Should Penalties be Reduced from 3 to 2 Points?

by intheloose Fri May 17, 2013 2:16 pm

With the increasing reliance of teams on 3 points from the boot should the number of points available for penalties be reduced from 3 to 2?

There is an article going into more detail here.http://intheloose.com/2013/05/17/penalties-in-rugby-need-to-be-reduced-to-2-points/

by lostinwales Fri May 17, 2013 3:08 pm

NO - just encourages teams to offend more often

next question...

by international197 Fri May 17, 2013 3:17 pm

lostinwales wrote:NO - just encourages teams to offend more often

Why would it encourage teams to offend more often?

by red_stag Fri May 17, 2013 3:36 pm

I think that 3 points is fair for a penalty. However I think there are too many penalty offenses and not enough free kick offenses.

by GunsGerms Fri May 17, 2013 4:38 pm

I think they should put a basketball hoop on the backside of the crossbar and offer an extra point if you can dunk it through the hoop when you take a kick at goal. Who is with me?

by **Biltong** Fri May 17, 2013 5:00 pm

In the last two seasons the Varsity Cup in SA has worked on the basis where a penalty counts 2 and a conversion 3, it didn't make much difference, teams do infringe more as the cost of a penalty doesn't bother them as much as when it was three points.

However the total effect was not much different in open play or try scoring between the new points dispensation and before.

by **George Carlin** Sun May 19, 2013 2:34 pm

I think 3 is fine for a penalty or drop but I would make tries worth 6 with the conversion worth two.

by wales606 Sun May 19, 2013 3:58 pm

George Carlin wrote:I think 3 is fine for a penalty or drop but I would make tries worth 6 with the conversion worth two.

Was about to say this

I would either increase tries to 6pts and reduce conversions to 1pt

Or, I would increase tries to 6pts and keep conversions to 2pts

Both would encourage try scoring, and the first would hopefully not increase teams willingness to give away penalties to avoid conceeding a try - but encourage attacking teams to go for the try in the corner as it would effectively be 6pts with a small chance of 1 rather than 5pts.

by red_stag Sun May 19, 2013 4:25 pm

Surely to encourage more tries being scored you should make them LESS valuable say 4 points.

It will mean teams will not place as big an emphasis on defending.

If you make tries worth more there will be less scored.

by Wellington Sun May 19, 2013 5:49 pm

I have long felt the scoring in rugby union should be changed.
I think the game would be improved if tries were made to 6 points.
Penalties, drop goals and conversions are fine as they are.

by red_stag Sun May 19, 2013 6:02 pm

Wellington, do you think teams don't want to score tries?

IMO the reason we less tries scored is mainly down to the fact that so much emphasis is placed on not conceding tries due to how valuable they are worth.

Reduce the value of a try and we will see more of them.

Making them worth more and you will see less tries.

by SecretFly Sun May 19, 2013 7:20 pm

red_stag wrote:Wellington, do you think teams don't want to score tries?

IMO the reason we less tries scored is mainly down to the fact that so much emphasis is placed on not conceding tries due to how valuable they are worth.

Reduce the value of a try and we will see more of them.

Making them worth more and you will see less tries.

Nice off-kilter thinking Stag. Yep, that deal probably would run counter-intuitively if we decided to give tries more value because we like seeing them scored.

Personally, I wouldn't like to see rugby union drift into rules and regulations that allowed tries to be scored every five or six minutes. I like that you have to be a pretty good side to score them freely - and that you have to be a pretty good side to defend against them.

A point given or taken away here or there in tries or conversions or penalties I wouldn't quibble with - how could I, I've lived through a few of those changes and you always get used to them. But I want try scoring in Union to remain a difficult job to accomplish - it's what makes them so much more iconic.

by westisbest Sun May 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Guy at work reckons teams should only be awarded penalties at goal inside the oposing 22.

by wales606 Sun May 19, 2013 9:02 pm

westisbest wrote:Guy at work reckons teams should only be awarded penalties at goal inside the oposing 22.

Interesting idea, don't think it would really work though - and I do still enjoy a good penalty strike from behind halfway, that puts the opposition off infringing with cheap penalties.

by TJ1 Sun May 19, 2013 10:09 pm

do what they did in american football a while ago - move the posts back 10 m so long range kicks are harder to get

by doctor_grey Mon May 20, 2013 7:48 am

If change is necessary, why not move the goal posts to the back of the in-goal, as TJ says? All kicks become instantly more difficult, some more difficult in places with longer in-goals than others. Plus it takers two defenders (the goal posts) off the try line.

There are so many laws changes trialled in different places, some logical, some bizarre. This is one I would like to see tested, just to see how it impacts the game.

by **Biltong** Mon May 20, 2013 7:56 am

You also have to take in consideration defences have improved a hell of a lot, I don't think we must only look at the breakdown and consider that to be the reason less tries are being scored because there are more infringements at the ruck.

The ruck is a complicated event to police and interpret laws so players take chances.
Instead of changing the points system, if we are concerned about rucks, make he laws simpler.

by doctor_grey Mon May 20, 2013 7:59 am

Biltong wrote:The ruck is a complicated event to police and interpret laws so players take chances.
Instead of changing the points system, if we are concerned about rucks, make he laws simpler.

Couldn't have said it better.

by **Biltong** Mon May 20, 2013 8:04 am

doctor_grey wrote:
Biltong wrote:The ruck is a complicated event to police and interpret laws so players take chances.
Instead of changing the points system, if we are concerned about rucks, make he laws simpler.
Couldn't have said it better.

This has been a hobby horse of mine for some time now Doc.

I wrote this article on the laws a while ago for another site.

I was reading the comments of some English and Welsh supporters on the weekend and the conversation inevitably moved on to Steve Walsh and the manner in which he officiated in the match.

As some might know the English coaching staff wanted some explanations on certain interpretations during the game.

Graham Rountree, the forwards coach, wanted clarification on the scrums and breakdowns.

England only managed to win one out of four scrums on their own feed and conceded a total of 12 penalties and four free kicks during the match.

According to one article, the Welsh have conceded that they dropped six scrums in total, but the English were penalised for not being able to keep the scrum up.

Further to what I read this weekend, the Welsh supporters are rather proud of the fact that their team “played to the referee” better than the English.

Going back to a rather painful episode during the quarter final when South Africa were ousted by Australia, a similar situation occurred when John Smit, then captain of the Springboks, and Victor Matfield the vice captain commented after the match that Bryce Lawrence was not interested in communicating with them on-field.

They felt like Australia was getting away with murder at the breakdown.

In that game Australia managed to defend their 22 without conceding one penalty in the red zone, despite the fact that they spent a very large proportion of the match under pressure.

This after John O’Neill criticised Bryce Lawrence heavily for his performance during the pool loss to Ireland.

“There was some pretty nasty political stuff going on about that appointment.

“I refereed Australia versus Ireland and Ireland had won but behind the scenes guys like John O’Neill were kicking up a massive stink.”

“I knew a bit about that and it was enough to affect me, and it probably made me freeze on the biggest stage.”

The sad thing about refereeing rugby on such a big stage is the impact that they and their interpretations can have on the modern game.

Their every move can now be scrutinised in slow motion and high definition and any flawed performance is there for anyone to see.

Obviously not all these performances will impact the result of a game.

It does, however, have the ability to influence large parts of the game at critical moments. An incorrect penalty against an attacking team can halt momentum, release pressure and importantly swing that momentum and pressure to the opposite side.

But, and this is a big but, it is unfair to lay the blame on the shoulders of referees as it is nigh on impossible to get two referees to agree on the course of action when some of these indiscretions occur.

I have spoken to a candidate referee within the Lions rugby union, and he tells me when they discuss video tapes of ruck situations, the varying opinions in regard to these studies are scary to say the least.

The reality is referees are human, and with the complications of rugby laws and the varying manner in which they are interpreted in classrooms would suggest it to be very challenging to get a clean sheet during a match.

In my view this all boils down to the number of sub-divisions you would find under each law, be it the breakdown, the scrum or any other area.

It is therefore imperative that the IRB look at simplification of the laws. Not more laws and no further subdividing of laws, but simple, easily understood and interpreted laws.

Just an example of these laws are the breakdowns, where a referee has so many different issues, be it entering through the gate, the offside line, holding on, releasing the tackled player and numerous more that need to be monitored.

In all likelihood you could find a penalty at every ruck.

I don’t want to see rugby being touted as a game where supporters are proud that their team “played to the referee” better than the opposition.

This is not the diving board or gymnastics (Pieter de Villiers will attest to that), where a panel of judges score you for pointing your toes, or entering the water with minimal disturbance.

This is rugby.

It is supposed to be about physical dominance, superior skills and execution. It is a game where men and women grunt, bellow and bash their opponents with the aim of putting fear and hesitation in your mind.

Where you run an opponent into the ground, and in some cases (most likely amateurs) can have a beer after the game and swap stories until midnight.

IRB, please get your act together and simplify our sport.

by **Biltong** Mon May 20, 2013 8:08 am

Ruck needs four laws, no more

Come through the gate,
If you play the ball be on you feet
Stay onside
IF you take the ball into contact you lose it if it doesn’t come out.

My reasoning is very simple, teams will stop running crashball without support runners as offloading will be vital to maintain momentum. You will see more offloads, cleaner and more efficient clearing at the ruck, a faster game which inevitably leads to more entertainment.

Maul, change one law, pull down the maul. It will stop players having to go around and infringe, again, teams will ensure better ball control, and stop going to the point of no return where the game is halted for a scrum because the ball doesn’t come out.

By simplifyin those two aspects, there will be less left to interpretation variations and more playtime.

by doctor_grey Mon May 20, 2013 8:27 am

That was a good write-up, mate. I agree without question the different interpretations of each ruck by referees is startling and bad for the sport. In fact, I would say it damages the game.

As you say, referees are human and make errors (for instance: I have never been offside in my life!). But there must be ways of standardising interpretation. I was talking to a USA referee on Saturday at our end of season tournament, and he said USA Rugby is creating DVDs with clear examples and proper calls. He had seen one of the early copies, distributed to select referees for critique and suggestion, and thought the following was a great idea: The calls in the DVD will also be how USA referees will be evaluated.

I know other Unions have been doing this for years. But I have not heard whether evaluation of referee performance is tied to this 'gold' standard. His feeling was standardisation of referee evaluation combined with simplification of the brerakdown laws would help Rugby immensely.

I had to agree. Seems so logical.

by **Biltong** Mon May 20, 2013 8:32 am

Doc, what I often find in Sa is that the referees are very reluctant to publically criticise a decision made by another referee, especially if it changed the result of the game. I have seen it numerous times on Re-Union and Supersport.

That in itself is a problem.

You might be interested in this SITE it is the SA referees site where they use video's and discuss decisions.

by doctor_grey Mon May 20, 2013 8:43 am

I think in many professions there is reluctance to criticise others in the same field. In the medical profession almost no one will go public over bad/sloppy/dangerous medicine, unless it is egregious or obvious (pack mentality). There is actually less oversight in some ways than top level Rugby referees!

The site looks interesting. I am travelling for work today (down to Medellin, Colombia). My flight from Newark to Miami has wifi and now I know exactly how I will be spending the flight. Do you know if SA referees are evaluated compared to the examples shown?

by **Biltong** Mon May 20, 2013 8:48 am

Tappe Henning is in charge of the evaluations of referees in SA, and from what he explained a few weeks ago on Supersport every performance by SA referees are evaluated on a per game basis, however he explained that a referee is not summarily dropped because of one performance, the same principal where a referee has to build a "reputation" for consistently performing, and then being pushed through to elite level, the same basis applies for demotion.

How long this process takes, I believe is likely to be the same as the IRB panel who by memory do their selections every 3 or 6 months.

by doctor_grey Mon May 20, 2013 8:50 am

OK. This shows how little I know of the referee side of the Rugby business. Gotta roll for the moment. Will check in later, mate. Good discussion!

by **Biltong** Mon May 20, 2013 8:56 am

Cheers Doc.

by red_stag Mon May 20, 2013 9:16 am

Agree in full guys.

by aucklandlaurie Mon May 20, 2013 1:06 pm

I have no problem with the penalties remaining at 3 points, howver what I do have an issue with is referees awarding penalties for incidents that shouldnt be a penalty in the first place.

by SecretFly Mon May 20, 2013 1:25 pm

I certainly don't think a player being forced to pop his head up in a scrum should be a penalty. That's just one pack physically imposing themselves either through force or technique on the opposing pack.... and a penalty is awarded because the failing pack is weaker? Maybe they should think of penalties for being shorter too, and giving them against a side that can't steal a line out?

In fact, I'm not all that hot on all the specific laws around the scrum, but is it not true that the popping-up offence should really be against the side that forced the pop-up rather than the side forced into it? And does this mean the penalties that keep getting awarded for it are going to the completely wrong side?

Again, apologies it's that's all wrong, just thought I heard it mentioned somewhere a few years back.

by red_stag Mon May 20, 2013 1:41 pm

Fly yes basically the rule is that if you force an opponent upwards is a penalty against you.

"Lifting or forcing an opponent up. A front row player must not lift an opponent in the air, or force an opponent upwards out of the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown in or afterwards. This is dangerous play."

On the IRB page they even have a video giving an example: http://www.irblaws.com/?law=20.8

Why there are so many penalties won for this baffles me.

by SecretFly Mon May 20, 2013 1:47 pm

red_stag wrote:Fly yes basically the rule is that if you force an opponent upwards is a penalty against you.

"Lifting or forcing an opponent up. A front row player must not lift an opponent in the air, or force an opponent upwards out of the scrum, either when the ball is being thrown in or afterwards. This is dangerous play."

On the IRB page they even have a video giving an example: http://www.irblaws.com/?law=20.8

Why there are so many penalties won for this baffles me.

If the perception of that one area was corrected and refs reminded to penalise correctly on it, you can think back to many, many results that might have been so different. That area always baffles me.

by red_stag Mon May 20, 2013 1:57 pm

Sometimes the referees are correct. The scrum is retreating and the tighthead/hooker pops up. Clear penalty

However I think its rare. Often you have a situation where scrum hasn't moved that much but one front row is sandwiched between a force driving them back and their own pack pushing them forward. This puts a lot of pressure on their bodies and then end up standing up. I think this is a harsh thing to penalise.

Other times then you get guys who are clearly driven upwards by their opposite number looking to win a penalty.

by international197 Tue May 21, 2013 3:04 pm

red_stag wrote:Surely to encourage more tries being scored you should make them LESS valuable say 4 points.

It will mean teams will not place as big an emphasis on defending.

If you make tries worth more there will be less scored.

Agree. I also believe teams would offend less if tries were worth less.

by aucklandlaurie Tue May 21, 2013 8:20 pm

The question has been raised before from the coaching angle, is it better to pay more attention to defence or attack when it comes to the preparation and coaching of a rugby team. One prevents tries the other rewards tries.

Skillful attack executed at pace will through excessive pressure cause the defence to offend, hence resulting in a penalty, the kick at goal can be declined and the attacking team can back there ability to score a try.

Once this occurs the value of the penalty becomes irrelevant, so long as the try is worth quite proportionally more.

by HammerofThunor Tue May 21, 2013 8:31 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
The question has been raised before from the coaching angle, is it better to pay more attention to defence or attack when it comes to the preparation and coaching of a rugby team. One prevents tries the other rewards tries.

Skillful attack executed at pace will through excessive pressure cause the defence to offend, hence resulting in a penalty, the kick at goal can be declined and the attacking team can back there ability to score a try.

Once this occurs the value of the penalty becomes irrelevant, so long as the try is worth quite proportionally more.

Well yeah but when people talk about the value of penalties it's all about relative to other methods. If a try was would 10 (+4) points and a penalty was worth 6 then we would have the same system. So what you're talking about is increasing the relative value of a try (same as decreasing the value of a penalty). Or are you just saying it's coaching thing? Which is completely true and has a much bigger impact on 'styles' than minor changes to the scoring system.

by neilthom7 Tue May 21, 2013 8:55 pm

Well I am with this idea if you want to see more tries reduce their value thing but what if you made Peanlties worth 6 that way teams would rather concede the try than the penalty . I know there are downsides but you could make less trivial things free kicks and reserve serious stuff for penalties.
I actually think it's alright as it is and we just need to clean up some areas of the game like rucks etc
making scrumhalves clear it quicker would be good, at the start of the season all we would here is the people saying it had to be away within 5 seconds of the ref saying use it as it has gone on the ref has taken ages to say use it and its been let go way longer than 5 seconds, that slows all down too.
Offsides too need to be watched alot of teams will be offside in defence and it's never penalised that cuts down all the space.
Still I don't want to turn into Brian Moore so I will leave it there lol

by aucklandlaurie Tue May 21, 2013 8:59 pm

To alter the present points value for aspects of the game will always result in teams being coached in a way that changes the 'style' in which that team plays the game...

by intheloose Thu May 23, 2013 1:48 pm

Like the idea of increasing the points available for a try to 6, seems fair that one try is the equivalent of two penalties given the relative difficulty of scoring each.

Also quite like the idea of adding a basketball hoop for an extra point Wink

reckon Elliott Daly might be quite handy at that.

by **George Carlin** Thu May 23, 2013 1:59 pm

Yes, I would make tries worth 6 with the conversion worth 2.

That way a try is equal to 2 penalties and it would take 3 penalties to outscore a converted try which sounds about right to me.

On the interesting question of whether to prioritise attack or defence in coaching, everbody's favourite legendary, mildly racist uncle Jim Telfer mentioned correctly this year that defence is the easiest thing in the modern game to be good at. This means that if you have a relatively limited amount of talent in the backline, a coach has still come up with a winning strategy based on shut-outs and this option is a perfectly valid one to take.

Not that this is how Scotland have beaten the Wallabies twice, the Pumas twice and the Wallabies once in the past 4 years or anything... Whistle

Make all penalties worth 2 and tries worth 8, though and watch those balls be run straight back at a kicking team.

by Sponsored content