More tries, fewer penalties

As pointed out in The Other Place, the great suit wearing chiefs of the IRB set out with a master plan to abolish dull rugby following the disasterous spectacle of 2007, and the super rugby final with its throw back Brumbies playing JakeWhiteBy showed how disasterously their plan failed.

Now some simple minded folk suggested a while back that rather than endlessly tinkering with the laws to speed up the game that a penalty should merely be devalued to encourage try scoring.

Aha! Said the aforementioned suit wearers...that will merely backfire by encouraging teams to concede more frequent penalties actually having the opposite effect to the one desired. So they merrily tinkered away with breakdown rules and scrum set sequences and the like until we reached the inevitable confusing place we are in now.

So I hereby propose the solutions:

1) A try is worth 7. 
2) A conversion worth 3.
3) A penalty worth 2.
4) infringements in the 22 automatically earn a penalty and a cumulative 5 minute sin bin for the perpetrator. If said villain cannot be identified then the captain wears it.
5) scrum penalties are all free kicks

Done. A better game all around.

I don't think that would work, what happens for repeat infringements in the 22? Is this new idea worth half a yellow card and therefore if you infringe twice in the 22 and earn a yellow card does that equal a red?

Also if you reduce the worth of a penalty then there will be more penalties conceded elsewhere therefore the game will be slower and if the conversion is worth three and a try worth seven then if a team scores two tries early on then they go 20 points up and the game is effectively over, they can just concede penalties quite high up the pitch in the knowledge that it is unlikely the opposition will get ten shots on goal.

Richie would never get on the field.  

It's a bit like introducing species to eradicate a pest. In theory it sounds good but the new solution presents unexpected problems. If only we remembered how things were when we were all happy.

What is clear is that the scrum and breakdown area are a nightmare to police. But we all need to think long and hard what we wish for.

I think any deliberate attempt to collapse a scrum should be a yellow, not only does it slow the game down it is also extremely dangerous, when Glasgow played the Ospreys Adam Jones and Ryan Grant were both yellow carded because the referee couldn't work out who was responsible for the scrum going down and both were cheating in order to get the upper hand after they returned to the pitch the scrums ran as smoothly as I've seen in any professional game.

123456789 wrote:I don't think that would work, what happens for repeat infringements in the 22? Is this new idea worth half a yellow card and therefore if you infringe twice in the 22 and earn a yellow card does that equal a red?

Also if you reduce the worth of a penalty then there will be more penalties conceded elsewhere therefore the game will be slower and if the conversion is worth three and a try worth seven then if a team scores two tries early on then they go 20 points up and the game is effectively over, they can just concede penalties quite high up the pitch in the knowledge that it is unlikely the opposition will get ten shots on goal.

 Nonsense. Any team conceding penalties up the field will incur the same territorial loss that applies now and you can't score penalties from out of range anyway so the 2 pointer makes no difference - it encourages teams to kick to offensive position more than try a long range shot. 

It's 10 points for either side, so two tries early on makes for a better running attacking positive game.

I said the 5 minutes was cumulative.

123456789 wrote:I don't think that would work, what happens for repeat infringements in the 22? Is this new idea worth half a yellow card and therefore if you infringe twice in the 22 and earn a yellow card does that equal a red?

Also if you reduce the worth of a penalty then there will be more penalties conceded elsewhere therefore the game will be slower and if the conversion is worth three and a try worth seven then if a team scores two tries early on then they go 20 points up and the game is effectively over, they can just concede penalties quite high up the pitch in the knowledge that it is unlikely the opposition will get ten shots on goal.

 Nonsense. Any team conceding penalties up the field will incur the same territorial loss that applies now and you can't score penalties from out of range anyway so the 2 pointer makes no difference - it encourages teams to kick to offensive position more than try a long range shot. 

It's 10 points for either side, so two tries early on makes for a better running attacking positive game.

I said the 5 minutes was cumulative.

Stop tinkering wirh the points system, there were 579 tries scored in the super rugby rounds, just short of 5 trirs per match.

Yes but what happens in finals?

Why do people not understand that increasing the points scored for a certain outcome will result in fewer of that outcome occurring?

GloriousEmpire wrote:Yes but what happens in finals?

it happens in any sport GE, look at soccer world cup, the closer to the finals more more circumspect teams are, it is called pressure, it id human nature to eliminate errors and risk when they get closer to a title.

Rugby has no more need to mimic soccer than super rugby has to emulate the HC...

 

 Biltong wrote: 

 

Biltong wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Yes but what happens in finals?

it happens in any sport GE, look at soccer world cup, the closer to the finals more more circumspect teams are, it is called pressure, it id human nature to eliminate errors and risk when they get closer to a title.

No one is going to be that player who throw that risky pass who lost them that final.  If johnny hadn't got that drop goal it would still be played loads but it would be about Johnny not having the bottle.
Also the better the teams the less tries scored in a game.

Only way to have great games is by having only seven players on the field and not very good kickers and have them run from everywhere.  I think i'll take this running rugby game and try get it into the olympics

But this is exactly what rugby needs to encourage. The game at the highest level should be a celebration of the sport. We need to see the mercurial talent of the mercurial. Not repression and anxiety.

More tries doesn't always lead to more excitement. I seen brilliant high scoring games and I've seen rubbish ones. The same as games that end with 1 try in the whole game. Personally at the top level I want to see the best players and teams competing each other; this normally leads to some great moves but also great defence.

GloriousEmpire wrote:But this is exactly what rugby needs to encourage. The game at the highest level should be a celebration of the sport. We need to see the mercurial talent of the mercurial. Not repression and anxiety.

Ban teams from practising defence. Its only now that defence is more overly practised then attack that we see these problems. If teams could only spend one day a week on defense then the matches would be far more open.

Seems like the OP wants a basketball-type game based on the last few articles.

Maybe he just doesn't like rugby and should try something else where you score heavily nearly every time you get possession. Like darts or snooker.

Or a guy who gets lucky in a club just before everybody's going home.

Ha!

i do think penalties should be reduced to two points . how many times we see one team score a magnificent try and conversion only to see the other team get two penalties from a dodgey ref and its 7 , 6 . so with two points 7 , 4 seems more right

Reducing penalties to 2 points just means sides won't mind giving them away as much. So, more infringements, more penalties, more stoppages, fewer tries.

Make penalties worth 10 points then you'll get more tries.

I disagree. Then you'll get teams milking penalties with no interest in going for the try line. You have to give an incentive to score a try. Otherwise you kick for the corners and stay in the opposition half and wait for the mistakes.

Either way it won't work then.

There is already about the right balance. We've been round this on the forum (and before) loads of times.

Having said this, the OP has his usual agenda so it's all a bit pointless really.

He's just making us appreciate what we have and make sure we don't take it for granted.  

i just find the some players are looking out for infringments rather then play rugby and get on with it

I feel the same way about some refs.  

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:i just find the some players are looking out for infringments rather then play rugby and get on with it

I think that's less a problem with the laws than just players are coached to be more savvy and cynical. In many ways rugby isn't much different from football these days it terms of win-at-any-costs attitude. Coaching staff and players will always find their way around any law change.

It's the way of the world. Grumble.

Cyril wrote:

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:i just find the some players are looking out for infringments rather then play rugby and get on with it

I think that's less a problem with the laws than just players are coached to be more savvy and cynical. In many ways rugby isn't much different from football these days it terms of win-at-any-costs attitude. Coaching staff and players will always find their way around any law change.

It's the way of the world. Grumble.

at least the players haven't started kissing each other when they scored . . . yet  

Why don't we just ban penalty kicks and reduce DG value to 1 point?

Submachine wrote:Why don't we just ban penalty kicks and reduce DG value to 1 point?

Get rid of scrums, allow forward passes and have 3 balls in play at once.

Oh, and rocket packs.

Cyril wrote:

Submachine wrote:Why don't we just ban penalty kicks and reduce DG value to 1 point?

Get rid of scrums, allow forward passes and have 3 balls in play at once.

Oh, and rocket packs.

The thread is about changing the laws to promote running rugby and create more tries. If penalties could not be kicked for goal then tries would be the order of the day with DG's only considdered at the end of the tightest of games.
How would your suggestions contibute to that goal?

Submachine wrote:

Cyril wrote:

Submachine wrote:Why don't we just ban penalty kicks and reduce DG value to 1 point?

Get rid of scrums, allow forward passes and have 3 balls in play at once.

Oh, and rocket packs.

The thread is about changing the laws to promote running rugby and create more tries. If penalties could not be kicked for goal then tries would be the order of the day with DG's only considdered at the end of the tightest of games.
How would your suggestions contibute to that goal?

Oh, this is a serious thread?

Very serious Cyril. 

I'm liking the three balls in play idea. I realise this was trialled in the 6N a few years ago for quick throws only and it certainly yielded a try...

A lot of what people whinge about re union would really easily be resolved by just switching over and watching league.

If you hate drop goals, penalties, scrums etc. why not just watch rugby league and leave union alone. Its a great sport as it is.

League has scrums, penalties and drop goals.

Uncontested scrums and much less emphasis on penalties and drop goals. You'll get the running rugby you want GE. Bit too 1 dimensional for me but it sounds like you'll really take to it.

GloriousEmpire wrote:League has scrums, penalties and drop goals.

Yes but they are all watered down, worth less points, non contested etc. to please the moany Michaels.

i would like to have cheerleaders with short skirts on the side who do a little routine everytime a try is scored

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:i would like to have cheerleaders with short skirts on the side   who do a little routine everytime a try is scored

Watch the Natal Sharks then. Incredible cheerleaders.

GunsGerms wrote:

jimmyinthewell68 wrote:i would like to have cheerleaders with short skirts on the side   who do a little routine everytime a try is scored

Watch the Natal Sharks then. Incredible cheerleaders.

    cheers i ll youtube it later when Im on my own .

3 neutral judges to watch all tries and award an average score out of 10 (plus 2 for the conversion) for the quality of try.

What was disastrous about 2007? Wasps won the HC with two superbly worked tries off first phase possession.

Perhaps it was SA's brand of 'kick and chase' rugby that won them the RWC through pressuring teams into conceding penalties. And a game plan that no one could cope with.

Wasn't it a TMO who missed a blatant try by a player obviously so crushed by being denied a WC winning try that he hasn't recovered since?

ChequeredJersey wrote:Wasn't it a TMO who missed a blatant try by a player obviously so crushed by being denied a WC winning try that he hasn't recovered since?

More like TMO justice to compensate for awarding England a blatant NON-try earlier the same year (vs Scotland, Jonny's foot clearly in touch as he grounded)  

No, very different. The alleged non-try you refer to did not impact the outcome of the match. England were rampant that day, the try was the cherry on the cake.

And, yes, it was a try regardless of what we might see on replays: I will explain:
First we are talking about Jonny - the try was for his millions of fans globally who were ecstatic to see him playing again.
Second, we arer talking about Jonny. Different rules apply (to demi-gods).

Knowsit17 wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Wasn't it a TMO who missed a blatant try by a player obviously so crushed by being denied a WC winning try that he hasn't recovered since?

More like TMO justice to compensate for awarding England a blatant NON-try earlier the same year (vs Scotland, Jonny's foot clearly in touch as he grounded)  

Meaningless 6 N match we would have easily won anyway vs winning a World Cup. Seems like a fair trade

Not to let seriousness take control, but if people want to see more tries and fewer penalties, simply move the goal posts to the back of the in-goal. All kicks become more difficult, thereby encouraging fewer penalty kick attempts. Also removes the goal posts from the try line which clog up attack. Similar to removing defenders from the line.

Simple.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Very serious Cyril. 

I'm liking the three balls in play idea. I realise this was trialled in the 6N a few years ago for quick throws only and it certainly yielded a try...

  

How about reducing the points for a penelty outside the 22 to 2 points (or something along those lines)? This could encourage teams to attack, especially when so many kickers can knock them over from around the halfway line, and once in the 22 they will be more likely to go for a try, and the defending team is less likely to give away a penelty than if it was reduced to 2 points all over the park.