More Law Changes?

Quite an interesting piece on Planet Rugby about refereeing.

http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16016_7338280,00.html

It points out the trial which will take place in South Africa, changing the points awarded to 2 for a penalty/drop goal, and 3 for a conversion, with a try remaining a five point score. It also puts forward a suggestion to attempt to reduce cynical offending to prevent a try -

'When a team concedes a penalty that is kicked for goal, and the kick is successful, the restart should be a scrum at the place of the infringement, with the put in to the non-offending team. This will mean that giving away a simple 2 point penalty does not remove the pressure from the defending team, if anything, it may increase it. However, it's not a simple take the kick at goal for the attacking team either, if they choose to kick for goal but miss, and the ball goes dead, the game restarts with a 22m drop out as it would normally'

Thoughts?

I think the scrum idea is innovative, but as Scotland fan the thought of only 2 points for a penalty fills me with dread...

The initial trial is purely for a 2 point Penalty or DG conversion, and an 8 point converted try.

I like the idea of an 8 point converted try, but 2 points for a penalty will not stop the endless cheating we see when teams try to kill opponents ball.

The scrum idea would possibly help that, but it's not part of the initial trial.

The idea is clearly to promote creative attacking rugby with the promise of 8 points on offer for a dot down under the posts, but if a team is going to get penalised a maximum of 2 points I don't see that as anything more than an incentive to cheat, the chances are your opponent will kick for touch anyway as 2 points is barely worth the effort.

Although we all like to see trys scored, that shouldn't be at the expense of making cheating more attractive.

With the current balance 3 kickable penalties conceeded will negate the points scored from a converted try and create a one point swing in the score, if this trial is introduced 4 kickable penalties would leave both teams on a par and a fifth will only produce a 2 point swing; that's a license to cheat I reckon.

PJHolybloke wrote:The initial trial is purely for a 2 point Penalty or DG conversion, and an 8 point converted try.

I like the idea of an 8 point converted try, but 2 points for a penalty will not stop the endless cheating we see when teams try to kill opponents ball.

The scrum idea would possibly help that, but it's not part of the initial trial.

The idea is clearly to promote creative attacking rugby with the promise of 8 points on offer for a dot down under the posts, but if a team is going to get penalised a maximum of 2 points I don't see that as anything more than an incentive to cheat, the chances are your opponent will kick for touch anyway as 2 points is barely worth the effort.

Although we all like to see trys scored, that shouldn't be at the expense of making cheating more attractive.

With the current balance 3 kickable penalties conceeded will negate the points scored from a converted try and create a one point swing in the score, if this trial is introduced 4 kickable penalties would leave both teams on a par and a fifth will only produce a 2 point swing; that's a license to cheat I reckon.

At the risk of making myself look like fool a try is 7 points and 3 pens is 9 points no? thats a two point swing?

I think the 8 points for a converted try is a good idea but I'm not sure about it, I do like the idea for the scrum after the penalty, although teams worry worry as much if they have a strong scrum. The 2 points for the penalty is just plain stupid and will make things much worse.

Badly worded on my behalf Irish, I was liking the idea of an 8 point try so the current balance of a 3 point penalty would produce a 1 point swing etc.

Reading back that's not what it says though. My bad.

I'm not sure. Surely reducing the value of a penalty will just reduce the incentive not to infringe, leading to slower ball all round.

If I were to change the laws I would like to see the introduction of non-convertible (ie you can't kick them at goal) penalties for certain offences, coupled with the increased use of yellow cards, or even shorter sin-binnings (five minutes perhaps). I think this would maintain or increase the deterrent effect provided by the current system, while ensuring fewer matches are decided by penalties.

At the moment what I hate is when, for example – a team score an unconverted try in the corner try after five minutes of patient build-up. A lock goes to collect the restart in front of his posts, the ball goes forward, a player on his team instinctively catches the ball – penalty. 3 points handed back to the opposition. That's not going to attract new fans to the game and it even seems wrong to established fans like me. If we need to penalise such offences then a kick to touch should be enough.

Wild idea that I haven't thought through fully.

What if we reduced the value of a try. Right now the reason people infringe is that they don't want to concede a try. If you put a penalty worth 2 points and a try worth 3 with chance of a 2 point conversion then:

- Players will be more anxious about conceding penalties
- Players will put less emphasis on defence

It could lead to less penalties and more tries.

Its always swings and roundabouts.
If penalty goals become more valuable then teams start playing for territory and possesion rather than risking for tries ( see the ELVs for a smilar problme,)
Why risk losing posession trying flashy back moves when you can pick and drive in the opoosition 22 without fear of losing the ball, the get an easily kickable penalty for 2 points, a possible yellow card, and an attacking scrum?
I really think the balance is about right now between penalising foul play and not over balancing things in favour of the PK. Things went a bit screwy at the world cup with the inconsistent balls of course but tahts another issue.

You don't need to change the points. Just get strict on the defences with the existing rules. More yellow cards should be brandished for cynical defensive play. And give a little bit more leeway to the attacking team. For example give a tackled player a second or two extra to hold onto the ball while his teams mates get to the ruck.

All it takes is for referee's to consistently favour attacking play season after season. This incentive will result in more attacking, try scoring rugby. There should always be a place for up the jumper, strangling rugby though if you ask me. There's a skill to it and certain teams have a culture of being very good at it. What annoys me is when a team has the necessary firepower behind the pack but they don't use it due to fear.

Do people not agree that too many offences are punished by kickable penalties though?

Take another example – offside from a kick. A flay-half goes for a crossfield kick inside his own half. The winger catches it, but is adjudged to have been marginally offside. A penalty is given and those three points win the game. Isn't that a hugely unsastisfying way to decide a hard-fought contest? Why do we need to give kickable penalties for such offences?

You do have a point. Like I said earlier there should be more leeway given to the attacking team. But defensive fouls have to be punished to discourage them.

how about only non kickable penalties for all infringments conceded by the attaching side (side in posession)? might encourage teams to do some kamikaze attacking from their own 22 without fear of giving away 3 points for a silly sealing off offense.

That would be an idea. For some attacking infringements anyway. The example you gave of an offside not being a kickable penalty isn't a bad idea. The team just loses possession.

I just think some things need to be tweaked slightly in favour of attacking play. Large scale rule changes can have unintended consequences. The ELVs famously resulted in more kicking ping pong.

Any changes should be small, well thought through, trialed comprehensively at a lower level and the results analysed properly. If it has the intended consequences of more free flowing rugby then give it the green light.

An interesting discussion. I like the idea of the restart after a penalty being a scrum at the point of the offence as it would be an extra deterrent to deliberate offences to prevent tries but the example of the wing being offside from a cross kick is too simplistic. I agree that a marginal decision when a wing is a few inches in front of the kicker gives an undeserved advantage to the defending side but where do you draw the line - 6 inches?, a foot? a yard? One mystery to me is that in my younger days (1930's) it was a serious sin to "tackle" a player without the ball but it is now normal practice when clearing out a ruck, also a player in front of the ball was considered to be offside and the present dummy runners would not have been tolerated.

I like the idea of the restart after a penalty being a scrum at the
point of the offence as it would be an extra deterrent to deliberate
offences to prevent tries but the example of the wing being offside from
a cross kick is too simplistic. I agree that a marginal decision when a
wing is a few inches in front of the kicker gives an undeserved
advantage to the defending side but where do you draw the line - 6
inches?, a foot? a yard?

I'm not suggesting play should be waved on if the offside is only marginal – merely that 3 points is perhaps too much of a punishment for what was in all likelihood an unintentional offence.

Why not punish offsides like that, and other similar offences, with non-convertable penalties?

My position is I'd rather see games decided by attacking play (tries or drop goals) than penalties flowing from refereeing decisions, which we all know can be hard to fathom at times. It doesn't seem right that games can so often be decided by the whim of the officiator.

BUT I also recognise penalties are a necessary evil if we want to keep rucking (I do) and set pieces (I do) and other integral parts of rugby union, which otherwise would be plagued by spoiling play.

I just think they are awarded too frequently. It would be a more satisfying game to watch and a fairer game to play if we had fewer three-point kicks at goal.

Remember all the people who didn't like the "short arm" ELVS

Remember all the people who didn't like the "short arm" ELVS

I think people didn't like that because it reduced the importance of the set piece and moved union towards league. The penalties I'm proposing you could still kick to touch so if anything would increase the importance of lineouts.

The problem with "short arms" or minors is that refs get too easily sucked into dishing them out at every breakdown and remove that contest from the game. Its not just scrums and lineouts that go but also sides stop committing to the breakdown if the feel they will simply be penalised for trying to win the ball so you end up with spread defence waiting for a mistake form that attack and very dull rugby....unless you add in a phase limit like league and maybe get rid of the flankers ....hang on

12 months ago enforcing the "tackler release" strictly was enough to get the game flowing and encourage the use of quick ball by attacks, i dont see any need to do anything other than reiterate that. I was very suprised at the world cup to see how laxly this was reffed in many games.

Someone on the old 606 suggested a sliding scale for penalties, which I liked. Something like:

Successful kicks at goal from penalties won in opposition 22: 4 points
Successful kicks at goal from penalties won between opposition 22 and 10m line: 3 points
Successful kicks at goal from penalties won before opposition 10m line and halfway line: 2 points

That way teams who are fairly deep are encouraged to go for the corner with the potential for a 4, 5 or 7 pointer, while teams who are defending their own 22 have a disincentive to give away penalties. In my opinion 2 points is too few a number to put on all penalties (the number of penalties given would rocket), and almost all 3-point penalties given away in the 22 are kicked now (unless the team is chasing a 4+ point deficit), so why not add this extra disincentive for defending teams to cheat?

With the two point penalties, if you are kicking from the 10m line and miss, you are likely to get the ball back from the 22 drop out (or a regular clearance kick) around the 10m line, so it's almost a shot at nothing, if you get it you get 3 points and if you miss it you can just catch it, run with it and have another go. Reducing these kicks to 2 points will see more teams go for the corner, unless they are 1 point down or the clock is in red time before the half, or a scenario like that.