Reds vs Brumbies, Lang Park, 2nd March 2018 @ 7:00pm AEST

[Beer Baron]

Much like the old grubber/chip over the backline to turn them around - hell if it backfires though!

 

[emuarse]

With apologies to Churchill: "Rugby is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma".
Pretty well sums it up.

 

[TOCC]

I have long thought that Australian Rugby should take more field goal attempts to win games (I hate seeing though).

I think if you took 3 points every time you got within 25 meters of the try line you would get more points than going for tries. I dont think the SA or NZ teams ruin chances as often as the Australian teams either through dropping the ball or being held up.

I dont want to watch rugby played this way but I am surprised it does not happen to get wins

I think it depends on which team you play, against any of the kiwi teams or Lions, 18 points won’t win you a game. Against some of the South African and Aussie teams it might.

 

[Brumby Runner]

It has always seemed to me that a side taking an early field goal attempt is a clear signal that they have little confidence in their attack and usually ultimately ends in a loss regardless.

 

[wamberal]

I hate kicking as much as the next person, but an elite side which does not contain the full range of scoring (and attacking) threats is doomed to lose games against sides which do have all options.


I still believe that we lost games last season we could have won because we lacked a good tactical kicker.


Field goals are a horrible option. But they can win games, sadly.

 

[wamberal]

It has always seemed to me that a side taking an early field goal attempt is a clear signal that they have little confidence in their attack and usually ultimately ends in a loss regardless.

Disagree. No worse or better than taking a penalty goal attempt early in the game. What is the difference?


Getting points on the board early is better than having lots of field position and coming up empty-handed, one of our specialities in recent seasons.

 

[Zero_Cool]

I have long thought that Australian Rugby should take more field goal attempts to win games (I hate seeing though).

I think if you took 3 points every time you got within 25 meters of the try line you would get more points than going for tries. I dont think the SA or NZ teams ruin chances as often as the Australian teams either through dropping the ball or being held up.

I dont want to watch rugby played this way but I am surprised it does not happen to get wins

I think the key for the Reds was that they took the easy goals. I couldn't find one of those graphics for it, but most their goal attempts were frankly very easy, no more than 35 out fairly in front something Tuttle is kick more than 90% on. These are the goals Australian teams need to kick. Contrast this with something like the Top 14 because their goal kickers are very good goal kickers they'll kick anything within 45 meters out, I would guess they'd kick on something with an 80% likelihood of success despite being a better kicker.

You can see the error of Australian teams (most likely the capitan not knowing how to handle it) when they take tough kicks. In my opinion you want to be taking the kicks that are between 75% and 90% depending on how conservative you want to be. Reece Hodge kicking a penalty from 55 meters out is intimidating, and that has value, but it's also risky.

 

[Braveheart81]

You can see the error of Australian teams (most likely the capitan not knowing how to handle it) when they take tough kicks. In my opinion you want to be taking the kicks that are between 75% and 90% depending on how conservative you want to be. Reece Hodge kicking a penalty from 55 meters out is intimidating, and that has value, but it's also risky.

I think a lot of teams, both Australian and otherwise are taking pretty similar options when it comes to penalties now. If you're inside the 15m lines within a reasonable range you take the 3 in most circumstances. If you're 5m out right in front you might opt for the scrum because it is such a great attacking opportunity. 10m out you'll take the shot at goal though.

For the wider shots you will kick for the line because the chance of scoring a try off the attacking lineout weighted for the 5-7 points is greater than kicking the 3 from a tougher position.

It you're 50m out and have a decent kicker you'll often go back to taking a shot at goal again because the likelihood is you'll only have a lineout at the 22 rather than 10 metres out so the attacking opportunity from that lineout isn't nearly as good.

It's something of a moneyball approach to penalties.

 

[Derpus]

I think a lot of teams, both Australian and otherwise are taking pretty similar options when it comes to penalties now. If you're inside the 15m lines within a reasonable range you take the 3 in most circumstances. If you're 5m out right in front you might opt for the scrum because it is such a great attacking opportunity. 10m out you'll take the shot at goal though.

For the wider shots you will kick for the line because the chance of scoring a try off the attacking lineout weighted for the 5-7 points is greater than kicking the 3 from a tougher position.

It you're 50m out and have a decent kicker you'll often go back to taking a shot at goal again because the likelihood is you'll only have a lineout at the 22 rather than 10 metres out so the attacking opportunity from that lineout isn't nearly as good.

It's something of a moneyball approach to penalties.

I'd love to see some conversion stats for this. I wonder if the teams have some intern running the percentages.

You could do percentage of penalties kicked to the line converted to tries and determine average points return per penalty. Compare it with the same for kicks, lets say 15m out from the sideline or less.

A season or even a few seasons of that particular statistic would be very informative, particularly if you have a fairly static team.

 

[Zero_Cool]

I think a lot of teams, both Australian and otherwise are taking pretty similar options when it comes to penalties now. If you're inside the 15m lines within a reasonable range you take the 3 in most circumstances. If you're 5m out right in front you might opt for the scrum because it is such a great attacking opportunity. 10m out you'll take the shot at goal though.

For the wider shots you will kick for the line because the chance of scoring a try off the attacking lineout weighted for the 5-7 points is greater than kicking the 3 from a tougher position.

It you're 50m out and have a decent kicker you'll often go back to taking a shot at goal again because the likelihood is you'll only have a lineout at the 22 rather than 10 metres out so the attacking opportunity from that lineout isn't nearly as good.

It's something of a moneyball approach to penalties.

I do think this is largely the approach most teams want to take, but I think too often they don't take the pure moneyball approach but I think the Wallabies are a good example of a team who try to exercise that gamesmanship and too often fail.
I actually think if you aren't kicking 80 odd percent your team is probably taking the wrong kind of kicks (obviously this doesn't apply to conversions).

 

[Derpus]

I do think this is largely the approach most teams want to take, but I think too often they don't take the pure moneyball approach but I think the Wallabies are a good example of a team who try to exercise that gamesmanship and too often fail.
I actually think if you aren't kicking 80 odd percent your team is probably taking the wrong kind of kicks (obviously this doesn't apply to conversions).

Wallabies are probably just scared that they'll have to deal with a restart after only scoring 3 points.

 

[Jimmy_Crouch]

I think a lot of teams, both Australian and otherwise are taking pretty similar options when it comes to penalties now. If you're inside the 15m lines within a reasonable range you take the 3 in most circumstances. If you're 5m out right in front you might opt for the scrum because it is such a great attacking opportunity. 10m out you'll take the shot at goal though.

For the wider shots you will kick for the line because the chance of scoring a try off the attacking lineout weighted for the 5-7 points is greater than kicking the 3 from a tougher position.

It you're 50m out and have a decent kicker you'll often go back to taking a shot at goal again because the likelihood is you'll only have a lineout at the 22 rather than 10 metres out so the attacking opportunity from that lineout isn't nearly as good.

It's something of a moneyball approach to penalties.

That is why I’d like to see dropped and penalty goals treated like a kick in general play. If you miss and it goes dead the attacking team get the choice of a scrum from where it was kicked or a 22.

 

[Zero_Cool]

That is why I’d like to see dropped and penalty goals treated like a kick in general play. If you miss and it goes dead the attacking team get the choice of a scrum from where it was kicked or a 22.

Wouldn't this really punish teams missing?

 

[Braveheart81]

Wouldn't this really punish teams missing?

I think that's his point.

 

[MonkeyBoy]

That is why I’d like to see dropped and penalty goals treated like a kick in general play. If you miss and it goes dead the attacking team get the choice of a scrum from where it was kicked or a 22.

I like that idea for FGs but I don't think PKs should change.

 

[Zero_Cool]

I like that idea for FGs but I don't think PKs should change.

Yeah, this was more my problem with it, I get punishing a team for missing the field goal, but a penalty is a penalty, they other team is being punished. It would be like saying you infringed at the breakdown so I'm going to flip a coin if I get heads they get 3 points if I get tails you can have a scrum. Put like that I don't think anyone would get behind it. (Yes, I'm over simplifying it, but that's to illustrate a point.)

 

[TOCC]

Removing some of the negative consequences of a penalty goal could have the inadvertent consequence of encouraging defending teams to infringe even more. Based on the Reds vs Brumbies I think the right team won, which Is a reflection of the penalty goal design working.

 

[Zero_Cool]

Removing some of the negative consequences of a penalty goal could have the inadvertent consequence of encouraging defending teams to infringe even more. Based on the Reds vs Brumbies I think the right team won, which Is a reflection of the penalty goal design working.

Honestly, I think this type of argument is too often brought up I've coached other sports at a fairly high level (State Basketball) and it's really very uncommon. I do agree it's more common in Rugby but in the case of a penalty, the penalty goal isn't the only option a team has; they can pack a scrum, have a lineout, take the quick tap and there are probably other options I've overlooked too.
So adjustments to penalty goals I think will more result more in a change of how teams weigh those options, and have a much more marginal effect on how often teams commit offences.

I do think there is a case even to completely remove the penalty goal as an option, or less extremely make them all a drop goals (not saying I think we should do that, but there are merits to it).

 

[TOCC]

Yes they can do all those things, however its much harder to score a try then it is to kick a penalty goal, and for a team like the Brumbies who have a strong rolling maul and rolling maul defence, and more broadly solid defence, conceding a penalty in broken play or when pressure is building and defence starting to fracture, is the easy option as they back themselves to defend off the set piece and allow defence to reset.

I've also played and been involved with rugby at a fairly high level, and almost every team Ive worked with at a representative level there are areas on the field, and certain points in the match where it was encouraged to push the boundaries a little bit more, and other times when you play within the letter of the law.

My opinion, is that there are also inadvertent consequences to removing the 'penalty' of committing an offence..

 

[Silverado]

Wouldn't this really punish teams missing?

Exactly, make them take a more attacking option


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk