NRC Law Variations - have your say

[Scoey]

First of all, using one game, where you have a biased viewpoint is not enough to make overall conclusions.

Secondly, they kept infringing because it currently takes a number of cynical penalties to be awarded a yellow card. Once there is a yellow card it takes another 4 or 5 for another one. If it didn't, and if they knew that it didn't, they wouldn't intentionally infringe because the chances of a yellow card would be extremely high. Teams learn quickly.

You speak as if the Reds lost the game easily. They drew the game. And they scored 3 tries to 1. In a game without penalty goals and quicker use of yellow cards for cynical play they would have won the game if the Brumbies had played the same way. Actually they probably would have won by more because the Brumbies would have lost players to the bin sooner.



You're just not thinking it through. It's the legitimate threat of 13 or 12 players that will stop the cynical infringements when the other team is hot on attack. It doesn't happen now because the threat doesn't really exist. As said, it takes a few penalties and a warning or two before a referee will issue a card. If it took one cynical infringement to be issued a card then teams wouldn't defend like the Brumbies did that night.

Ok I'll try and keep this brief.
Firstly: at least I have given a game as evidence of why your plan is flawed. Can you give me an example where penalties goal attempts were consistently turned down and the result was open flowing rugby?

Secondly: please quote the law where a team must infringe '4 or 5' times before they earn a second yellow. I looked and I couldn't find it. If as I suspect there is no law that requires it, then your beef is not with the current laws but the application of them.

I don't speak as if the Reds win or lost. Never have I spoken about the result. The example was used to illustrate how rugby that is played without penalty goals is not necessarily open running rugby. It's likely to be very very ugly and if the same sort of game got dishes up for 8 rounds of the NRC then the comp won't see it to 2015.

Lastly, I think it is you that is not thinking it through. The legitimacy of the threat of losing a couple of players has nothing to do with any current laws, just the application of them. Removing penalty goals will do nothing to stop cynical play and promote positive rugby. Applying the current laws more aggressively may achieve the goal.

If they tinker with the laws any more than very subtle changes, they risk losing the core supporter base in the first season. In the first season to core supporter base is all that will really be turning up to watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Omar Comin']

Ok I'll try and keep this brief.
Firstly: at least I have given a game as evidence of why your plan is flawed. Can you give me an example where penalties goal attempts were consistently turned down and the result was open flowing rugby?

I can't think of a 15's game where both teams have consistently turned down penalty goal attempts. But sevens works just fine (largely) without penalty goals. In sevens cynical infringements are punished with a yellow card without warnings. Sound familiar? Keep in mind that your example is one where a team trying to play rugby drew with a team trying to cynically stop them from playing rugby. In a rugby without penalty goals, reds would have won.

Secondly: please quote the law where a team must infringe '4 or 5' times before they earn a second yellow. I looked and I couldn't find it. If as I suspect there is no law that requires it, then your beef is not with the current laws but the application of them.

It is with the application of it. I never said it wasn't. All I'm saying is that IF you were to remove penalty goals (or limit them substantially by using the varsity cup point scoring system for example), then the solution to teams being cynical in defence would be to use yellow cards more strictly. And you wouldn't need to change the laws to do that, it would just be an instruction to referees.

Removing penalty goals will do nothing to stop cynical play and promote positive rugby. Applying the current laws more aggressively may achieve the goal.

Applying the current laws more aggressively, without removing or reducing penalty goals, will just result in more penalty goals and teams being afraid to use the ball in their own half.

Removing or largely reducing penalty goals AND being stricter on cynical infringements would promote positive rugby. Why? Because teams would have to play positively to win. It's that simple.

 

[Scoey]

I can't think of a 15's game where both teams have consistently turned down penalty goal attempts. But sevens works just fine (largely) without penalty goals. In sevens cynical infringements are punished with a yellow card without warnings. Sound familiar? Keep in mind that your example is one where a team trying to play rugby drew with a team trying to cynically stop them from playing rugby. In a rugby without penalty goals, reds would have won.

Yes sevens works well. But sevens is an entirely different game an yet it still achieves this result without removing the ability to kick for goal. Thank you for proving my point.
As for my example. Forget the result. The result. Is. Not. Important. My point was that not taking shots at goal did not result in positive rugby as you continue to state that it will. Don't worry about the result, it is the type of rugby that is played as a result of a team not going for penalty goals.

It is with the application of it. I never said it wasn't. All I'm saying is that IF you were to remove penalty goals (or limit them substantially by using the varsity cup point scoring system for example), then the solution to teams being cynical in defence would be to use yellow cards more strictly. And you wouldn't need to change the laws to do that, it would just be an instruction to referees.

Why reinvent the wheel? This makes absolutely no sense. Your fundamental issue is that cynical play is crap to watch. You freely admit that an instruction to the referees that they should apply a more judicious use of yellow cards will solve the problem but still you want to change laws to remove penalty goals when they have no relevance to your argument?

Applying the current laws more aggressively, without removing or reducing penalty goals, will just result in more penalty goals and teams being afraid to use the ball in their own half.

Removing or largely reducing penalty goals AND being stricter on cynical infringements would promote positive rugby. Why? Because teams would have to play positively to win. It's that simple.

This is just manifestly untrue. In this world there are conservative people and there are non-conservative people and there are many people in between. Given any framework people will find a way to exist that suits their own level of conservatism or lack thereof. Your ignorance of the fundamental importance of penalty goals in rugby is simply staggering.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Omar Comin']

Yes sevens works well. But sevens is an entirely different game an yet it still achieves this result without removing the ability to kick for goal. Thank you for proving my point.

Umm sevens is pretty much exactly the same game just with less players on the pitch. The ability to kick for goal is there but only with drop kicks and they are very rarely taken from penalties. Teams instead will always go for the try. That would be the same under my proposal. If you think I'm proving your point then you're insane.

As for my example. Forget the result. The result. Is. Not. Important. My point was that not taking shots at goal did not result in positive rugby as you continue to state that it will. Don't worry about the result, it is the type of rugby that is played as a result of a team not going for penalty goals.

The result is fundamentally important because it highlights the effectiveness of the tactics. The Brumbies tactics were effective because they were not punished harshly enough by the referee. In a rugby without penalty goals (or where they're only worth 2 points, or where they all have to be drop kicks) and with stricter use of yellow cards for cynical play, they would not be effective tactics. Therefore they would play with different tactics.

Why reinvent the wheel? This makes absolutely no sense. Your fundamental issue is that cynical play is crap to watch. You freely admit that an instruction to the referees that they should apply a more judicious use of yellow cards will solve the problem but still you want to change laws to remove penalty goals when they have no relevance to your argument?

Cynical play isn't good but what is boring is penalty goals. They are a boring way of dealing with cynical play. That's why so many people complain about them and talk about reducing them by making all penalty kicks drop kicks, or reducing penalties from 3 to 2 etc. They take up 10 minutes of play in an average match. What would be a less boring way of dealing with cynical play is stricter use of yellow cards.

This is just manifestly untrue. In this world there are conservative people and there are non-conservative people and there are many people in between. Given any framework people will find a way to exist that suits their own level of conservatism or lack thereof. Your ignorance of the fundamental importance of penalty goals in rugby is simply staggering

I never said teams wouldn't play conservatively, I said they wouldn't be able to win by playing negatively. There is a difference between conservative play and negative play. It's a good thing that rugby is played in different ways. But it's not a good thing that teams can WIN by simply kicking the ball away and forcing penalties 40 metres out from the posts. They might still kick the ball away and force penalties 40 metres out. But to win they will also have to be able to score tries...or get into an even better position and kick drop goals.

 

[Slim 293]

Umm sevens is pretty much exactly the same game just with less players on the pitch.

But it is a different game, yes?

 

[Slim 293]

You speak as if the Reds lost the game easily. They drew the game. And they scored 3 tries to 1. In a game without penalty goals and quicker use of yellow cards for cynical play they would have won the game if the Brumbies had played the same way. Actually they probably would have won very easily because the Brumbies would have lost players to the bin sooner.

But if the Brumbies were able to draw the game despite scoring less tries it sounds like they would've capitalised if the ref had gone to the pocket sooner.............

And with fewer defenders they might've capitalised on that and scored more tries?

 

[Slim 293]

And looking at the Wallabies' squad picked today...............

It would seem that Australians are going to need more goal kicking practice, not less................

 

[Omar Comin']

But it is a different game, yes?

So what? It's the same sport with the same fundamental rules. Scoey is going on and on that if teams can't or don't go for penalty goals then it will result in all this cynical play. Well in sevens they never go for goal and they don't get more cynical play. And that's simply because when a player does something cynical while the other team is hot on attack they get yellow carded.

So why would it be any different in fifteens rugby?

The varsity cup have made penalty goals 2 points and conversions 3 for the past 3 years. It initially resulted in a 24.5% increase in tries, a 71.2% decrease in penalty goals, an 11.2% increase in the number of penalties and no increase in yellow cards. It'd be interesting to see the statistics after a few seasons. Though they've now also brought in other things like 2 referees so it'd be more difficult to analyse.

The objective evidence seems to suggest that reducing penalty goals does not lead to some horrible increase in cynical play. What evidence do you guys have to suggest I am wrong? None, zilch, zip.

But hey, there's only one way to find out. You guys seem unwilling to try anything, but that's the only way we'll know.

 

[Omar Comin']

But if the Brumbies were able to draw the game despite scoring less tries it sounds like they would've capitalised if the ref had gone to the pocket sooner.....

And with fewer defenders they might've capitalised on that and scored more tries?

Of course! I have no idea if the penalties the Brumbies scored off were cynical ones or where on the field they were blown. I'm only responding to Scoey's perceptions of the match. I do vaguely remember watching it and supporting the Reds because they were trying to score tries while the Brumbies weren't.

 

[Slim 293]

So what? It's the same sport with the same fundamental rules. Scoey is going on and on that if teams can't or don't go for penalty goals then it will result in all this cynical play. Well in sevens they never go for goal and they don't get more cynical play. And that's simply because when a player does something cynical while the other team is hot on attack they get yellow carded.

So why would it be any different in fifteens rugby?

It might be in the name, or the number rather...........

 

[Slim 293]

I'm only responding to Scoey's perceptions of the match. I do vaguely remember watching it and supporting the Reds because they were trying to score tries while the Brumbies weren't.

The Brumbies weren't trying to score tries?

 

[Omar Comin']

The Brumbies weren't trying to score tries?

Well not from penalties they weren't. They also didn't go for many tries in the Sharks game recently. Preferred to kick the ball away every chance because they were afraid of making a mistake anywhere between their try line and about 5 metres past half way. Afraid because a mistake, or an unfavourable referee interpretation would have a strong chance of costing them 3 points.

It might be in the name, or the number rather.....

And yet the evidence from the varsity cup suggests the outcomes would be positive.

I guess we'll never know until it's tried.

 

[Braveheart81]

It seems that part of the problem is that those thinking that there need to be dramatic changes to the laws are looking at the worst game of a round and using that as the example from which to change.

Other posters are dismissing that game an an anomaly and citing the four or five good games a round as evidence that in general, the laws are fine.


@Omar Comin' - out of interest, how much rugby do you watch either live or on TV? Do you go to schoolboys or club rugby? It seems that a lot of people's opinions vary based on what they watch and/or support.

 

[Slim 293]

Well not from penalties they weren't. They also didn't go for many tries in the Sharks game recently. Preferred to kick the ball away every chance because they were afraid of making a mistake anywhere between their try line and about 5 metres past half way. Afraid because a mistake, or an unfavourable referee interpretation would have a strong chance of costing them 3 points.

But if you remove penalty goals (and increase cards), then instead of 3 points it's likely to cost teams a possible 5-7 points AND a man in the bin, meaning they're more likely to try and play the game up the other end.........

Removing penalty goals isn't going to stop some games from being kickathons.........

The only way to completely erase that is to remove the constant possession of the ball and resort to rugby league style retention laws............

 

[Omar Comin']

@Omar Comin' - out of interest, how much rugby do you watch either live or on TV? Do you go to schoolboys or club rugby? It seems that a lot of people's opinions vary based on what they watch and/or support.

Plenty. I'd say 2 to 4 games of super rugby most weekends. All test rugby I'm able to from around the world. I've recently moved temporarily to the UK so have had a chance to see a bit more Heineken Cup and Aviva Premiership. Was at the London 7's a couple of weeks ago and enjoy following the 7's series. Grew up in North West Sydney and went to plenty of Eastwood matches as a kid/teenager and later some Northern Suburbs games as I was living near there for a few years. Will hopefully see a bit of the NRC this year but will definitely watch it regularly when back in Oz next year (fingers crossed it lasts that long!!!)

 

[Scoey]

Umm sevens is pretty much exactly the same game just with less players on the pitch. The ability to kick for goal is there but only with drop kicks and they are very rarely taken from penalties. Teams instead will always go for the try. That would be the same under my proposal. If you think I'm proving your point then you're insane.

Sevens is the same as 15-a-side in the same way that T20 is the same as test cricket. The ability to kick for goal is still there yet they remove the cynical play from a more judicious use of the yellow card. This achieves the outcome that you want but without the need to remove the option of penalty goals. I don't know why you are having such a hard time grasping that. Please refrain from playing the man.

The result is fundamentally important because it highlights the effectiveness of the tactics. The Brumbies tactics were effective because they were not punished harshly enough by the referee. In a rugby without penalty goals (or where they're only worth 2 points, or where they all have to be drop kicks) and with stricter use of yellow cards for cynical play, they would not be effective tactics. Therefore they would play with different tactics.

No in the context of my argument the result of the game is not important. Your whole premise for making changes is to make the game more exciting because you feel that penalty kicks are "boring". Is that correct? So my example highlighted a scenario where one team knew that their opposition would not be taking penalty kicks and as a result it became clear to them that they could infringe close to their goal line and not have to worry about conceding 3 points. They became quite cynical in places and were duly yellow carded as a result. This did not change their mindset. The result was not more exciting Rugby, the result was a very ugly example of Rugby.

Cynical play isn't good but what is boring is penalty goals. They are a boring way of dealing with cynical play. That's why so many people complain about them and talk about reducing them by making all penalty kicks drop kicks, or reducing penalties from 3 to 2 etc. They take up 10 minutes of play in an average match. What would be a less boring way of dealing with cynical play is stricter use of yellow cards.

I'm starting to think that Rugby just might not be the game for you. Are you saying that penalty kicks are worse for the game than cynical play?

I never said teams wouldn't play conservatively, I said they wouldn't be able to win by playing negatively. There is a difference between conservative play and negative play. It's a good thing that rugby is played in different ways. But it's not a good thing that teams can WIN by simply kicking the ball away and forcing penalties 40 metres out from the posts. They might still kick the ball away and force penalties 40 metres out. But to win they will also have to be able to score tries.or get into an even better position and kick drop goals.

So you think that a game where a team works their way in position to try and slot drop goals is an exciting game?


Have you always felt this way about penalty goals? Why I ask is that it just seems to be, to me at least, a knee jerk reaction that hasn't considered the deeper ramifications to the game as a whole. Penalty goals are a fundamental part of the game today. Yes every now and then a team will "work a penalty" in the opposition half to attempt 3 points but you can't say that this is the norm because it just isn't the case.

 

[Omar Comin']

But if you remove penalty goals (and increase cards), then instead of 3 points it's likely to cost teams a possible 5-7 points AND a man in the bin, meaning they're more likely to try and play the game up the other end...

Removing penalty goals isn't going to stop some games from being kickathons...

The only way to completely erase that is to remove the constant possession of the ball and resort to rugby league style retention laws....

I wouldn't say that losing a man to the bin and conceding 5-7 points is likely. If you were penalised as the attacking team trying to run the ball out of your half then the other team would more than likely kick for touch. A good defensive team will always back their ability to keep the other team from scoring and eventually turnover the ball without having to cynically kill it.

With cards I'm talking about clear and obvious cynical offences like diving into a ruck off your feet from way on the side or making zero effort to roll away as a tackler. Not the sort of technical penalties that result from players making a decent effort to compete or comply with the rules but getting their timing wrong or being stuck in a bad position.

 

[Braveheart81]

I wouldn't say that losing a man to the bin and conceding 5-7 points is likely. If you were penalised as the attacking team trying to run the ball out of your half then the other team would more than likely kick for touch. A good defensive team will always back their ability to keep the other team from scoring and eventually turnover the ball without having to cynically kill it.

With cards I'm talking about clear and obvious cynical offences like diving into a ruck off your feet from way on the side or making zero effort to roll away as a tackler. Not the sort of technical penalties that result from players making a decent effort to compete or comply with the rules but getting their timing wrong or being stuck in a bad position.

Why are these situations any less likely than a team currently playing 10 man rugby suddenly playing an expansive style because they can't kick for goal?

 

[Omar Comin']

The ability to kick for goal is still there yet they remove the cynical play from a more judicious use of the yellow card. This achieves the outcome that you want but without the need to remove the option of penalty goals. I don't know why you are having such a hard time grasping that. Please refrain from playing the man.

Sorry I didn't mean to 'play the man' but I found the language in a couple of your posts highly patronising so I reciprocated. The point is that because they have to attempt with drop kicks penalty goals are virtually removed from sevens unless it's right in front near the end of a close match. If you're happy to make penalty goal attempts drop kicks then we'd basically be in agreement because in my proposal teams would be able to kick drop goals from penalties. I would prefer if they had to tap then attempt the drop goal but wouldn't mind if they didn't have to tap first so long as they had a time limit of 20 seconds or so.

At least then it wouldn't take up a minute of game time every time and as it would be more difficult teams would go for them only from easy positions.

They became quite cynical in places and were duly yellow carded as a result. This did not change their mindset. The result was not more exciting Rugby, the result was a very ugly example of Rugby.

There was one yellow card in the first half and one later in the 2nd. Both happened after a string of penalties. Presumably a fair number of obviously cynical penalties in the 22 were not punished with yellow cards. If they had been from the beginning (or if the Brumbies knew they would have been), I think you'd have seen a different game.

Are you saying that penalty kicks are worse for the game than cynical play?

Not really. They're both bad. I'm saying penalty goals are boring and not an optimum way of dealing with cynical play.

So you think that a game where a team works their way in position to try and slot drop goals is an exciting game?

Maybe exciting isn't the right word, but I think it's a legitimate way of playing the game and gaining points from territorial dominance. Importantly they are not points directly awarded by the referee - they are points scored in general play from a team effort (well, except the odd monster from the likes of Frans Steyn). I think it takes considerably more skill then a penalty goal.

Have you always felt this way about penalty goals? Why I ask is that it just seems to be, to me at least, a knee jerk reaction that hasn't considered the deeper ramifications to the game as a whole. Penalty goals are a fundamental part of the game today. Yes every now and then a team will "work a penalty" in the opposition half to attempt 3 points but you can't say that this is the norm because it just isn't the case.

Yes, I've always just put up with them. Like a lot of people. You look on the Wallabies facebook page when they announced they'd be taking law suggestions. Dozens of the replies are to do with reducing penalty goals in some way. I find they negatively interrupt the momentum of a game. Especially when you get more than 3 or 4 in a match. I understand the purpose of penalty goals, I just think there are better alternatives that wouldn't ruin the flow of the game as much or take up so much of the 80 minutes.

It's not a knee jerk reaction. I have thought this through over the years. It took me ages to be convinced myself that penalty goals could be greatly lessened or scrapped.

 

[Omar Comin']

Why are these situations any less likely than a team currently playing 10 man rugby suddenly playing an expansive style because they can't kick for goal?

No problem with teams playing predominantly 10 man rugby if that's what they think is their best tactic to win. I just believe rugby would be a better game if teams had to score the points themselves when the other team has some chance to stop them.

Why should the referee essentially have the power to directly award a team 3 points for often technical infringements? 2 random scrum penalties on the halfway line that are converted into penalty goals are worth more than a 20 phase try scored in the corner with a missed conversion. It doesn't make sense.