Too many penalty goals

[Karl]

The point it doesn't fix any of the real issues in the game, and instead makes the game more like rugby league...

I LOVE running rugby... but I don't want the game to be reduced down to a simplified mungo bastardisation.

It DOES fix a real issue - the stoppage and restart for penalty goals with games being decided too often on the weight of 3 pointers. It becomes a dour kick fest based on infringement.

And how does this simplify the game at all? There is actually not a single rule change. It will mean more time in a game is spent doing the COMPLICATED bits, like lineouts and attacking play, rucking and mauling - instead of penalty goals and restarts from halfway

 

[Karl]

The trial results are interesting so far. Some of the results are not what I would have expected. This suggests that a further trial of this scoring system is necessary. I would like to see it in at least 2 or 3 competitions at a reasonable level before we can make a real assessment. Perhaps next years ITM Cup, Sydneys club competition, and a second division UK tournament could be ideal for further testing.

It may take time for coaches to analyse the effects of the rule changes - further research needs to be done.

Exactly.

 

[spooony]

Also let me add the break down laws and interpretation of it in the Super Rugby comp is "Experimental only" not permanent yet.

 

[St Peter]

My rational side agrees that the game needs to be attractive to a wider audience for the sake of investment in the game and its future.

My purist rugby side says ... stop messing around with the f'ing rules!!

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Looking back at round 1 tries, it doesn't seem like (the lack of them) is anything to raise an alarm about.

 

[qwerty51]

Bray said today it's better in long term for a lot of penalties and I agree. Wait a few weeks for the new interpretations to sink in, we'll see less penalties and more tries.

 

[spooony]

I see people are complaining especially people from the NH of the half backs taking their time and not passing when the ball is quickly available now they are moaning to change the laws which I think is silly. A half back messing up his teams own ball is the coaches problem not the referee.

 

[suckerforred]

I agree spoony. But chnaging the rules for the ref to call out when it has been sitting at the back and giving the oposition a chance to get the ball. The situation will change pretty bloody quickly.

Will need to try and find which ref said itquite sometime ago, but there is a great quote : "If a bird can shit on it, it's out." Or something to that effect. Need to go back there.

 

[sonny crockett]

The referee was Andre Watson, and he didn't actually say that. Was heard a number of times saying "If a bird can do it on it, it is out", became known as the bird rule. It is kind of better with Andre's South African accent.

 

[spooony]

I agree spoony. But chnaging the rules for the ref to call out when it has been sitting at the back and giving the oposition a chance to get the ball. The situation will change pretty bloody quickly.

Will need to try and find which ref said itquite sometime ago, but there is a great quote : "If a bird can shit on it, it's out." Or something to that effect. Need to go back there.

No not when the ball is out but to force the half back to play it quicker. I know the ref say its out then the defenders try and win the ball but if the ball is still in the ruck and the half back chat first whoever wants to chat with him then look around and then plays it. The English commentators had a fit with Dixon this weekend taking ages to take the ball and pass it.

 

[suckerforred]

The referee was Andre Watson, and he didn't actually say that. Was heard a number of times saying "If a bird can do it on it, it is out", became known as the bird rule. It is kind of better with Andre's South African accent.

Something to that effect.

It just anoys me. Use to get wild with Gregan when he stood around with the ball at his feet. Get wild with Genia for doing it. If you have access to the ball play the bloody thing.

 

[spooony]

Something to that effect.

It just anoys me. Use to get wild with Gregan when he stood around with the ball at his feet. Get wild with Genia for doing it. If you have access to the ball play the bloody thing.

Reason why they wait is to even up the numbers again. So they will wait till some players get out of the ruck and join the back line or other places in the attack as your sit with 10 to 14 numbers in favor of the defending side. So to get quick ball on the next face you have to wait till for the players to leave the ruck and join the back line

 

[suckerforred]

Reason why they wait is to even up the numbers again. So they will wait till some players get out of the ruck and join the back line or other places in the attack as your sit with 10 to 14 numbers in favor of the defending side. So to get quick ball on the next face you have to wait till for the players to leave the ruck and join the back line

I understand why they do it in some situations. But it still shits me to tears when it happens ruck after ruck and all that happens is that the defense get the chance to realign as well. I think we are going to get to the stage that we agree to disagree spoony.

Although I don't really want to see the game change for change's sake and in an attempt to attrach more punters, there are aspects of the game that do shit me and this is one of them.

 

[sonny crockett]

Funny game this one, and at the risk of being taken out of context, is still a game that at times you can be very, very successful in playing as little as possible, not only at the ruck/breakdown, but across the game as you can by playing alot. Messy, ugly, tactical footy, the very best kind.

 

[spooony]

I understand why they do it in some situations. But it still shits me to tears when it happens ruck after ruck and all that happens is that the defense get the chance to realign as well. I think we are going to get to the stage that we agree to disagree spoony.

Although I don't really want to see the game change for change's sake and in an attempt to attrach more punters, there are aspects of the game that do shit me and this is one of them.

Yeah they've done tests and after the 3rd phase the chances of scoring went down from 15 to 3 percent as you run out of attackers and the ball slow up. That is why after 17 phases the welsh went no where at the start of the game

 

[nomis]

I'd like to suggest that the solution is not with the ref significantly changing the way he facilitates the game, nor is the solution in finding a way to decrease the amount of penalties, or creating a try-fest. And the solution is not found in making rugby look more like league by "simplifying" its rules.

The real solution is for teams to try harder to win by SCORING TRIES rather than kicking penalty goals. There doesn't have to be an increase in the amount of tries or a decrease in penalties awarded for the game to be good. People just want to see teams TRY to score tries. If a tweak (not a drastic change) in the laws (e.g. decreasing penalties to 2 points, and increasing conversions to 3) motivates teams to kick for a line out (because they really want a potential 8 points) rather than kick at goals (for only two points), then that's worth trialling.

This way you could still potentially have a low scoring game with lots of penalties, and it's still good, because teams are trying harder to score tries.

And if teams are kicking for the corner more often because a potential 8 points is on offer rather than just kicking at goals for 2, rather than an increase in deliberate infringements by the defending team, there might be a decrease, as defending teams attempt to NOT give away a potential 8 points.

 

[Braveheart81]

To add a comparison from week one to week two.

From the start of the thread, here were the week one stats across all games:

161 penalties which resulted in 59 penalty goals from 80 attempts. 18 tries were scored.

In round two we had:

139 penalties which resulted in 50 penalty goals from 67 attempts. 32 tries were scored.

So that means there was a 14% reduction in the number of penalties and a 78% increase in tries.

 

[Blue]

So some early season rust has been shaken off. Encouraging.

Nomis:

It's still a case of Australian spectators and media who want to change the game. The rest of the world for the most part aren't looking for much change other than doing something about the number of reset scrums which even the 6N commentators were on about in the last few weeks.

Coaches and players will take the path of least resistance to win. If that happens to be by kicking goals then so be it. If the Tahs for example need more tries to lure spectators fro mthe other sports than I am afriad it's going to have to be their problem. That's just the reality of the matter. Forget about changing points. Do you honestly think there is the slightest chance that this will ever happen? I won't bet on it.

I still maintain that lowering the penalties to 2 will screw with the game. Teams will infringe more often. It can only work if accompanies by a more strict carding system. That would just create a monumental stuff up because rugby is not good at on-field or off-field sanctioning. We already seem to get so much wrong that we simply can't introduce that level of complexity into what the ref has to do,

On another note. The Lions played an interesting game plan this weekend. They ran the ball at every opportunity as to not kick it to Cory Jane and Co. Interestingly though, they still almost won the game on mainly penalty goals (unfortunately they had repeated brain explosions towards the end which we have come to expect of them).

Teams need to adapt. Despite all this, the cream still rises to the top. The teams who have won the comp over the last number of years have done so playing exciting rugby. There's a messsage in there somewhere.

 

[Karl]

Assuming this is accurate, and I see no reason to doubt it, and admitting that it is a small sample size -

Tries scored
2011: 39
2012: 50
28.2% increase This is statistically significant

Penalties in game
2011: 183
2012: 193
5.5% increase No significant increase in penalties.

Penalty kicks aimed at goal
2011: 45
2012: 16
64.4% decrease This is hugely significant.

Yellow cards
2011: 3
2012: 3
No change

Total points scored
2011: 359
2012: 379
5.6% increase No significant change, but a difference in how it's comprised, for the better.

Sometimes what happens and what you think will happen are very different.

It's the problem with subjectively based predictions. Looks like the indications are good that reducing a penalty goal to two points with an increase in the value of a conversion to three (not something I had even considered) means that teams are going for more try opportunities and kicking for better field position instead of a penalty goal. That still advantages the attacking side while punishing the infringing team and does NOT seem to result in a rampant increase in breaches and infringements. Interesting.

This trial should be expanded and the results investigated further. You'd have to be defending a position on pig-headed principle not to agree with that much at least.

Any updates on this situation?

OomPB?

 

[nomis]

Good question Karl! I'm not sure, but we should be about due for another update.

Blue: I think there is truth in what you say. Aussie spectators do talk a lot about tweaking the laws. Although, as far as I'm aware, this particular trial is not being run by Australians. But it does seem to have a lot of Aussie endorsements.

I also use to think reducing the worth of a penalty goal would lead to an increase in infringements, but so far (or for the first few rounds at least) the stats don't seem to point in that direction. But maybe the end of the trial will tell a different story as you suggest.

To make sense of the statistics, I wonder if when the attacking team gets a penalty, they are preferring to go for an attacking line out (and a potential 8 points) rather than just settling for a potential 2. And maybe the defending team are realising that purposely infringing doesn't actually relieve the pressure, or lead to only 2 points. I'm not sure.