Discussion in 'Rugby Discussion' started by Karl, Feb 27, 2012.
I still don't see what's wrong with games that are filled with penalty kicks.?
I was postulating (and it was just putting it out there for discussion) that possibly the threat of sin-binning would reduce the infringements at the breakdown because with just a three-pointer at stake the risk reward ration is one thing, but with potentially playing a man down in the mix after the relevant players first offence, the risk is far greater and this may modify the behaviour more effectively than just the three-pointer seems to achieve on its own.
I don't mind a few, but I don't go to the Rugby to watch a bunch of place kicking that follows on from play stoppages that are caused by rule infractions.
I'll tell you what is wrong with it, every penalty kick taken at goal is the result of a law being broken that has prevented the attacking team from actually attacking. Given the choice I would prefer to see the attacking team continue to attack.
Do you guys not rate the RWC 2003 GF as a great game of rugby?
Or the 1999 Wallabies v Boks RWC semi?
I can cite many examples.
The game is not about scoring more tries, but scoring more points than the opposition.
Tries are generally a good spectacle, but try heavy games are certainly not necessarily better, or vice versa.
Sometimes less tries get scored because the defence is brilliant. That's fine. In high stakes games this can build the tension too. What is not good is the attacking team being constantly stopped from attacking because of rule infringements by the defending team resulting in play stopping for a penalty shot followed by a restart.
I didn't say it makes a shit game, but you said you couldn't see what was wrong with penalty goals.
And I stand by it.
But obviously the games I mentioned were scored through penalty goals. Coming from. Penalties.
Yeah, the highlights package is really enthralling when it is composed entirely of goal kicks.
A series of goal kicks. That's the way to get the new fans into the game.
The two examples you mention might have been more thrilling because you had a dog in the fight AND they were high stakes international games played once every four years at the Rugby World Cup.
The same pressure, prestige and consequences are absent from the average regular season Super Rugby fixture.
I wonder what someone from, say, France thought of the RWC GF in 2003.
And the point about attracting new fans is a valid one. The game will not expand or even maintain it's following of fans and players if it fails to evolve and improve
I'm sure the French enjoyed it just as much as other rugby fans.
Nil all draws doesnt seem to halt soccer.
It's obviously not the most visually stimulating moment in rugby (some might argue that scrums aren't either), but it's a part of the game and it doesn't need adjusting just to appease Australians.
I have checked quickly and counted how much of the total points scored was penalties.
Stormers vs Hurricanes
9 Penalties = 27 out of 65
Blues vs Crusaders
6 Penalties = 18 out of 37
Bulls vs Sharks
7 Penalties = 21 out of 31
Brumbies vs Force
7 Penalties = 21 out of 36
Highlanders vs Chiefs
7 Penalties = 21 out of 42
Reds vs Waratahs
9 Penalties = 27 out of 46
Lions vs Cheetahs
14 Penalties = 42 out of 52
Hated it. Hated watching it, hated the one of England or Aus was going to be rugby world champs. Hated it, hated it, hated it.
But it was a bloody good game of rugby.
As far as I'm concerned those people looking to change to rules to "grow the game" are barking totally up the wrong tree.
What's disappointing is that it's always Australians making these calls to reduce penalties blah blah blah.
Unfortunately it's the rugby league culture in our country.
Sure, tries are more exciting. but unlike the simple game of loig our sport can be played in many different ways by people of various shapes and sizes.
There's always going to be slight changes as the game evolves, but there's no point trying to fix something that isn't broken.
It goes further than that, it's the reason we have a poor scrum culture, even a poor forwards culture.
If you got a guy with a mutant boot like Steyn then I feel sorry for any team making a mistake just before halfway and up playing in the Highveld. The ball does fly huge distances over there.
In soccer, both teams are usually trying to score goals. I do not see the point of comparison.
An important match, like a World Cup final, is enthralling however it is won and lost (although I have to say that the mindless kicking in 2007 took a lot of gloss off for me), and that applies to some extent in English soccer, for example.
As for "appeasing Australians" - it was a Pom who first picked the ball up to run with it. He ran with it. That is the essence of rugby, running with the frigging ball. Not kicking it. They kick it in soccer. Which is where I came in - there is little point of comparison.
Unless it is a 0 - 0 draw between two Italian sides. Like watching paint dry. But football is a awesome tactical battle that not many people see.
And originally tries were worth no points. they were only performed so points could be scored from the conversion.
The Kiwis, Saffas, Argies, French or any of the other playing countries up north don't seem to have this constant need to complain about these things.
Separate names with a comma.