Should We Change Rugby’s Points Scoring System?

Scott Allen June 22, 2012 61

No Gravatar

Over time the tactical emphasis in rugby has switched from goals to tries . 

There’s plenty of skill involved in kicking goals, but today I doubt there are many people who’d rather watch goals than tries. The question is whether there is anything wrong with the current points system? With a potential 7 points available for a try and only a possible 3 points for a penalty goal or field goal, doesn’t that provide enough incentive for teams to score tries?

This year we’ve seen a trial of a new points scoring system in the Varsity Cup in South Africa. Before I look at the results of that trial and my idea for an alternative, let’s look back at some key changes to the points scoring system over time.

In the early days of the game you scored points by kicking goals. In 1845 under the first laws of the game, to earn a ‘try’ at goal you had to get the ball over the goal line between the posts. There were no points awarded for carrying the ball over the line; a match was decided solely by which team scored the most goals.

In 1871 the laws were amended so that, in the event that the number of goals was equal, the match would be awarded to the team that had earned the most tries at goal.

In 1886 a points system was adopted in which goals were worth 3 points and tries 1 point. In 1888, penalty goals were revalued at 2 points.

In 1891 the points for a try were increased to 2 and a conversion to 5; however, if a conversion was scored the points for the try did not count. The penalty goal was upgraded to 4 points.

It wasn’t until 1893 that a try notionally became worth more than a conversion. A conversion still counted for 5 points, with no value assigned to the try that enabled it, but if the conversion were missed the team received 3 points for the try — meaning that the conversion earned just 2 additional points for the team.

In 1905 the reward for a field goal was set at 4 points, the same as for a penalty goal.

In 1948 the values of the penalty goal and the field goal were reduced to 3 points.

In 1971 the points for a try were increased to 4, meaning a converted try was worth 6 points. (It wasn’t until 1979 that the laws were amended so that points were awarded separately for the try and the successful conversion.)

In 1992 the try reward was further increased, to today’s value of 5 points.

The IRB has made it clear that it believes the focus of the game should be on the scoring of tries, not goals (as has Sam Ikin, who regularly affirms that winning games by scoring more tries is ‘the way God intended’).

Many people argue that the way to encourage attacking, running rugby is to increase the value of a try, and/or reduce the value for a penalty goal, to encourage teams to keep playing for a try rather than taking the shot. But just as many people seem to hold the view that such a move would encourage defending teams to infringe more when a team is within shooting range, as the cost of allowing the attacking team to score a try would be much greater than conceding a penalty goal. And then those on the side for change suggest countering negative defensive tactics by increasing the number of yellow cards handed out for deliberate offences.

While we all have a view on what would happen if the reward for scoring tries were increased, we’ll never know unless such a change is introduced in a competition — and that’s exactly what the IRB has done, by allowing a trial of a new points system in the Varsity Cup. The trial includes no change for the value of a try but increases points for a conversion to 3, while reducing the points for a penalty and field goals to 2.

Prev1 of 2Next
Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse

Discussion »

  • http://www.timmsonline.com Steve Timms

    Mate, Great article, love the history of the points system.

    It’s an interesting take on it too. I have been of the opinion that reducing the points for a penalty to 2 and leaving all other points as they are was the answer, but I think your idea is a good one.

    It would remove some theatre when a try is scored late and the game will be won by a successful conversion, but perhaps the theatre of the try would be just as valuable.

    A good thing to ponder heading into a weekend.

  • Scotty

    Scott,

    Good analysis and not a bad option, but I don’t mind the time gap after a try. Allows the crowd and team to celebrate a bit! If the scoring system works to reduce penalties attempts and increase try attempts, then the time lost for scoring tries will be offset by the time gained by not going for the penalty.

    I’d prefer to see a more strict limitation on the amount of time for a penalty attempt than reducing the time lost after a try is scored. The other major time loss is in re-setting of scrums. Fix both of these up and we will have a much better product.

    • Scott Allen

      At the very least I’d like to see time off once a try is scored and not restarted until the ensuing kickoff.

      Wouldn’t work the same way for penalty attempts as if you miss the ball is still live.

      • suckerforred

        Like this idea better.

      • Who?

        What’s the problem with the current system? 3 points for a droppie’s perfect – it’s a real skill. It’s disappointing to see droppies used as last resorts (the reason why Bernie’s droppie was better than Wilko’s was that he wasn’t hiding in the pocket – he was in the line and the droppie was just one of several options available), but that does’t mean that they’re irrelevant or unworthy.

        3 points for a penalty’s right, too. If it’s directly in front of the posts, then the infringing team deserve to lose the 3! If it’s out wide or miles back, then any kicker who can slot it has earned the 3 points for his team.

        We MUST retain conversions. It’s a way of rewarding a team for holding the middle of the field. It rewards players who chase the length of the field on a breakaway try to ensure the conversion’s taken from wider out, which is something that we should appreciate. I’ve no problem with 2 or 3 for a conversion, with 5 or 6 for a try, with the total value being 7-8.

        As for time in play, I don’t see why we can’t have time off between tries and conversions (2 minute limit), beween indicating a penalty kick (be it for touch or the posts) and either the formation of the lineout or striking of the ball off the tee. As it stands, the forward pack generally does this anyway, and also at scrums. So I don’t see why we can’t blow time off. It also gives the ref more time to speak to captains, and more time for Channel Nein to throw in ads.

        • JimmyC

          The scoring system is fine. These things just run in cycles. The law I would like to change is the drop goal one. A missed drop goal that goes dead should be the same as a kick in general play that goes dead. Scrum from where the ball was kicked against the kicking team

  • Barbarian

    Wow… have never heard that suggestion before. It makes some sense, though it would eliminate one of my favourite spectacles in rugby- the last minute conversion to win the game, with the opposition charging off the line to stop it.

    My suggestion is this- penalty goals should be worth 3 points if the penalty is given inside the 22, and 2 points if it is given outside it. Teams will still be punished for infringing in the red zone, but it should encourage more teams to kick for touch, especially on penalties that are 40m out and on the sideline.

    • Ben

      I’m not sure that reducing the points on offer for longer-distance penalties is the answer. My logic is this: kicking the ball over from distance (I’m thinking of Frans Steyn as an example) requires a lot more skill than from 20 metres out. We shouldn’t dismiss the theatre that a good kick from distance provides, e.g. Steyn from his own half against the ABs in 2009, Beale vs. the Boks in Bloemfontein.

      I understand the impulse to make rugby more spectator-friendly, but I think we need to be mindful of not removing an important skill from the game.

      • wiggety

        Frans Steyn and his ilk can go jump in the lake. Yep, they are highly skilled, and congratulations to them, but so are synchronised swimmers. I wouldn’t want to see rugby games won by the team with the most skilled synchronised swimmer, anymore than I like seeing games won by the team with the most skilled kicker, especially if it means penalties from their own half rather than kicks for touch. I am all for the idea of 3 points in the 22, 2 points out of it. Or you could take it further, and give only 1 point from past the 10m line. Points for kicking should never be an end in itself, but only exist to reward good running rugby (ie conversion if try in center field), and punish negativity preventing running rugby (ie penalties close to the try line). For the same reasons, drop goals should only be 1 point so that it is only a rare tactical tool (eg for a tie breaker or increase a lead from say 7 to 8 points).

        • Matthew Bates

          Picture this…
          Attacking team requires 3 points to WIN the game, time up on the clock. Defending team infringes in huge ruck ON the 22. Ball cant be sighted. Good luck ref!

  • Scotty

    PS I agree with keeping the field goal to 3pts, and my preference, like Timmsy is to have conversions and penalties both worth 2 points.

    I would also like to see a more straightforward system implemented for the use of yellow cards (eg every 4 defensive infringements is an automatic card).

    • Paul

      absolutely agree. Something like in basketball where you have a number of team penalties then a penalty goal or the next penalty a yellow card. You could also record number of individual penalties conceded and if they reach a certain number, sideline the player for the rest of the match. It will open the game up and take away the management of discipline from the referee to the team. If the team gives away too many penalties I think the captain will be having words with his team. It’s like in the military, one member of the team stuffs up the whole team gets punished (push ups, fireman carries etc). Instead of the commander discipline his troops, their peers sort out discipline (harsh language and worse).

  • Rob Edwards

    Here’s one I like. Reduce penalty goal to 2 points BUT the restart (if kick successful) is a scrum to the non-offending team at place of infringement

    • Matthew Bates

      Picture this…
      An attacking team with a very dominant scrum receives penalty right out in front from some scrum infringement. Kick the 2 pts, get another scrum, get another penalty, kick the 2 pts, get another scrum…….
      Groundhog Day, hardly promoting running rugby.

  • Bally Moore

    I can see the benefits you highlight in your suggestion for no conversions, but reckon the conversion adds an element of intrigue to the game. A potential extra bonus after a try scored (2 celebrations for the fans), the excitement of a conversion from the sideline on the wrong side, a reward for scoring under the posts, and incentive for defense to keep chasing a try scorer to force the conversion wide. The mathematics of what is required in the last few minutes … a try… a converted try…

    I dont know… ultimately i’d like to see players / captains / coaches take on a little more responsibility to play positive rugby, but as you say, high stakes typically renders that simply idealistic.

  • Roscoe Tims

    Why don’t we just move the posts closer together? That would make kicks more difficult and reduce the incentive to go for goal.

    • Scott Allen

      The simplest ideas are often the best.

      I like this one.

    • Davo

      The great thing about this is that teams still get rewarded for good field position, if you’re right in front the posts being a bit closer together doesn’t really matter (except for Giteau).

    • Kiap

      If they are going to alter the posts (possible, but problematic due to the all the work involved cutting them to size for every field), another option could be to move them back to the dead ball line, American-football stylee.

      This would add extra distance to all kicks for goal, making the tryline comparitively closer. Also takes the posts out of plays on the try line.

    • vidiot

      I think that penalties should have to pass under the crossbar, and one of the opposition players should be allowed to stop it. He could wear a slightly different jersey and even gloves.

    • wiggety

      We could also raise the bar ;)

  • Gumby

    I like the suggestion really though I must admit, there have been times where that final conversion attempt on the bell has just about as much high drama as the whole of the game before it; e.g., O’Connor’s kick in HK a few years back.There have been quite a few such historic moments over the years.

    Would it also mean more drawn games, whereby the equal number of tries were scored resulted in more games being drawn (especially in poor conditions like we saw in Newcastle)? Not sure about that one but it is worth thinking on because like Soccer few people are satisfied when you don’t have a winner.

  • Redslug

    Great article and I too loved the history and how many changes have occurred. I like the idea of more tries, but not at the expense of ball in the hand time, good point.
    I do believe there would be few forwards out there that would not be to quick to embrace your concept. The time the kicker takes to attempt conversion, the players that have put the effort, tend to use this time to suck in the air, recuperate and allow the blood to settle.
    As a female spectator, avid physique aficionado and vocal supporter I would not like to see the devolvement of the Forward’s physique into a Back’s shape to cope with the speed. Speed in exchange for kilo for kilo grunt and drive would make the forward pack into a Rugby League pack, ridiculous! I would like the front rowers that look fit and big to stay that way as it adds to the spectacle of Rugby and my entertainment and enjoyment.
    Otherwise an great conversation and article thanks Scott

    • wiggety

      It’s the existence and importance of scrums, lineouts, rucks, and mauls that ensure the various Union forward physiques, not the speed of the game. League forwards are all the same because the only difference between them and the backs is hit ups.

  • Lee Enfield

    Try 5 points
    Conversion 3 points
    Penalty 3 points
    Field Goal 2 points.

    To keep the ball in play longer, the time is stopped from:
    The moment a try is scored
    The moment the ref indicates a penalty goal will be attempted.
    Time is resumed the upon the first player touching the ball after the kick to restart.
    The kicker still has 90 seconds to take the kick, to prevent deliberate slowing down the game.

  • Davo

    An in between option would be to force the kicker to take a drop kick for the conversion (as is currently the case in 7′s). It takes less time than a place kick but still some time to show replays and for the supporters to celebrate (I actually think this is an incredibly important consideration in terms of the spectacle).

    I would imagine there will be less successful conversions so you could maybe change the points to 6 for the try and 1 for the conversion while you’re at it. That way a try is guaranteed to be worth TWO penalties / field goals.

    Now that I think about it we could do the same for penalties, drop kicks from right in front have a pretty high success rate but we will get less of the 50m speculator penalty shots. Teams still get the 3 points they deserve for the other team being dickheads. I’m not so sure of this option though.

    • Pedro

      Yeah I like this.

      I was thinking place kicks for conversions, drop kicks for penalties.

  • Dave

    No we shouldn’t change it. Every scoring system will have its advantages and flaws which you wont know until they are implemented which realistically will not happen any time soon. Seems like a complete moot point…

    • http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/ Matt Rowley

      There are plenty of guys from 1870 with you on that

      • Dave

        Yeah but in 1870 the sport wasn’t professional with media contracts being negotiated years in advance. Since the sport became professional the points have not changed and such a fundamental change would be exponentially more difficult to achieve now rugby is a business. What circumstances do you envisage where all the rugby governing bodies worldwide as well as sponsors and media contract holders agree to such changes?

  • ChargerWA

    If a team infiringes in the 22, the penalty kick is only worth 1 point, but they have to restart from in goal. If they infringe outside the 22 the penalty kick is worth 2 and they restart from the 22.

    Rewards the team with field position and gives them possession back in the danger zone to remove the temptation for infriging negatively.

    At least that was what I was going to say until I read your idea of making try’s worth 7, a much better idea.

  • Piggy

    I’d like to see kicks at goals given the same rules as field kicks. If unsuccessful and it goes dead in goal it comes back to the place it was kicked as a scrum to the none kicking team.

    Leave the points the same, start binning people for infringing within the 22…

  • Patrick

    I’m not sure what I would like, some really good ideas there, Scott’s has the virtue of avoiding NFL-esque technicalities.

    I am sure that this site produces some damn fine rugby reporting/news/commentary, Scott Allen’s posts being always a prime example.

    In the forum a few people appear actually upset that Fairfax might go behind a paywall or disappear completely or something, I can’t work out why anyone cares.

    The only issue for me is how sites like this can generate some kind of reliable earnings to ensure that they operate on a sustainable basis!

  • http://www.harpinonrugby.net HarpinOnRugby

    Super article though I have “throwing baby out with bathwater” concerns about the 7point try. Might meet with some resistance from the placekicker’s union and it will diminish their art form considerably. Remember…we normally only see them go for difficult kicks from the touchline when it’s a con from a try in the corner, and I reckon the game would suffer without that skill. A fair compromise would be a 6-1 split in the try instead of 5-2, but unfortunately the Yanks have first dibs on the that! Still bravo on the piece, plenty of food for thought there!

  • Ben

    Let’s think about the secondary effects of these changes for a second.

    The most obvious one is encouraging cynical defensive play, especially offside and in the ruck. I think most people are aware of this effect, and it is a question of whether you think the trade-off between a higher penalty count and more tries is worthwhile.

    What about the type of rugby that is played? I think it’s important not to treat ‘scoring tries’ and ‘running rugby’ as synonymous. I don’t necessarily think that spectators want to see more tries, but rather they want to see the ball in play – and in motion, not stuck at the bottom of a ruck – more often.

    My concern is that the set-piece (particularly mauling from a line out) would become increasingly important. I like a good maul as much as the next man, but I don’t think a game full of stoppages and attacks from set-pieces is going to bring all the boys to the yard.

    Having said that, the proof will very much be in the pudding. I am looking forward to seeing what the future holds.

  • Brumby Jack

    One of the biggest time wasting issues is try scorers throwing, or even kicking, the ball away after they score in the post try celebration so having a ‘shot clock’ would be good and throwing the ball away would only penalise your own side.

    Why not make it like NFL and have the conversion – drop kick only – from right in front no matter where along the try line it was scored.

    • Lindommer

      ANY buggersising around with the ball at a breakdown, or try scoring, should result in an immediate 10m penalty. If teams gave up 10m at the restart they’d soon stop throwing, or kicking, the ball away after scoring tries.

  • DrewB

    The points system HAS to change! I propose:

    A try to the Wallabies – 10 points
    A try to the All Blacks – 1 point
    NH Side penalty goal – 1 point
    England drop goal – negative 3 points

    All other scoring can remain as is.

  • robbo

    We must keep the conversions. I agree with the point about how many games are won after the siren this way. Maybe 3 points if it is within the sideline 10 metre line (narrowing the posts by a metre would add to this)?

    How about reducing the number of offenses that draw a straight arm? Is a prop missing his bind worth the same penalty as foul play – this might reduce the number of endless resets as one team looks to draw a scrum penalty.

    Every change will have unintended consequences, but change should be tried. I can remember when a team kicking to touch on a penalty did not get the throw. That was one change that worked really well.

  • robbo

    Also as most tries go to the video ref, the post try restart restrictions are not going to work. The scoring team will just go to the half way line while they wait.

  • johnny-boy

    On the opposite side I have often wondered what would happen if you increased penalty points to say 7 as well. At the moment, players and teams seem happy to give away a penalty rather than possession and the possibility of a try by cheating, tho admittedly risking a yellow card at times. Rugby being what it is these days, being led by the kiwis of course, tends to be in some players minds, a contest of who can cheat the best. If you make cheating a potentially heavy cost, less players will ‘try it on’ perhaps. It might be a cleaner, fairer more free flowing contest. I don’t think it would become sterile as players would soon adjust to playing smarter and with more discipline. It’s not usually a team ‘constructing’ a penalty, tho they may try to put enough pressure on to force one, it is usually the other team negatively pushing their luck hoping to get away with it which kills the spirit and flow of the game. Some teams might spend the whole game trying to force penalties rather than score tries but I think the players would eventually get sick to death of such a negative approach to the game so it should self correct.
    It might be better than a yellow card and one team going to one man down. In Super XV and tests, being one man down usually means the game as a competitive exciting spectacle is over, except for bumbling incompetent teams like the Welsh of course.

  • http://BigFella Big Fella

    I think we could take a lesson from other sports.

    When developments in Golf technology (clubs and balls) meant that courses were being monstered, the R&A mandated changes to save the game, and thousands of golf courses. They restricted the ball’s distance capability and introduced new restrictions on clubs
    Athletics had to shorten and add width to the Javelin when too many throwers through it onto the running track.

    Today, the rugby ball travels too far in the air, enabling most teams to have kickers who can kick goals from around 55m out.

    Not too long ago these goals could only be kicked by freaks or at altitude.
    The game of rugby has changed as a result of the great scoring chance that comes with a penalty anywhere in opposition half, or sometimes even further from goal.

    Teams kick away from their try line because ‘bad things happen’ in your own half and the game offers referees a multitude of options to award penalties.
    Today the reward of running the ball is grossly outweighed by the risk of conceding a penalty goal and 3 points.

    If the rugby ball was restricted from travelling any further than say 40m in the air, I’d suggest this would have a massive positive impact on the game as a whole, and scoring could perhaps stay the way it is currently.

    • saulih

      I love to watch guys that can slot it from 55mm out – remember you not only have to make the distance but also get it between the sticks. I would think that would extra incentive enough for a defending team to not infringe.

      The real issue is purposeful infringements closer to the try line. That is the danger area that defending teams are rationalizing the intentional penalty versus continued defense.

      IMO more of these penalties should be deemed cynical and have the ref reach for his pocket. 14 men for 10 is a big disincentive.

  • ian

    Great read. But I reckon the points system doesn’t need to change.

    The objectives of change in the game seem to be 1. Make it easier for try-oriented teams to win games and 2. Reduce the amount of time spent on penalty kick to-ing and fro-ing.

    A rule change might do that: if a penalty shot is taken and missed, option of a lineout adjacent to where the kick was taken, with the throw to the defending team.

    Like I said, it MIGHT work. I think the main issue with all of these ideas is the law of unintended consequences, such as where defending teams ‘game’ the rule change with increased infringements etc.

  • murph

    Penalty = 2 points and team awarded penalty gets free kick/scrum from point of penalty no matter the outcome of the shot at goal. That will stop cynical infringements to prevent a try

    • murph

      Or, of a try is scored whilst advantage is being played, it’s worth 7 and a kick to come

      • JimmyC

        Great idea. It pisses me off watching a game and the defending team offends multiple times (advantage called but penalty not blown) then all is forgotten if a try is scored. The ref should still be going for the pocket but they never do.

  • muppet

    The one thing that has worked really well in recent times is the bonus point system. How about awarding bonus points DURING the game? e.g the 3rd try worth double.

  • Zeno

    At the level of principle I’m concerned about making adjustments to the laws to try to get an effect for spectators at the senior/pro/elite level, when 99-point-something per cent of rugby is played by, and for the challenge of, amateur players.

    That said, I’m totally behind the idea that the laws should be geared to encourage try-scoring efforts and keep goals of all kinds as secondary scores. And I too would like to see more than 30 minutes of play in provincial and international matches.

    I think we need more consideration of what offences warrant full penalties and what the proper sanctions are. Some time ago rugby league introduced the ‘differential penalty’ — no kicks at goal allowed for penalties for scrum offences. There’s merit in that idea. Rugby’s recent ELVs and short-arm penalties come to mind. Some shit simply isn’t bad enough to be punished with three points on the scoreboard; losing 30 metres of field position is the right price.

    One change I would like to see to penalty shots: no taking the ball back upfield for a better angle. You can’t walk off the spot for a tap-kick, you can’t move infield to give a wider angle for a touch-finder… so why should goal-kickers get the break? Take the kick from the spot of the offence; if it’s too close to the goal line, that’s a sign your captain should be calling for a scrum or a planned move from a tap.

  • newrebel

    Great suggestion! I 100% agree, and for one reason that overrides all other factors. The ‘attacking’ strategy of looking for a penalty needs to be erased from the game.
    Once again, great suggestion!

  • newrebel

    oops, sorry, only read page one. I like the 3 point conversion and 2 point penalty and drop goal.
    Need the time after tries for beers:) Or can’t they just stop the clock for conversions and penalties?!

  • saulih

    I do think that the importance of goal kicking should be upheld – if purely to preserve some of the roots of the game. I might be the minority here BUT when the goal kickers are good, I don’t mind watching them take their shots. How many games have seesawed back and forth due to goalkicks. Some of those games have been quite a spectacle. Now when they are bad… that is a different story… maybe points awarded should be reduced for a goal kicker if they continually miss ie after two misses they only get 1 pt for a penalty goal.

    I do like the idea of stopping the clock at the time of the conversion (not penalty kicks) – but giving them a 90 sec shot clock. Time would restart at kickoff.

  • Tight5

    I reckon a penalty kick within your attacking 50m should be 2 points and if u can slot anything over 50m you get 3

  • http://BigFella Big Fella

    Houston we have a problem.

    Of late there have been more goals scored in Football World Cup Finals than tries in Rugby World Cup Finals.

    If we wish to leave the scoring the same, then changes to rules (or interpretations by referees) surely must come in to our game.

  • Craige

    There is nothing wrong with the current points system. The real problem for me is the complexity of the laws. I feel 2 things can be done to solve this problem.
    1 Simplify or eliminated really technical laws.
    2. Plug the the match officials mics in to the Ground PA system and have the refs explain there calls when they are awarded. This point alone would encourage new people to the game hand enable them pick up hand understand the laws. I always fined it funny when professional commentators are scratching there heads and wondering what just happened.

  • Phil

    I think there needs to be a physical limit on where penalties can be kicked from, such as within 30m of the posts. The penalty should be in recognition that the opposition has done something to disrupt your ability to score a try, a hard arguement to make when you are 50m out. If you are outside of that 30 m distance, the option should be kick for touch and take your chances with an attacking lineout.

    • murph

      That will simply see a massive number of infringements occur around the border of that limit

  • Nabley

    An interesting article. Given the history of what a Try actually is, I would hate to see the loss of an attempt at goal. However, I am also concerned about time wasted and out of play and what alternatives can be structured. I would be really happy to see doing away with place kicks (as we did for kick-offs) and make all point scoring for goals, be from drop kicks. Secondly, make all kicks count the same; ie field goal, conversion or penalty. Thirdly because we have seen too many game results dictated by the vagaries of refereeing under our present laws, and then often in the last moments of a game, make all goals two points to decrease the probability of games being decided on a referees whim.

  • PeterFalk

    So let me get this straight. You guys want to give NZ another advantage by letting them spoil your ball conceding less points while they can run at you with the knowledge that the opposition will get YC doing the same.

    As for drop goals. Are they really a problem? Do sides go week in week out and pop them over for wins? Are they easy to pop over? If they were then matches should have been won week in week out by DG’s.

    Why do teams pop them over? Maybe because running 13 phases against a brick wall isn’t working so at least you can have something for your effort. For attacking side they gained 3 defending team saved 4. See there is a nice balance.

    Running rugby is nice but throwing the ball pointless from left to right is not. That is not running rugby. Then you need to stop being selfish. Lower tier teams and developing nations as well as new comers do not have the skill level of Aus or NZ. You want to tell them right you are not going to lose 140 – 9 anymore but 160 -0 great running rugby bad for developing nations

  • Lee Grant

    A good blog Scott and a revolutionary idea. People will explain carefully why it won’t work but as Andre Watson indicated: you don’t know how changes are going to work unless you try them.

    As an aside only and not to the main point: making the effect of an average try 7 points instead of 6+ as it is now will increase cynical play marginally at the try line but it will claw back a lot of the time lost.

    The thing to correct it is to be stricter with the cards. That is one of the things I would have put in the latest law trials or rather, the latest law crackdowns, because the use of cards is too lax.

    But your idea? Give it a go and if it is proved wrong so be it. Then try Plan B.

Close