like the law variations will speed the game up considerably (these are the things fit teams do to wear their opponents down at present), the boys will have to be fit to keep up with the pace. I think the front rowers will become lighter as a result.

 

[JSRF10]

So the ARU in their wisdom have deprioritised an area of the game, penalty goal kicking, which has been indirectly (Ireland 2011) and directly (England 2007) seen them knocked out of the last two World Cups. Not sure they understand this development lark.

 

[Braveheart81]

The 3 point conversion combined with halving the time kickers have to take conversions really seems to increase the value of a try close to the posts.

Surely we're going to see a significantly lower percentage for sideline conversions than we already have.

 

[Train Without a Station]

JSRF10, no it's just they've caved to what the masses think makes the game worse.

The problem is the moron masses haven't really thought it through completely.

 

[qwerty51]

So the ARU in their wisdom have deprioritised an area of the game, penalty goal kicking, which has been indirectly (Ireland 2011) and directly (England 2007) seen them knocked out of the last two World Cups. Not sure they understand this development lark.

Don't forget Scotland - twice.

 

[Omar Comin']

Omar Comin. If a team had cynically stopped your play and only get penalised, why would they not do it again?

As an attacking team you decide, do you wish to risk them getting away with it and you just losing possession.

Because the ARU have said there will be a crack down on repeated and cynical infringements to go along with the points change.

If you had a penalty say 30 metres out and 10 in from touch, and went for the posts I think you'd be an idiot. You're just gifting the opposition the opportunity to get back up the other end. Even if you kick the goal, it's 1/4 of a converted try so it's hardly taking the game away. Meanwhile you've lost the opportunity for a 5-10m attacking lineout.

If a team can score 3 converted tries in a match that'll be 24 points. For the other team to win while scoring less tries is very unlikely. Thus penalty goals will mainly be taken to break deadlocks. Tries will be far more significant. As they should be.