NRC Law Variations - have your say

[Scoey]

The change in points may not work, but then again it could and the game could be better for it. Who knows unless we try it. If it doesn't work, we hope back to the current scoring.

But work to achieve what? And better how?

 

[p.Tah]

But work to achieve what? And better how?

A game that is even more enjoyable to play and watch.

 

[Omar Comin']

Rugby is beautiful because there are numerous different and legitimate ways that a team can accumulate points against you an ultimately beat you. Any attempt to make the game all about tries will dilute the game and remove a large part of the drama and the interest. I accept that plenty of folk feel differently but I think that if you support a move toward a game with an increasing focus on tries as a priority then you haven't fully appreciated or understood the impacts the changes may make.

What specific positive aspects of rugby do you think will be taken away by the change in points system?

Teams will still have all the multitude of game plans available to them that they do now. There will still be all the different ways of going about getting possession in good territory and putting pressure on the opposition. It's just that scoring significant points won't be as simple as one guy kicking a goal following subjective refereeing decisions.

 

[Scoey]

A game that is more enjoyable to play and watch.

Nice reply! I get what you are saying but I hope the folk responsible for the changes had a more concrete goal in mind than improving the vibe of the game!

 

[p.Tah]

To be honest I'm sceptical about the points change, but sometimes you have to suck it and see.

If it was a global roll out I'd be very concerned, but I'm keen to see what happens.

 

[Scoey]

What specific positive aspects of rugby do you think will be taken away by the change in points system?

Teams will still have all the multitude of game plans available to them that they do now. There will still be all the different ways of going about getting possession in good territory and putting pressure on the opposition. It's just that scoring significant points won't be as simple as one guy kicking a goal following subjective refereeing decisions.

I covered what I thought the result would be in my post that you quoted. The points system is a fundamental part of the game and a move toward encouraging more tries and removing incentive for penalty or drop goals will dilute the game and remove a large part of the drama that is unique to rugby. If you didn't understand my original post then I don't think I can be clearer.

Your last sentence is your go-to line though and it's beginning to become tiresome. You make it sound like every penalty ever given is a 50/50 and that the majority of games each week are decided by one team scoring the majority of their points through penalties while the losing side has been scoring tries all night but just falling short. It's just not true.

I find it ironic that your biggest beef with the current set up is referees deciding games yet the new points system relies almost entirely on referees applying a more judicious use of cards to make the changes 'work'.

 

[Scoey]

To be honest I'm sceptical about the points change, but sometimes you have to suck it and see.

If it was a global roll out I'd be very concerned, but I'm keen to see what happens.

I don't have a problem with law trials as a concept. I think the scoring system change though is too much for the NRC. The NRC is not even a fledgling competition yet and making a big change like that I think is too risky. If it's a flop then it could reflect poorly on the NRC before it even had a chance to succeed.

 

[Braveheart81]

It seems weak to me our country that routinely struggles with goalkicking relative to other top nations is complaining that games are won by teams slotting over easy kicks.

I agree with Scoey that it is an integral part of the game and one that we don't pay enough attention too.

It also ignores the fact that correct and incorrect referee decisions have arguably just as much impact on tries being scored or not scored as penalty goals.

 

[Omar Comin']

I covered what I thought the result would be in my post that you quoted. The points system is a fundamental part of the game and a move toward encouraging more tries and removing incentive for penalty or drop goals will dilute the game and remove a large part of the drama that is unique to rugby. If you didn't understand my original post then I don't think I can be clearer.

Your last sentence is your go-to line though and it's beginning to become tiresome. You make it sound like every penalty ever given is a 50/50 and that the majority of games each week are decided by one team scoring the majority of their points through penalties while the losing side has been scoring tries all night but just falling short. It's just not true.

I find it ironic that your biggest beef with the current set up is referees deciding games yet the new points system relies almost entirely on referees applying a more judicious use of cards to make the changes 'work'.

So nothing specific about the game play other than the goals themselves and the 'theatre' around them. That's all I was asking.

The rugby points system has changed many times. Every single time there would have been people like you saying the exact same thing. It's always changed to give greater emphasis to tries and the spectacle of the game has improved as a result. No one ever talks about going back to 3 or 4 point tries after all.

It's a long running trend and it continues. Ultimately because teams trying to score tries (and all the facets of the game that go into that) is what most people want to watch. The effect of penalty goals on the result is actually not the impetus for change. The impetus for change is that most penalty goals are boring and take away from the actual playing of rugby.

I think any loss of 'drama' from losing a few penalty goals in every game will be more than off-set by the increase in drama and entertainment resulting from more rugby. But each to their own.

And I doubt there'll be too much of a change in use of cards. It will happen simply due to the fact teams will keep attacking, rather than taking shots at goal all the time (which means the ball returns to more neutral territory). Cards won't be used for the 50/50 decisions, they'll be for repeated killing of the ball and offsides or other cynical offences.

 

[Braveheart81]

I just disagree that penalty goals equate to something uninteresting.

I remember back to the Reds v Brumbies game last year where Horwill kept turning down shots at goal to have 5m lineouts that were either butchered or there was another penalty followed by another 5m lineout.

It was frustrating and I think a more interesting rugby game would have resulted if they'd taken the three and then worked their way back down there again which they probably would because they were on top.

Equating goals to boring rugby strikes me as a comment from someone who didn't really watch a game but wanted to complain about it anyway.

 

[TOCC]

I like the rule changes, if for nothing else then to see whether they go well or fail.

Kicking at goal is such a small aspect of the game, the potential to enhance other areas through these rule changes massive.. By diminishing the penalty goal you increase the likelihood that the teams will go for a rolling maul or a scrum, both of which are areas Australian Rugby needs improvement in.

So yes, you may lose a few opportunities for the goal kicker to kick at goal, but you will have both forwards packs walking away from the game a little bit more educated in line-outs, mauls and scrums.

 

[ChargerWA]

I think I said a few pages back it thought it was important not diminish the importance of goal kicking.

But now it's happening, we might as well suck it and see. If it's no good, change it back next year. If it's great, we start lobbying the IRB.

The only positive I can see out of it is it makes a more even contest between two teams who are well matched but one has a shit hot goal kicker. Makes it a better contest and gives the whole 15 guys a chance to contribute more to the win.

 

[Omar Comin']

Equating goals to boring rugby strikes me as a comment from someone who didn't really watch a game but wanted to complain about it anyway.

I acknowledge that a game with lots of penalty goals isn't necessarily a boring game. The rugby in between them could be amazing. The Super Rugby final being a recent example. And because that was a final the penalty goals in a close game did add to the theatre. But I think it would have been a better match with less of them. The closeness and changes in momentum wouldn't have been any different, and perhaps there would have been more on your feet moments. Line breaks, near tries or tries.

In a regular game with less on the line those 14 shots at penalty goal would have been a lot more tedious.

 

[TOCC]

I think the point with "boring field goals" is that when you have two teams who are either playing negative rugby or they are just both playing badly, then field goals becomes the preferred option due to the inability to cross the oppositions try-line.

I agree 100% that penalty goals do not directly equate to boring rugby, but when used in a specific fashion they can be the by-product of a boring style of rugby.

 

[Dan54]

Honestly, you're entitled to your own opinion obviously, but this is a bit much. Hybrid game? WTF?

There's been absolutely minimal tinkering with a couple of things that will make the game a little quicker with more ball in play time and hopefully fewer penalty goals. None of the guts of the Laws at breakdown or set piece have even been touched.

Ok, I may have been a bit strong, but I really feel the points system is trying to hard to force a certain style of rugby, as is stopping 9s challenging for ball. One of the beauties of rugby in my opinion is it can be played in so many different ways tinkering with rules to try and make everyone score tries all the time is in my opinion changing it a little too much. As I said I hope I am wrong, I just feel I was disappointed a bit when I read rule variations, and was not looking forward to it quite as much as before.

 

[TahDan]

Interesting post from one of the South African boys over at 'The Rugby Forum' on the points change:

That precise point system is used in SA in the Varsity Cup competition. I had my doubts as well but I have to admit it has seen a very positive game. BUT we have two things in the Varsity Cup that complement that;

- refs are insanely hard up on the tackler's releasing and rolling away immediately and give yellows much more readily than you'd see in test or pro club rugby for spoiling tactics. I wouldn't say they discourage competition at the ruck but the opposition certainly need to be mindful of staying within the laws.
- the captains each have one TMO referal per half to question ref decisions. If the the ref decision is overturned the captain retains that referal. This sounds silly, I know, but the positive spins offs are that ref's almost never go to the TMo and back themselves so the action keeps up while the onus is more on the captains to make the referal and having only one they only use it if they KNOW for a fact that for instance there was a knock on or whatever in the lead up to an opposition try and the fact that they can get poor decisions or simply where the ref missed something overturned just makes for a fairer match overall.

That's a bit of a promising comment really. But I actually really like the idea of the challenge. I wonder why that wasn't considered?

 

[Braveheart81]

I acknowledge that a game with lots of penalty goals isn't necessarily a boring game. The rugby in between them could be amazing. The Super Rugby final being a recent example. And because that was a final the penalty goals in a close game did add to the theatre. But I think it would have been a better match with less of them. The closeness and changes in momentum wouldn't have been any different, and perhaps there would have been more on your feet moments. Line breaks, near tries or tries.

In a regular game with less on the line those 14 shots at penalty goal would have been a lot more tedious.

The Super Rugby final was widely acknowledged as a brilliant game of rugby and many people who went (myself included) who have been to a lot of live rugby have never witnessed anything better (particularly as a Waratahs fan).

It seems a bit ridiculous to say it would have been better with less kicks at goal. It's a hypothetical that has no basis in reality.

Why not make the comment that it would have been better if neither team had given away any penalties and allowed both teams to attack more freely and score more tries?

Giving away penalties is part of the game. It's a reality of rugby being a contest for the ball. You can't yellow card every breakdown infringement because it would get ridiculous but our game is built around there being a constant contest to win the ball. Allowing players to compete and penalising them when they get it wrong is integral to the game. Being able to kick at goal allows a team to take advantage of that infringement. If you make the punishment too harsh (as in far more frequent yellow cards) you'll start killing that contest for the ball.

It's a fine balance.

Rugby league removed that contest for the ball entirely and whilst I do watch some of it, I think it is far less interesting than rugby union. It is repetitive and boring.

 

[Brumby Runner]

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.

Think it will also get rid of those ridiculous after try scoring celebrations, especially where the ball gets thrown away by the scorer. Can see the scorer now immediately regaining his feet with ball in hand to get it to the kicker post haste.

 

[Braveheart81]

Think it will also get rid of those ridiculous after try scoring celebrations, especially where the ball gets thrown away by the scorer. Can see the scorer now immediately regaining his feet with ball in hand to get it to the kicker post haste.

The 45 second shot clock should be the Benny Hill theme played over the load speakers.

As the goal kicker run into position, players run to get the ball and return it to the kicker and someone runs on the kicking tee it would just complete the spectacle.

 

[Omar Comin']

Giving away penalties is part of the game. It's a reality of rugby being a contest for the ball. You can't yellow card every breakdown infringement because it would get ridiculous but our game is built around there being a constant contest to win the ball. Allowing players to compete and penalising them when they get it wrong is integral to the game. Being able to kick at goal allows a team to take advantage of that infringement. If you make the punishment too harsh (as in far more frequent yellow cards) you'll start killing that contest for the ball.

It's a fine balance.

I completely agree with almost all of this. Rugby without infringements would be sterile and boring. I just think a kick for touch - basically possession 20+ metres further up field is, in most cases, enough of an advantage for a team that's been infringed against. If the infringements are obviously cynical, or if teams are continuing to go against referee instructions (and commit repeated infringements), then a card is adequate. I don't really see the need for anything else. Though I can live with 2 point penalty goals.

Rugby's rule book is extremely complex. It's very long. In many instances, particularly at the breakdown, you could penalise both teams for something by the letter of the law. Referees have a very tough job and must interpret the rules in the spirit of the game. I just think having their decisions lead to direct points is not ideal. Especially as the process for getting those points is so tedious. Maybe it would be better if there was some element of competition to a penalty kick. Like a possibility of a charge down or something - as is the case for drop goals in general play (which I have zero problem with). But my preference is to limit the value of penalty goals or get rid of them. So I'm happy. While the majority on GAGR seem to be in favour of the current scoring system (at least that's the impression I get on this thread), I am quite clearly in the majority of rugby fans. There's a poll on the SMH website which shows this.