New scoring system to be trialled

http://www.rugbyworld.com/news/altered-scoring-system-to-be-tested-in-south-africa/

Complete madness, 3 points for a conversion and 2 points for penalty and drop goal will simply mean teams making more effort to kill the ball instead of risking conceding a try.

Teams already do it with 5-7 points for a try and 3 points for a penalty, so this will make the situation worse.

happy new year to all

i have no problem with 3 points for a conversion,good idea,i mean the game is about scoring tries,the carrot of a 3 point conversion on top can only be good for the game.as alyn pointed out a 2 point penalty would encourage foul play so keep a penalty at 3 points,a drop goal is a skill so worth 3 points imo.

Will be an interesting experiment...!

I have seen the value of a try change twice in my life time, it made very little difference to the game..

It is refereeing of the breakdown and set piece that needs looking at far more.

Interesting how this subject drew completely different reaction when first aired down here in New zealand.examples being:
That penalties kicked from your own half deserved to be rewarded with 3 points (Like the basketball attitiude of rewarding long range shots).
That teams when hard on attack and awarded a penalty would just turn down the shot at goal (opportunity at 2 points) and back themselves to keep the pressure on the opposition and the outcome would be a 5 or 8 pointer.
If teams developed a mentality of giving away proffessional fouls,because penalties were only worth 2 points then the repeat offending would only result in more yellow cards.

Experimenting with a few University sides is one thing making it work with professional sides is another.
Professional sides will always try and find ways around rugby laws.
It's not the laws that need to be changed it's how those laws are interpreted that needs reviewing we need more consistency in the way refs police the game.

Id have thought that from a national point of view that the Welsh would be the first Northern Hemisphere country to welcome the value of a converted try being increased to 8points.

Only a trial which even if deemed successful in this one instance won't necessarily spread through the ranks. Still, at first glance I don't like it. IMO a try should be scored essentially for five points with a bonus of two, not with the focus almost equally on the value of the conversion as on that of the actual try.

More obviously it looks like another attempt to rub out the drop-goal and discourage the penalty, which whatever you make of them are important parts of the game nonetheless. A DG takes effort and skill and it'd be sad to see the reward for that reduced.

On an interesting note Laurie, I'd have thought the NZ'ers more than most would appreciate the fact that a pen is worth 3 and a conversion just 2. Other way around and they wouldn't be world champs as we speak.

Knowsit
True these ideas have to be tested in a "controlled environment" and it may well be that opinions might change.
In the recent World Cup New Zealand kicked 25 conversions yet only kicked 15 penalties.

Admirable stats, though may as well have counted for nothing in the final as we saw. France kicked a conversion and NZ kicked none. NZ kicked a penalty and France kicked none. As it was the current points-scoring system told us the AB's won, if the system being discussed in this thread had counted France would be world champs. Just saying...

Knowsit
I'm not so sure I agree with you,if the system being discussed had been in effect at the World Cup the Final would have been between New Zealand and Wales.

Hehe, suppose you're right there

aucklandlaurie wrote: Knowsit
I'm not so sure I agree with you,if the system being discussed had been in effect at the World Cup the Final would have been between New Zealand and Wales.

Right changed my mind these rules should have been implemented months ago

Wasn't the last time that they tinkerd with the Rules was After 2003 rugby world cup to give the SH a fighting chance against the NH, or something like that.

So is the reason for this change of rule because another NH team got to the final of the Rugby World Cup? And if these changes had been implemented before the RWC started, would NZ still have won?

Why can't they just leave the rules alone, look at the mess it was the last time they started to make changes.

majesticimperialman wrote:Wasn't the last time that they tinkerd with the Rules was After 2003 rugby world cup to give the SH a fighting chance against the NH, or something like that.

So is the reason for this change of rule because another NH team got to the final of the Rugby World Cup? And if these changes had been implemented before the RWC started, would NZ still have won?

Why can't they just leave the rules alone, look at the mess it was the last time they started to make changes.

I can't stand the use of the smilie faces but after reading this post my sentiments are along the lines of the one with the bloke slapping his head and rolling his eyes...!

The scoring has meant little,drops were worth 4,tries 3,4,5 points ,penalties 3.At one time a try did`nt count unless it was converted,the object may well be tries.But the game is Rugby FOOTBALL.
Laws are changing as i understand it,the Forming up of the Scrum,and the Maul Law reverting to the team going forward winning the Scrum as pre 1991.
The Breakdown,and offside are the key ones,it is one thing to release the ball,and then roll away.Difficult if you are at the bottom of a pileup.There should be a standard ruling about this,some refs ping the defender some the attacker no consistency.The Classic Ruck returned would solve it lay on the ball and you get a shoeing.

I bet the Aussies are behind this.... Basically trying to it into rugby league.

South Africa actually... but you're right; we would probably vote for a 6 point try if it was on the table.

Every time the value of the try has increased the number of tries has decreased - because teams cheat more. (see Australia against SA in WC semi for the example of perfect cheating at the breakdown).

Reverting to possession given to the team going forward may help, as then at least we may tie up some of the players who otherwise overcrowd the pitch. RU already looks enough like RL - scrums fed in to the back row, uni-size players, forwards getting in teh way of backs. Soon we will have to remove two players to free up space.

After reading your posts I still maintain that the rules of the set piece and the breakdown need to be looked at more than the points awarded for scoring.

I want to see running rugby when I watch a match, I get that now. I don't want to see baffling decisions being made at scrums and breakdowns, referees lacking any consistency with the straightness of throw ins and scrum feeds, (blow up for all crocked or non, not just the one).

Referees need to work on their empathy. They need to be watching far too much, professional teams take that into account and play accordingly. Referees appear to favour the team in acendency and find fault with the opposition.

Linebreaker wrote:South Africa actually... but you're right; we would probably vote for a 6 point try if it was on the table.

Ah, but it is only being tested in South Africa. We don't know who pushed it through.

gowales wrote:

Linebreaker wrote:South Africa actually... but you're right; we would probably vote for a 6 point try if it was on the table.

Ah, but it is only being tested in South Africa. We don't know who pushed it through.

No, we don't... do we? Most likely SA pushed hardest though. The Varsity Cup has trialled other changes before.

Well the IRB are using the Varsity cup for trial and error, im not sure but i think they experimented with the ELV's there as well.
I wouldn't think that the SA rugby union would be the main advocates for this. After all isn't the springbok's main strength forward play and goal kicking?
Remember it was the ARU and Jonh O'Neill who pushed heavily for getting rid of the maul.

Well mate, you dig up your conclusive evidence on this particular trial and let us all know then, OK?

maestegmafia wrote:After reading your posts I still maintain that the rules of the set piece and the breakdown need to be looked at more than the points awarded for scoring.

S'truth.

Point scoring is very good as it is. Point changes seem almost like an excuse for not dealing with the set piece and breakdown.

doctor_grey wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:After reading your posts I still maintain that the rules of the set piece and the breakdown need to be looked at more than the points awarded for scoring.

S'truth.

Point scoring is very good as it is. Point changes seem almost like an excuse for not dealing with the set piece and breakdown.

Couldn't agree more.

The law tampering was supposedly given a respite prior to the RWC. Which meant that the IRB offered directives to change Law interpretations to referees. I think this only confuses the matter of adjudication.

The game doesn't need drastic change, what it needs is a good review of all aspects of the laws and a simplification implied, making the sport easy for referee's to do their job.

There has been some excellent work done by the IRB. The game North and South is refereed in a far more similar fashion to what it was ten years ago. That unification has to be applauded.

But the game is floured by over complication of what are actually very simple facets. Breakdown, Offside and Scrum all have too many laws implied that give the referee too much to be able to moderate consistently and fairly.

The other gripe i have is the level of cheating and the general acceptance of it by fans, coaches, refs and most importantly the IRB.

If we are to use a third party citing commissioner for preventing aggressive foul play as much as we currently are, maybe they should be used to spot persistent infringers too. Players that are cheating, offside, illegal behaviour at rucks, scrums etc. Certainly at the top level of club and international rugby.

It cant be good to have the best players applauded for being the best cheats. If an act is illegal it should not be praised, it should not even be accepted.

Maesteg mafia I,applaud your sentiments,but reality is a different kettle of fish.ALL teams bend the rules,and have done so since the start of the game,Wales and the Deans Try.
As an example,the Ref was`nt up with the play,Deans EITHER scored and was dragged back into play{NZ version].
OR was tackled short and Rabbited[ Welsh Version] no TMO then,EVERY TEAM gets away with what it can and is coached in it.
EVERY side plays the Ref,.McCaw especially will try something borderline,IF the Ref lets it go he repeats it.BUT if the ploy is penalised he will back off and varie his game.
HE is the best 7in the world BECAUSE,his game has evolved far from what Pocock or Broussow offer at there present level.
Over the Years laws have been changed to improve THE PRODUCT for Tv watchers.
Older common sense laws at the Scrum,replaced by a ritual dance,forming up by rows.May take longer iniatily ,BUT there would be fewer resets or collapses.
One point that bugs me,IF the ball has been hooked and the scrum THEN goes down.Play on not reset,and maybe give the ball to a team cheating.

Dan Parks and Scottish fans are crying into their whiskey.

Smack the biggest thing that the IRB law makers/tinkerers could do would be to simplify the laws to make the referees job easier.

Far too much is derided on his individual interpretation.

Reducing the cheating is just a pipedream. I now it has happened in all sports for centuries, but in rugby it has become much much worse since professionalism. Youngsters see avoiding being pulled up for infringing the rules of the game as much part of the game as the laws themselves.

May be a pipedream but I wish it were addressed.

I'm afraid this is wrong headed if the idea is to see more tries. In professional sport fear rules (see NZ in the WC final), and that's why we sometimes see a lack of tries. Specifically:

- defending sides fear conceding tries, and prefer to cheat and take the risk of 3 points
- attacking sides fear break away tries, and so don't risk putting players into space.

If you want to see more tries then you have to make conceding tries less of a big deal. A scoring system with 3 points for a try, 4 points for a converted try, and 7 points for a penalty would lead to far more tries than the suggested tweak, and a collapse in the number of penalties conceded. Perverse as it may sound, the more you reward tries (relative to penalties) the fewer you will see. If the IRB were interested in evidence they would trial both systems and see what happens.

Of course whether seeing more tries would improve the game is a different question.

Thomond wrote:Dan Parks and Scottish fans are crying into their whiskey.

I think Dan Parks is more of a Toohey's New man, rather than whiskey...!

DaveM wrote:I'm afraid this is wrong headed if the idea is to see more tries. In professional sport fear rules (see NZ in the WC final), and that's why we sometimes see a lack of tries. Specifically:

- defending sides fear conceding tries, and prefer to cheat and take the risk of 3 points
- attacking sides fear break away tries, and so don't risk putting players into space.

If you want to see more tries then you have to make conceding tries less of a big deal. A scoring system with 3 points for a try, 4 points for a converted try, and 7 points for a penalty would lead to far more tries than the suggested tweak, and a collapse in the number of penalties conceded. Perverse as it may sound, the more you reward tries (relative to penalties) the fewer you will see. If the IRB were interested in evidence they would trial both systems and see what happens.

Of course whether seeing more tries would improve the game is a different question.

Hense why a successful shot in basket ball is worth so few points and it is a high scoring game...!

To be honest as I mentioned above, I have seen e value of a try changed twice before. It made no difference to the impetus of the way the game is played.