Changes to the scoring of kicks at goal to be trialled

[Lee Grant]

Some people have argued that a try should be worth more points, and/or penalty and drop goals should be worth fewer. That would result in more tries being scored; it was a no-brainer.

Others, like yours truly, have warned folks to be aware of unintended consequences. At present some teams are happy to give up 3 points instead of 5 or 7 near their goal line by being cynical; so if a penalty kick was worth only 2 points they would do it a lot more. It would be different if the referees had a good record of dishing out yellow cards, this argument went, but they didn't.

Likewise increasing the points for a try should see goal line shenanigans escalate. Giving up 3 to save 6 or 8 would see cynical play on the increase and giving up only 2 would cause an epidemic.

Professional referees demonstrated their failure to issue yellow cards in the 2008 Super14 when the free kick ELV was trialled. That ELV failed as people said it would. This was frustrating because amateur referees in the 2007 Shute Shield and ARC gave out cards like Las Vegas card dealers and the free kick sanctions worked.

One didn't want to see another law change that depended on soft cock pro referees dishing out yellow cards.



Point changes for the 2012 Varsity Cup in the RSA

Organisers of the Varsity Cup have received dispensation from the IRB to change the points for kicks. These are the same folks who a few years back trialled an innovation wherein captains were allowed to get a few TMO reviews of incidents, as they could in the NFL.

In the 2012 VC trial, penalty kicks and drop goals will be worth only 2 points, but a conversion will be worth 3. On paper the goal line shenanigans should escalate but further out you could see teams kicking for touch rather than for goal.

I am all for trialling law changes because it's the only way you can see the practical effects of them. On the other hand, as we found out in the 2008 Super14, professional referees do not give out as many yellow cards as there should be, and knowing already what professional coaches will instruct their players to do near their goal line, we will have to see a trial in a pro season before we can form an opinion of the merits of the points change.

There is an article on the matter here:

http://www.varsitycup.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4644:varsity-cup-rugby-points-the-way-forward&catid=27:varsity-cup-news&Itemid=5
.

 

[Gagger]

At present some teams are happy to give up 3 points instead of 5 or 7 near their goal line by being cynical;

Which team(s) would that be Lee?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Worth a go - but I think the point you made once in response to a post of mine on this topic applies (which convinced me, I must say) : it is now more attractive for the defending team to infringe particularly beyond the 22.
I gather the white card they speak of was the review on the captain's call: not at all in favour as it will just sap momentum
Correct me if I'm wrong (not that such an invitation is needed on here) but during the Las Vegas era you write of we did not have the catch and release tackle laws - did we?
I saw the problem with the Vegas period as being that it often came to depend on whether the breakdown contester heard the refs call of "no hands now", or the equivalent. The consequence was that blokes were getting binned for cynical fouls that were first offences, arguably because of the lack of precision in the laws at the breakdown at that time.
Its possible that with the catch and release, which needs a bit of fine tuning, these laws, with the altered point system could open the game up.

 

[louie]

boo. please leave our beautiful game the way it is.

 

[dobduff11]

I don't like the sound of this at all!

 

[Inside Shoulder]

dobduff - is that a northern hemisphere bias against anything which it is hoped will see more tries in the game - or more precisely less penalty kicks eating 3+ minutes of game time each time they are opted for - or is the some other concern?

 

[Sully]

Inside Shoulder. Please try to stay on topic. This is a discussion about the new rule change trials not the old rule change trials. And before you start on about him bringing it up so your comment is legit it was an example of how refs can influence games not an invitation for you to change the subject and start an argument.

 

[Dan54]

Personally, I not a fan of changes at all. And no I not a NH supporter or anything, I just don't think a game is judged as being great or not by how many times someone pushes a ball onto ground over the tryline. I worry if we try to manufacture a game where tries a scored wemay just as well go watch Mungoball. If everone is too worried about the number of penalties taken at goal, perhaps one little tweek of rules could be any ball kicked dead from penalty or dropgoal could treated as normal and if kick is outside of 22 game could start with scrum from kick?? I am actually really keen on this for dropkicks, as dropkicking a ball dead is easy out when nothing on, and no not really keen on it re penalties, but would certainly make long range penalty goals very risky.

 

[Sully]

Sounds like a great idea Dan. I haven't heard it before. It would make you think twice about those 55 metre kicks.

 

[Dan54]

Cheers Sully, to be honest I probably not first to think of it, but have thought about it for dropkicks for some time, and when reading this thread it popped into head for penalties. Perhaps there is something to having a clear head whilst sitting here have liesurely brekkie on a sunday huh??:lmao:

 

[Sully]

Well at least one of us has a clear head!

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Inside Shoulder. Please try to stay on topic. This is a discussion about the new rule change trials not the old rule change trials. And before you start on about him bringing it up so your comment is legit it was an example of how refs can influence games not an invitation for you to change the subject and start an argument.

What does this refer to:
"Its possible that with the catch and release, which needs a bit of fine tuning, these laws, with the altered point system could open the game up."

A little bit of power sure goes a long way with you....in facT having re-read both my posts I think you have got an itchy trigger finger..both on topic one asking what about these current proposals dobduff doesn't like.
If you thought about it you might realse that the reference to old trials was to provide a context in which these changes might be judged....
What is your contribution to the topic?

 

[liquor box]

Professional referees demonstrated their failure to issue yellow cards in the 2008 Super14 when the free kick ELV was trialled. That ELV failed as people said it would. This was frustrating because amateur referees in the 2007 Shute Shield and ARC gave out cards like Las Vegas card dealers and the free kick sanctions worked.

I dont pretend to know every rule of the game, but is there scope to add a rule that list mandatory offences that require a card be issued? This means there would be no referee discression allowed, they would have a black and white rule that demands they give a card. To stop cards under this system at scrums I would bring the blind side touchie onto the field to stand opposite the referee to look for incorrect binding etc, it only seems to happen on the opposite side of the scrum to the referee, even when he switches sides. On a different note, I would like to see some sort of electronic device (metronome or beeper used at start of time trial in cycling) that beeps at a constant rate that replaces the referee calling out instructions on when to engage, this would allow for a universal timing for scrums instead of some referees having a longer pause than others. (ideally I would go to the old style of scrums without the current system of engaging, but cant see that happening)

I dont really like the idea of changing the points offered as I think it is a good system being used now. I would however change the advantage rule so that if you are recieving advantage for an infringment and attempt a drop goal and miss then you dont get the ball back, being in a position to score points is advantage enough.

 

[Slim 293]

I hope this is trialled, and then quickly buried in cement...

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I hope this is trialled, and then quickly buried in cement...

Why?

 

[yourmatesam]

Professional referees demonstrated their failure to issue yellow cards in the 2008 Super14 when the free kick ELV was trialled. That ELV failed as people said it would. This was frustrating because amateur referees in the 2007 Shute Shield and ARC gave out cards like Las Vegas card dealers and the free kick sanctions worked.

LG, as an amateur referee, I liked the ELV's as you had the option of giving full arm penalties if short arms weren't working and then escalating to cards if the long arms weren't working either.

I like the current full arm penalty better than the ELV's though because (if refereed well) they allow the ref to set standards, stick to them and if there are patterns developing, issue the appropriate sanction (penalty, chat to captain, cards).

Like you, I think that law changes often result in changes that weren't intended and I'm glad the ELV's are gone. Not sure what the effect of these trials will be, but it will be interesting to keep an eye on.

 

[dobduff11]

dobduff - is that a northern hemisphere bias against anything which it is hoped will see more tries in the game - or more precisely less penalty kicks eating 3+ minutes of game time each time they are opted for - or is the some other concern?

Well no.

Not really sure where you get the impression that people hate tries in Europe but oh well. The weather plays a huge part in the way we play up north, I'd quite like to see Quade Cooper attempt one of his 15m out the back passes in mid november at The Shed.

TBH (To be honest) I don't think the points scoring system needs tampering with, and you can't predict how this sort of change will affect how teams play.

Also tries aren't the only aspect of play which draw excitement. One of the main reasons why I think Rugby is better then football (soccer) is that the different phases of play make it more complex than just having one avenue of rewarding teams for their work.

 

[MrTimms]

also tries aren't the only aspect of play which draw excitement. One of the main reasons why i think rugby is better then football (soccer) is that the different phases of play make it more complex than just having one avenue of rewarding teams for their work.

qft.

 

[Slim 293]

Why?

Because there is absolutely nothing wrong with the current points system...

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Well no.

Not really sure where you get the impression that people hate tries in Europe but oh well. The weather plays a huge part in the way we play up north, I'd quite like to see Quade Cooper attempt one of his 15m out the back passes in mid november at The Shed.

TBH (To be honest) I don't think the points scoring system needs tampering with, and you can't predict how this sort of change will affect how teams play.

Also tries aren't the only aspect of play which draw excitement. One of the main reasons why I think Rugby is better then football (soccer) is that the different phases of play make it more complex than just having one avenue of rewarding teams for their work.

The impression is the result of the general reluctance up there, perceived down here, to do anything to put more tries in the game.
Your QC (Quade Cooper) point is well made.
The object of the game is to score tries. A frequent criticism I hear, mostly from occasional followers of union, is that (a) the laws are unfathomable (b) they are not applied consistently within a game and (c) an inconsistent interpretation frequently leads to an arguably undeserved penalty, 2 of which trump a try. Let's face it you even hear a version of this from commentators and coaches (when permitted to speak).
The beauty of new laws being trialled in a smaller environment is that you get to see some, but maybe not all, of the unintended consequences of the changes.