IRB approves point experimentation in South Africa for 2012.

sport 24 has reported that the Varsity Cup, the premier Tertiary rugby competition in South Africa will experiment with a new points system for the 2012 season.

due to a special dispensation by the IRB, the Varsity Cup organisers have changed the value of different scoring methods to.

Try remains at 5 points.
Conversion becomes 3 points.
Penalty changes to 2 points.
Drop goals changes to 2 points.

The intention is to put the focus on try scoring and cement a culture of try scoring for entertainment purposes, however they feel the need is still there to recognise the kicker and hence he is awarded by increasing the value of the conversion.

South African Referees Manager André Watson expressed his delight at this latest trial - despite being aware of the hard work that lay ahead for everyone involved.

"We have a great relationship with the Varsity Cup when it comes to trialing and experimenting with good ideas," said Watson, "but, as usual, this trial involves plenty of hard work. We will be keeping dedicated statistics and monitor the results as the tournament goes along.

"There is a possibility that we could pay a price somewhere along the line in a bid to create more tries, but we will be having a briefing with the various Varsity Cup Rugby coaches and referees in late January and we will have to up-skill everyone and we aware of the potential pitfalls.

"The key, however, is that you'll never know something until you try it. One would think this experiment would definitely lead to more tries... but you'd also imagine that a few more penalties will be conceded on purpose... the exciting part is that we'll soon see for ourselves how this works out."

hopefully this works. The way I see it is one converted try is equal to four drop goals and penalties and should therefor prove that rugby is still a game won by the teams scoring the tries. Just wonder how they are going to manage the infringements, breakdowns will be even tougher to manage when teams know they will concede 8 points, and might want to concede only 2.

That's interesting. What are the coaches at that level like Biltong? Do you expect to see different attitudes from the off, or will it more likely start the same as this year and evolve?

We could use something like this in reverse. 10 points for winning a scrum against the feed.

boomeranga, I don't think there will be a huge difference in attitude, the Varsity cup has always produced good rugby, I think this experimentation might lead to perhaps seeing the vodacom cup try it in 2013.

If you look at the number of tries scored during the Currie Cup this year, our problem lies at the top.

In 64 matches during the pool round, there was 369 tries. Averaging 5.76 tries per match.

Even the team that came last and won only 1 game (Leopards) scored 32 tries in their 14 matches.

The Varsity cup this year produced 166 tries in 28 matches. that is 5.92 tries per match.

I see a few potential problems but overall its not a bad thing to try out.

Hi ya biltong on a more positive thread. The one thing that has always concerned is the droppng of the penalty can lead to more reckless infringing. Who would bother kicking a penalty when 8-0 down.
Defences would be key and they wouldnt care if they gave penalties away. Just not tries
Good place to trial it though.

Interesting to see the results of this, both in terms of actual match results and whether or not it appears to have an affect on how teams play the game. I have had a look at last weekends Heineken Cup matches to see how this scoring system would have changed the results if at all, and here are the results

	Result	Tries	New Result
Glasgow Warriors vs. Bath Rugby	26-21	2-0	24-14
Saracens vs. Benetton Treviso	42-17	5-2	43-18
Toulouse vs. Gloucester	21-17	2-2	19-18
Aironi Rugby vs. Leicester Tigers	12-28	0-3	8-27
London Irish vs. Edinburgh	19-20	1-2	16-20
Montpellier vs. Leinster	16-16	1-1	14-14
Scarlets vs. Castres Olympique	31-23	3-2	29-22
Ospreys vs. Biarritz Olympique	28-21	1-2	22-19
Ulster Rugby vs. ASM Clermont Auvergne	16-11	1-1	14-9
Munster vs. Northampton Saints	23-21	2-2	22-19
Harlequins vs. Connacht	25-17	1-2	20-18
Racing Metro 92 vs. Cardiff Blues	20-26	1-2	15-24

As the table hopefully illustrates, the change in scoring system only has an effect on four matches in terms of match points for each team, and they are as follows.

Glasgow vs. Bath - Bath lose their LBP, having been outscored by 2 tries to 0.

Scarlets vs. Castres - Castres actually gain the LBP which they did not have previously, despite losing 2-3 on the try count.

Harlequins vs. Connacht - Connacht gain the LBP which they did not have previously, having outscored Quins by 2 tries to 1.

Racing Metro vs. Cardiff Blues - Rcaing Metro lose their LBP, having been outscored by 2 tries to 1.

The only slight anomoly is the Castres gain despite losing on the try count, but given that they scored 2 tries in a high scoring game, perhaps this is actually a fair reflection.

I will be really interested to see the results of this experiment, in terms of how match results are affected and also as a comparison with last years varsity tournament in relation to tries scored and penalties conceded etc.

I'd like to think this was positive but if you really wanted to get rid of penalties you should push the point difference the other way and see how many 'deliberate' penalties happen then.

So - small penalty offense for 2 points or let the guy run in for 8? .....

I'm afraid with this tinkering of points scoring we make the game, as already mentioned, more defence minded, 2 points to 8.

Being a few times, in big games, against the boks and obviously in the RWC finals, on receiving ends of drop goals and once when we won it with one, I'm in 2 minds as to what a drop goal is worth. three points may seem a lot but for sure, there's pressure doing one!! Well cept for Stiene form 50 yards out of course!! !LOL!

I would rather we stick to the points sysem as it is.

Sounds like piece by piece the IRB want to turn our game into rugby league.

I am undecided, firstly I think our domestic rugby is healthy in the game plan and focus to score tries.

Our problem has been our national team has always had the tendency to want to play defence orientated rugby, which they are good at. I don't want us to play rugby league as then rugby union will lose its identity.

But I do want to see our backs be a little more adventurous.

Tries are great but here I tend to side with the NH supporters. rugby's not all about tries, but the grinding down and kicks at goals gained from pressure is as much part of the game, as the free flowing games we usually have in the S14s.

Tinkering around the edges is not the answer,a major overhaul of the rules is required.What has proven not to be successful should be dumped,Offside and Scrum /Maul/Breakdown needs closely looking at.
Returning to setting Scrums by row,the original Ruck,and banning Lineout lifting,plus offside being strictly policed would all help but that is just a fantasy never happen.
Once long ago Freddie the Needle Allen took over Coaching the All Blacks.
He inherited a highly sucessful side but it played in a style he disliked.Fergie McCormacK.was a key player great tackler,counter attacker but indifferent Goalkicker.Allen made him a great one,he knew what he wanted.
He was an expert on back play,and a strict discliperian even Colin Meads jumped when the Needle spoke.
He knew nothing about Forward Play,during team talks they stood around with there hands in there pockets.
BUT He knew a man who did,and was wise enough to consult him,the legend Victor Cavanagh JR.
Cavanagh told himthis simple truth,Forwards win the ball,quick feed backs score trys.
Today Rugby Union is now a Union/League hybrid,skilful ball players mean nothing.
Midfield is cluttered with heavy crash ball merchants,wingers converted fullbacks safe under the high ball.
What is the ultimate in attack player A boots ball to player B catches the Ball ,but is tackled.
Both teams jump on each other in a heap called laughingly a ruck,or counter ruck.
IF there is not a penalty given for any of about a dozen offences given,or a scrum awarded.
The ball lies at the base of this mess,scrum half waits half an hour,has a cup of tea,then passes to another behemoth.
Who moves a yard then goes again,this is "Going thru the Phases","Making sure were in place for the next phase" or "Running down the clock"
When a quick trans ference,or cross kick may lead to a try,out wide League style defences.
Mean try nothing,go from one phase to another ,who cares how you win as long as you win.
Isn`t that the idea of the bonus system to encourage tries,before messing with scoring systems.
Get all Referees world wide singing from the same hymn sheet instead of SH and NH going there own way and endless whinginng about it.

Not sure about this,. The obvious argument is that it will lead to more penalties to avoid tries, which thenm puts the focus back on as trong scrum and lineout (less treams will opt to kick for goal) . Do we wont the game to be about the set piece,e speciallya the scrium is such a contentious and difficult ot ref area.
The counter is to say issue more cards, again is that a good thing for the game? I dont think it is.

Is there that much of a problem with the game being penalty/DG focussed? Id say not really. Theres plenty enough tries these days, many more than there was a few years ago. The current ruleset does favour attacking with teh ball in hand.
The only exception to this was the world cup, and always is. Theres something about world cups that makes teams obsessed with 3 pointers ( even when they cant kick the bakll steraight). Its like they go into every game assuming it will be tight and decided by one kick, so want to get that kick at every opportunity. The reffing there this time was also interesting, the idea of having to immediatly release the tackled player and the tacklee immediatly play the ball seemed to be abondoned for some reason. Get back to reffing the game as it was 12 months ago and theres no need for this tinkering, if anything tries were getting too easy to come by.

If you increase the value of the try you increase the importnace of stopping the other team scoring. That leads to as much of a defensive mindset as it does an attacking one. Remeber the ELVs? Completly the opposite effect to the one intended.

lostinwales wrote:I'd like to think this was positive but if you really wanted to get rid of penalties you should push the point difference the other way and see how many 'deliberate' penalties happen then.

So - small penalty offense for 2 points or let the guy run in for 8? .....

They tried that in the Stellenbosch trials. They gave penalties the value of either 6 or 8 points (I can't remember which). I think that just led to very negative rugby, i.e. just play simple stuff, keep the ball in hand and try to force a penalty by just repeatedly bosching it up field.

Perhaps someone else who remembers this can elucidate? It was around the time of the pesky ELVs

Can't help thinking it is a cheats charter - more penalties, les tries and less entertainment will be the result.

We need to differentiate between certain levels of penalties - with certain penalties being more points not less

To me, the fact that has boosted the kicking game at the expense of running is that kickers are now stronger, better and with much more range. This is one of the biggest evolutions since the advent of professionalism.

To me, I would leave the points alone and move the posts to the back of the try zone. Simply makes kicks longer. The NFL did that about thirty years ago to great effect.

Dr grey, that would just look really wierd.

Like a frog with eyes on tentacles.

So you saw one of my olde girlfriends?

They should leave the rules alone. They are fine as they are.

The biggest problem facing the game is the referees not applying the existing rules consistantly.

As Geoff says 2 points for a penalty or drop goals will only encourage the defending team to commit cynical penalties.

doctor_grey wrote:So you saw one of my olde girlfriends?

Well, i wouldn't exactly call them frogs.

screamingaddabs wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I'd like to think this was positive but if you really wanted to get rid of penalties you should push the point difference the other way and see how many 'deliberate' penalties happen then.

So - small penalty offense for 2 points or let the guy run in for 8? .....

They tried that in the Stellenbosch trials. They gave penalties the value of either 6 or 8 points (I can't remember which). I think that just led to very negative rugby, i.e. just play simple stuff, keep the ball in hand and try to force a penalty by just repeatedly bosching it up field.

Perhaps someone else who remembers this can elucidate? It was around the time of the pesky ELVs

I guess though thats one plus with a system that encourages going for the try ahead of hanging around trying to draw a penalty though. Endless pick and drive and refusal to contest the ball by the defence for fear of conceeding is not good rugby. Although some may see reducing the value of a penalty as being a "cheats charter" you could counter that by saying it forces teams in defence and attack to get on with the game and take risks.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I'd like to think this was positive but if you really wanted to get rid of penalties you should push the point difference the other way and see how many 'deliberate' penalties happen then.

So - small penalty offense for 2 points or let the guy run in for 8? .....

They tried that in the Stellenbosch trials. They gave penalties the value of either 6 or 8 points (I can't remember which). I think that just led to very negative rugby, i.e. just play simple stuff, keep the ball in hand and try to force a penalty by just repeatedly bosching it up field.

Perhaps someone else who remembers this can elucidate? It was around the time of the pesky ELVs

I guess though thats one plus with a system that encourages going for the try ahead of hanging around trying to draw a penalty though. Endless pick and drive and refusal to contest the ball by the defence for fear of conceeding is not good rugby. Although some may see reducing the value of a penalty as being a "cheats charter" you could counter that by saying it forces teams in defence and attack to get on with the game and take risks.

True, but it's actually pretty hard to predict exactly what any given law change will do - a rugby match is a highly unpredictable model to simulate really, a fairly chaotic system. Changing one factor can have a massive knock on effect on everything else. For that reason I think trials like the one described can be useful.

I don't think the amount of tries scored is a particular concern though. I think they could perhaps spend time trying to simplify the rules to make it easier for the referees or simply apply the current ones to an exacting standard, with more definition of what each offence really is. There is too much "referees judgement" at the moment.

I think we all agree, well I do anyway, the laws don't need changing really, nor the points system.

Just need to be reffed consistently and strictly, in that cut out crocked feeds and throws, forward passes, offsides etc.

If we take the hit away form the scrums is prob the only one I would like to be brought back, maybe along with rucking.

But that could never happen cause it will mean going backwards, and so the IRB will be admitting it has made a mistake, therefore I can see the only way forward for them is more changes, never going back to what will work.

screamingaddabs wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

screamingaddabs wrote:

lostinwales wrote:I'd like to think this was positive but if you really wanted to get rid of penalties you should push the point difference the other way and see how many 'deliberate' penalties happen then.

So - small penalty offense for 2 points or let the guy run in for 8? .....

They tried that in the Stellenbosch trials. They gave penalties the value of either 6 or 8 points (I can't remember which). I think that just led to very negative rugby, i.e. just play simple stuff, keep the ball in hand and try to force a penalty by just repeatedly bosching it up field.

Perhaps someone else who remembers this can elucidate? It was around the time of the pesky ELVs

I guess though thats one plus with a system that encourages going for the try ahead of hanging around trying to draw a penalty though. Endless pick and drive and refusal to contest the ball by the defence for fear of conceeding is not good rugby. Although some may see reducing the value of a penalty as being a "cheats charter" you could counter that by saying it forces teams in defence and attack to get on with the game and take risks.

True, but it's actually pretty hard to predict exactly what any given law change will do - a rugby match is a highly unpredictable model to simulate really, a fairly chaotic system. Changing one factor can have a massive knock on effect on everything else. For that reason I think trials like the one described can be useful.

I don't think the amount of tries scored is a particular concern though. I think they could perhaps spend time trying to simplify the rules to make it easier for the referees or simply apply the current ones to an exacting standard, with more definition of what each offence really is. There is too much "referees judgement" at the moment.

Yeah if you go back to my previous post oin this topic youll find I widely agree with that. The ELVs were a classic example of tinkering having the exact opposite effect of the one intended. Outside the WC try scoring is prolific enough for me.

I agree withtehe simplification of teh laws, although for teh most part they are pretty concise and easy to undertand. Its mostly the set pieces and tactical kicking where it starst to get bogged down.
The refs discretion is an interesting one, but then ask your average Welsh fan wehat they think about rigidly defined standards for what cosntitutes a dangerous tip tackle.

I have to go back to the NFL again. Not only did they move their goal posts to the back of the end zone/in goal, but they experiment with rules changes regularly. They keep what works and discard what doesn't. pragmatic. I don't think they have ever changed the points though.

I think it is good we have a group in South Africa which is willing to experiement with different laws or laws interpretation. I am a firm believer in challenging the status quo, even if the net result is to simply validate the current system. Personally, I don't like changing the points, but it is good to try these things.

If the penalty's value goes down to two obviously there will be more encouragement to cheat. How about every third or fourth penalty in your own half gets a yellow? You'd need something to dissuade the lawbreakers.

disneychilly wrote:If the penalty's value goes down to two obviously there will be more encouragement to cheat. How about every third or fourth penalty in your own half gets a yellow? You'd need something to dissuade the lawbreakers.

but that might encourage sides to keep picking and drivveing and playing for penalties rather than risking possesion trying to score.

Its easier to defned in your opponents 22 with the ball than it is your own, and even easier gain if the opposition get carded simply for being in their own for too long.
Theres already too many cards in rugby anyway IMO. Time was a penalty used to be sufficent punishment, now suddenly occassional yellows and reds arent. If you start dishing them out too easily then you need more reds for the really bad offences, and then the reall really bad ones need even harsher ones ( points deduction?) and youll end up with a sevens game.

Obviously Im exagertting the point but any tinkering seems to get into an old lady who swallowed the fly situation. The head scratcher with all this is that their isnt anything strikingly wrong with the balance of the current ruleset in terms of teh amount of attacking play and tries scored ( although any sport that allows Wales to reach a WC semi final must have question maks over it)

The only points change I would consider is dropping (excuse the pun) drop goals to 2 points. As we've seen in the past every so often a monster drop from anywhere kind of guy comes along and then you get negative rugby keep ball rugby until super-boot is in range.

Wouldn't mind doctor_grey's idea of moving the posts back. That would encourage teams who have a penalty around the middle of the park to kick for touch more, thus hopefully creating more try's against the team committing the fouls.

B91212 wrote:
Wouldn't mind doctor_grey's idea of moving the posts back.

Jonny Wilkinson would be going for the drop goal from inside the try zone......

roddersm wrote:

B91212 wrote:
Wouldn't mind doctor_grey's idea of moving the posts back.

Jonny Wilkinson would be going for the drop goal from inside the try zone......

And based on this years WC would probably only be 50/50 to land it!

B91212 wrote:The only points change I would consider is dropping (excuse the pun) drop goals to 2 points. As we've seen in the past every so often a monster drop from anywhere kind of guy comes along and then you get negative rugby keep ball rugby until super-boot is in range.

Wouldn't mind doctor_grey's idea of moving the posts back. That would encourage teams who have a penalty around the middle of the park to kick for touch more, thus hopefully creating more try's against the team committing the fouls.

I'd like to see a missed drop goal mean a scrum back from the place the ball was kicked,I don't think a team deserves to contest a 22 dropout just because someone took a punt at goal.
There's no real need to move the posts back just make the balls heavier,this would make every type of kicking harder.

When in comes to the points, if it ain't broke don't fix it, its as simple as that.
Moving the goalpost would be interesting, but would like that stop something like Munster did against Saints, I don't think anything would have. Also, wasn't that exciting? Exciting rugby is not all about scoring 5 trys in a match, some of the greatest matchs have had only one or two trys in them. Yes trys are good, but they are not the be all and end all.