Six point tries and one point conversions, who's with me?

I really think that 5 points is not enough reward for scoring a try. With defences so good these days it takes a lot of effort to get a try and the fact that two penalties can be worth more than a try feels just wrong to me. I know that people are wary about law changes after the ELV fiasco, but I am surprised that you don't hear any calls to transfer a point from the conversion to the try. Thoughts?

Going on today's result..yes...six for a try, one for a conversion Ireland win.

I'd personally keep try and conversions at 5 and 2, but decrease penalties to 2 points.

Hopefully we'd promote more attack rather than keeping the ball tight as soon as anyone gets near the 22 to force penalties.

Because penalties would be worth less, teams may infringe more to stop attack. I think refs would need to be a bit harsher on yellow cards for repeated/deliberate infringements to start with, but it would settle.

Try 6
Conversion 2
Penalty 3

That way 3 penalties is enough to beat 1 try which still discourages infringements, but a try is rewarded more.

Good idea...based on the fact that defences have definitely made it harder to score tries I'm in for anything that encourages try's over kicks. Agree with 6/1 rather than 6/2 for try/ conv. respectively.

Still leaves 7 for both and tries wider out get rewarded on their own merits more.

Taylor,
I like the points alocations as they are today. We have seen points changed before, and I think we are fine now. And there is definitiely a strategic benefit to scoring under the posts as compared to out wide, which is reduced if conversions are down to only 1 point.

But, as we all know, kickers are so much better than 10 or 15 years ago. I would like to see the goal posts moved to the back of the in-goal This makes all kicks harder to convert and also removes the goal posts as the added defender.

This thread is similar to the points experiment going on in the varsity cup at the moment.

However nobody is really convinced it is working either.

Simplify the laws and leave the points as is.

biltongbek wrote:However nobody is really convinced it is working either.

Do you have statistics to support this statement?

doctor_grey wrote:

biltongbek wrote:However nobody is really convinced it is working either.

Do you have statistics to support this statement?

No but I read journalists opinion who has been reporting on it in SA.

Degrade the value of the penalty any further and the laws become even more of a cheat's charter.

LondonTiger wrote:Degrade the value of the penalty any further and the laws become even more of a cheat's charter.

Just give out yellows more readily. That will dissuade them

I'd go for 7 points for a try and no conversions. That way all tries are of equal worth and those teams who dont have exceptional kickers wont be as disadvantaged.

overlordofthewest wrote:I'd go for 7 points for a try and no conversions. That way all tries are of equal worth and those teams who dont have exceptional kickers wont be as disadvantaged.

You could turn that one and say 5 points for a penalty and then those teams that don't have exceptional backs won't be disadvantaged. Just concentrate on the forward power and winning penalties.

I mean its a strange game that wouldn't require specialised kickers...some might even call such a game Rugby League.

You make a good point secretfly
I just feel a try scored anywhere over the line should be worth more than two penalties. Not just those closest to the posts. Only my opinion, noone wants to see union going like league.

Well, like you, I love tries more than the rest of the methods used to amass points. I personally particularly hate drop goals (I know it's a great skill under pressure but I think the opposing team are really left with few options in putting up a fair fight to stop them)

Anyway, yes, I think if worth is going to be improved for any aspect of gameplay I think try scoring should be it. It's just that the balance is so knife-edge. Too many ponts for a try and opposing teams won't mind giving penalty points to stop them. The game might clog up in mid field. So the solution has to encompass more factors than just awarding a try more points. Interesting topic though - it was debated at length in old 606, but I forget the details of my arguments back then!

I agree with those who want to see more tries but who are unconvinced that, under the present rules (and application of them), this proposed revision wouldn't necessarily work. This season's 6N is a classic case of tries born of luck/individual moments of skill rather than flowing rugby: England's two 'Chargedown Charlie' efforts; interception tries in at least 2 games and Fofana's score yesterday born of quick thinking following a handy ricochet of a loose ball in midfield. My personal bugbear is the infrequency of penalty tries awarded when a defending side halts play illegally and deliberately (eg collapses a scrum or maul), thereby preventing an otherwise almost surefire score, within 5m or less of the line.

Given the way the game is, 2 penalties over one unconverted try suggest either the more dominant side scored more often, or that a side under pressure was more clinical in converting less possession into more points. Neither scenario strikes me as injustice. Reluctantly, and frustrating though it can be, I fear the current balance of points for scores is about the least bad system around. It's still quite rare for a side who are clearly dominated overall to win a game - unlike in Wendyball, for example.

Yeah I vaguely remember putting forth my point of view in the old 606 but like you I forget half of my arguments. I think I may have been swayed by others opinions so had to review my own stand.

As you said, always a good discussion and interesting to see what everyone else thinks.

On your point with the drop goal though, nothing irritates me more in a game than when a drop goal is attempted when theres a penalty advantage .
Why! Just go for the try, if you fail you come back. I can't understand going for 3 points when you'll have a shot at 3 if you fail. At least try and go for the 5/7.
Maybe a drop goal should be with 2 points to prevent it, or maybe thats for another discussion.

I don't mind that suggestion at all
6 - try
1 - conversion
3 - penalty
2 - drop goal

how about 2 for a penalty in your own half ? Course this would only disadvantage SA so not really fair but it could encourage teams to attack

nganboy wrote:I don't mind that suggestion at all
6 - try
1 - conversion
3 - penalty
2 - drop goal

how about 2 for a penalty in your own half ? Course this would only disadvantage SA so not really fair but it could encourage teams to attack

Scotland have a guy called Duncan Weir. He kinda shoots them from his own tryline (okay, slight exaggeration!) But he's in the SA school and a long kick specialist (without the thin air to assist)

All those points changes are too complicated for a dumbbastard like myself. Just move the posts to the back of the in-goal and be done with it. This will automatically create more reason to attack looking for a Try than for a penalty kick. All those 50 yard kicks will become kicks for territory.
Problem solved.
Just throw your accolades and money in my direction (No Euros please).

But then Ashton might get confused and give himself an almightly graze when he swan dives over the wrong line.

Try - 15 points
Conversion - 3 points
Penalty - 5 points
Drop goal - 3 points
2nd Drop goal for that team in the match - 2 points
Penalty for doing consecutive drop goals - -1 point
Penalty in own half - 4 points
Penalty hits the post - 1 point
Penalty hits the post but attacking team scores from it - 0 points for hitting the post
Having to go to TMO yet the try is scored - 1 point
Having to go to TMO but try is not scored - also 1 point (but of course you don't get the 15)
Penalty try - 25 points
Yellow card - -5 points
Red card - that's punishment enough, unless in the last 20 minutes then it's -10 points
Swan dive tries - 0 points

Or keep it as it is.

Actually I like doctor grey's suggestion.

5 points to the opponents when you don't ground an attempted try?

Afterall, you've wasted a fair degree of creatvity to get close and had the temerity not to get there.

Somebody needs to be rewarded for the fantastic linebreak, offload, and sensational twisting sprint past the three defenders................ I say the opposition should benefit.

SecretFly wrote:5 points to the opponents when you don't ground an attempted try?

Afterall, you've wasted a fair degree of creatvity to get close and had the temerity not to get there.

Somebody needs to be rewarded for the fantastic linebreak, offload, and sensational twisting sprint past the three defenders................ I say the opposition should benefit.

Scotland would plummet to 50th in the world rankings.

Yes, there would be casualties....

necessary collateral damage to add more weight to the art of try scoring.

Can't say they wouldn't deserve it. Let's do it.

Who works for IRB?

doctor_grey wrote:All those points changes are too complicated for a dumbbastard like myself. Just move the posts to the back of the in-goal and be done with it. This will automatically create more reason to attack looking for a Try than for a penalty kick. All those 50 yard kicks will become kicks for territory.
Problem solved.
Just throw your accolades and money in my direction (No Euros please).

In theory this is a good idea but all that will actually happen is that good kickers who can score from long range become even more important,this means that a player who is limited in all the other aspects but can kick will be more likely to get a place on the team.

Having said that I still like your suggestion as it means that tries like the one Isaac Boss scored against Russia in the WC won't be seen anymore,it was clever play from him but I don't like that you can score a try just by grounding the ball at the base of the post.
I'd also like to see the ball made heavier so that teams can't clear their lines so easily.

If it's a long and accurate kicking game you need then that would have Scotland bounce back up from 50th to 1st! If they pick Weir that is.

asoreleftshoulder,
I see a few benefits of moving the posts. One point is exactly what you said, no more grounding at the base of the posts. Second, it removes an extra defender from the try line. And the third point is it will eliminate those penalty kicks and drop kicks from mid-field. Will make kickers move 10 metres closer before trying those long range kicks. So penalties at the halfway line won't be kicked at goal anymore, rather kicked for territory.

So, please, I welcome all on my bandwagon. Please bring beer (or at least wanton women).

Seriously, what's wrong with handing out more yellows? Fewer men on pitch --> more tries. Harsher indirect effects of foul-play --> more incentive to not give away penalties

ChequeredJersey wrote:Seriously, what's wrong with handing out more yellows?

I think they are already experimenting with that new law this year. The ref has to hand out five yellows per game or he's dropped for the next game.