Too many penalty goals

[Karl]

I saw a comment on a thread at the Roar that there were 80 attempts at penalty goals in the first round of Super Rugby. Average 11 per game. Is that right? That seems like a lot even for the start of the season with Refs in Crackdown mode.

What can be done to clean this part of the game up? There are too many penalty goals. It slows the game down and robs it of momentum and excitement. I get that there need to be consequences for infractions for breaches, but there has got to be a better way.

The complexity of some of the rules and the difficulty of applying them consistently on the field, variable standards of refereeing and the interpretations and the scrum and breakdown infractions need to be dealt with. Maybe have different consequences for different sorts of infractions - like maybe a handover of possession or a kick for touch and lineout throw but no shot at goal for minor ones and possible shot at goal only for certain infractions or ones that occur within the opposition 40. Something.

How about sin bins for repeat infractions - one warning and then in the bin for 5. Then off for good.

There needs to be a disincentive to infringe that doesn't bog the game down in penalty kicks at goal and which removes some of the influence refereeing decisions and minor infractions have on the outcome where people are kicking up to 24 (or more) points from penalties in a game.

EDIT - I know this has been talked about, but dropping penalty's to 2 points makes sense to me.

 

[barbarian]

Ian Payten wrote a good article about this in the Tele:

AT times, rugby can give the Australian Labor Party a run for its money with an ability to shoot itself in the foot.

When given a big platform to show its best attributes, it's a shame quite often the worst rugby is played when the most people are watching.
That was certainly the case during last year's World Cup.

It was explained away as "tournament rugby" but much of the play was turgid, risk-averse rubbish that saw non-rugby fans reach for the remote and jump online to bag "rugby yawnion".

On that evidence, it's hard to mount a defence, and a similar conclusion might have been reached after the opening round of Super Rugby at the weekend.

Starting first among the footy codes, rugby had clear air after a looooong summer of cricket, and plenty of viewers as well. But then the referee's whistles began sounding. The first penalty in the Brumbies-Force came after 45 seconds, and they barely stopped.


There were more men with arms in the air than a Kylie Minogue concert.
In total, there were 161 penalties across the seven games - one every 3.5 minutes - and kickers filled their boots. 59 penalties were kicked from 80 shots, and just 18 tries were scored, an average of 8.4 penalty goals and 2.5 tries a game.

You might read that and think "that won't bring the fans back" but here's the rub: if done for the right reason, that's exactly what it can do.
Not the kicking obviously but - and bear with me - a first round of mass penalties can actually be a good thing. With most of those penalties awarded for breakdown and offside law-breaking, referees are cracking down early to give coaches a clear message they can't get away with slowing the game down.

Offsides and bodies over the ball at the ruck won't be tolerated. It happened in early 2010 and worked a treat. Coaches got the message, refs put the whistle away and quick ruck ball ensued. Teams attacked from everywhere.

There was no such referee crackdown at the World Cup, and it suffered hugely because of it. Coaches seized on the referee's stagefright at the breakdown, and pace of the game ground down to borings-ville.

Stats show the recycle pace of the breakdown was the worst since the 2007 World Cup.

Yes, a team scoring no tries and nine goals and winning is dire.

But if - and granted it's a big if - the referees have got their courage back, have faith.

To paraphrase a leading ALP mind, the weekend might have been the whistlefest we had to have.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I enjoyed the rugby in round 1, the defence was very good and probably resulted in more shots at goal. Anyway...

Some of the issues you bring up are being addressed by the new ELV's (which are currently being trialed on a small scale).

Scrums cleaned up: Change in scrum sequence, halfbacks told to stand a bit further away.
+ Teams can opt for line out for line out infringements. (Which means a team struggling at scrums can avoid them)

Breakdown: Teams can only hold the ball at the back of a ruck for 5 seconds.

Quick throw changes: Teams can take a quick throw from anywhere behind the mark, instead of just anywhere behind where it crossed the line. Which would make a throw like this legal (assume he caught the right ball, the main issue with this throw is it is taken in front of where it crossed the line) h ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRp1sYiQQVU (skip to 2.30 after watching the try)


If the main problem people have is how many penalties are being given in kicking range. I'm not sure what the solution would be. Surely teams breaking the laws inside their own half deserve to have 20 points kicked passed them.

 

[meatsack]

I won't be worried about it until there are more rounds done. As you said, refs generally crackdown at the start and then it gets better as the year goes on. Most of the penalties I saw were for diving over and slowing the ball. So if the refs keep it up, coaches will start doing the maths and get their teams to stop doing it.

Maybe have different consequences for different sorts of infractions - like maybe a handover of possession or a kick for touch and lineout throw but no shot at goal for minor ones and possible shot at goal only for certain infractions or ones that occur within the opposition 40. Something.

This punishes the attacking team, which in turn provides an incentive for the defending team to slow the ball down. Which I don't think you want.

I know you didn't make the argument, but when people say penalty goals should be 1 or 2 points and that will cut down on penalty goals, it drives me mad. Yeah it will, but isn't the real goal more time with the ball in play and more tries? You make penalties worth less and watch 'not rolling away' and 'diving over' sky-rocket. If you really want more tries and more ball in play make penalties worth 6 points and watch how much longer the ball stays in play. (I'm not advocating making penalties worth more, just pointing out that taking away options for the attacking team is probably not the best way to fix the problem). The sin bin option is better, but there are times when people legitimately get stuck where they shouldn't, and it still should absolutely be a penalty, but sin bin is too harsh. Sin bin should be for actual malice only.

Just saw the Ian Payten article and I agree with him. Too early to be worried, and in the long run it'll hopefully get better.

 

[Karl]

But maybe if you penalise not rolling away and diving over with sin bins. You don't have to escalate to a send off - penalty, then penalty and a sin bin 5 minutes and a penalty and 10 minutes thereafter.

The problem is that 3 point penalty kicks on their own that are designed to prevent these infractions don't seem to work. The infractions continue and although the first round isn't the best time to judge, in general a lot of games get bogged down with penalty kicks at goal because clearly they are an insufficient incentive on their own to discourage the players breaking the rules or pushing right up to the line. Obviously a lot of the time the 3 points are still better than a possible 7 point try from the point of view of the defending team and you sort of assume that you can force a penalty back out of them at some point when you're down their end so it might even out. But losing a guy for 5 or 10 minutes as well might shift the risk reward ratio.

Taking a player off also means the game is likely to open up too - more exciting while the advantaged team tries to press the advantage for tries.

Maybe have an accidental and intentional infringement with different consequences - if the player gets stuck as you say it will be different to a player diving over. Maybe Sin Bin the Intentional and Professional infringements.

Look - I don't know the answer, but having less penalty kicks at goal has got to be an Objective and someone should be looking at solutions to reach the Objective instead of just saying "It's fine the way it is" because it is one of the aspects of our game that causes the most fan angst and significantly stunts free flowing and more "watchable" rugby.

 

[Bowside]

I think the refs need a check list with the ruck. Something like:

1. Is tackler releasing and rolling away.
2. Once rucked formed is either team offside, going off their feet or playing on the ground.
3. Opposition BEHIND LAST FEET.
4. Once halfback has access to the ball is he using it - 5 second rule.

I think as long as you make the tackler release and keep the players rolling away, you will advantage the attacking team by giving them quick ball, but if they don't choose to utilize quick ball you will be advantaging the defending team provided they choose to counter ruck.

This will lead to less ambiguous and more exciting rugby I feel.

 

[Karl]

Bowside, this is the sort of simple process that could reduce refereeing errors and inconsistency, but would it reduce infringements?

And what happens if the halfback doesn't use the ball in 5 seconds after having access to it? A penalty? Or can the defenders advance and sack him? The ref can declare him "open" or something and the opposition can aggressively advance and counter ruck, move past the last feet or go after the halfback by coming around the breakdown. Now that would be interesting.

Maybe (gasp), instead of blowing up a penalty and the prospect of another kick at goal, we have a quick tap restart by the opposition from the back of the breakdown with the defence back 10 meters. Dawdle getting back and it's another 5. It' would look too much like League I imagine for most Rugby fans...

 

[Slim 293]

Every year the first round is filled with pendantic refereeing in an effort to try and set a standard for the rest of the season...

Teams learn their lessons and things improve...

Changing the points system is not required...

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I think the refs need a check list with the ruck. Something like:

They have checklists for every aspect of the game. Tackle/Ruck/Maul/Scrum/Lineout ect... This is exactly how they referee effectively/consistently.

1. Is tackler releasing and rolling away.
2. Once rucked formed is either team offside, going off their feet or playing on the ground.
3. Opposition BEHIND LAST FEET.
4. Once halfback has access to the ball is he using it - 5 second rule.

It's more like:

Tackle:
1) Has a tackle occurred?
2) Is there a tackler?
3) Does the tackler get to his feet before playing the ball?
4) Is there a tackle assist?
5) Does he ^ enter the tackle situation from behind?
6) Has the tackled player released the ball?

Ruck:
1) Has a ruck formed?
2) Did anyone beat the ruck?
3) Have arriving players entered correctly?
4) Are they supporting their own bodyweight?


ect....

 

[Karl]

So am I the only one that thinks there are too many penalties at the breakdown and scrum and that having too many penalty kicks at goal is NOT a good thing for the game?

Forget about the fact it's early in the season and the number of penalty kicks was 80. I mean just normally. Some games seem to flow without too many, but they seem to be the ones that stand out and you say afterwards "Wow, that game really flowed and there weren't too many penalty's."

And what DOES happen if the halfback doesn't use the ball in 5 seconds after having access to it?

 

[Slim 293]

Is Australia the only rugby playing country to regularly complain about these kinds of things?

I think our culture is too ingrained with rugby league...

 

[meatsack]

So am I the only one that thinks there are too many penalties at the breakdown and scrum and that having too many penalty kicks at goal is NOT a good thing for the game?

Absolutely not. Its just how to go about changing it. And as Slim has said, our perceived problem might be down to us listening to a bunch of league trolls and prioritizing tries. I'm not attacking league, if you like it, fine. But more tries doesn't equal a better game. If scoring was everything basketball would be the #1 sport. Personally I can't be bothered watching the NBA until the 4th quarter. I like the skills of the NBA, but scoring is too common. On the flipside, scoring is so rare (relatively) in soccer that I don't want to spend 90 minutes watching what too often ends up being a draw. Ultimately I think rugby has the scoring/rules right, I wasn't outraged on any of the refs actual penalty calls, so its more up to the players to adapt.

 

[Slim 293]

More tries doesn't equal a better spectacle... remember that awful Chiefs v Lions try fest from a couple of years ago?

Some of the best games of rugby I've watched have had few or no tries.

The 2003 RWC Final would be one of them... game based around penalty trade offs and a drop goal at the end for the win...

And penalty heavy games are hardly a new thing in rugby either...

Rugby is not about how the points are scored, but in the quality of the play...

In regards to scrums etc there are already plenty of posts by the likes of Lee etc in how to fix up those issues...

 

[MajorlyRagerly]

Not bad, round one down and a thread already on trying to change the very essence of the game & ihow it's ruled!

Consistency, it's all you can ask for & GAGR rarely disappoints on that!

I personally thougt the first round was a very typical first round - fair bit of speed, lots of errors.. Blues/Crusaders the standout match.

 

[Blue]

EDIT - I know this has been talked about, but dropping penalty's to 2 points makes sense to me.

No! How many timee has this been dioscussed?

This is a license for the defending team to infringe and it does not reward sustained pressure enough.

 

[Karl]

Not trying to change the essence of the game, but sacking the halfback sounds like fun!

I don't think we should let a bunch of League thinking influence us unduly, but inspiration comes from whence it comes and discouraging infringements at the breakdown using something other than 3 point kicks is worth looking at.

 

[Karl]

No! How many timee has this been dioscussed?

This is a license for the defending team to infringe and it does not reward sustained pressure enough.

ok fine. Forget that bit.

 

[meatsack]

I don't think we should let a bunch of League thinking influence us unduly, but inspiration comes from whence it comes and discouraging infringements at the breakdown using something other than 3 point kicks is worth looking at.

League doesn't have lineouts or scrums (even league fans admit their scrums are a joke); and both of these things allow the defending team to reset their defense. So they're both things that disadvantage the attacking team on a break. You can add more rules, but I already feel for the refs; as rugby must be one of the harder things to ref. I also think we can agree that we don't want to go down an NRL or NFL route with respect to numbers of officials.

 

[Shiggins]

It's the first round. Refs are making examples of things. There are always alot of penalties in the first round. 80% of them probably came in the first half of the games


Http://www.youtube.com/shiggins316

 

[PaarlBok]

We have the 2 points trial in our Varsity Cup and I also have the ref thread up and sure had some heated discussions about a lot of penalties in the first few rounds of SupeRugby. Old news this really.