Rugby Penalty shootout

I was present at the 2009 Heineken Cup Semi-final match between the Cardiff Blues and the Leicester Tigers and saw the inaugural penalty shootout in competitive rugby. I felt it just did not belong in a game of rugby.

It’s different with soccer as to kick a ball is a part of the game for all players. This is obviously not the case in rugby. To see a true legend like Martin Williams made to look like an amateur through lack of foresight from the powers that be was just painful to watch.
Having watched a bit of the Hockey at this year’s Olympics, I came across their equivalent of a shootout and thought this would be a much better way to resolve a game of rugby.

A player from Team A would stand at the 22 and a player from Team B on the try line. 20 seconds to score a try or be tackled. Reverse and repeat 5 times to determine the winner of the match.

You could even have more than one player involved in each stage and would add a tactical element to the number of forwards or backs you use in each stage.

I was at that game too, behind the posts.
The players were knackered after extra time and the toss of a coin to decide the winner would have been fairer and less stressful.
Martyn Williams, and Tom James don't forget, were made to look like rugby players who aren't that good at place kicking. That's all.
Best way to avoid a penalty shoot out is to score more points than your opposition during normal time.

The shoot out. Thanks for reminding me. Not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=kmIzYvh9Dys

I'd rather sudden death play or a rugby equivalent to golden goal than the penalty shootout. I agree it has no place in the game and that's not talking as a sore loser from that fateful day. It just smacks of the organisers running out of ideas and therefore automatically turning to the football solution when it's a different matter altogether.

A penalty kick off like we saw in that match was bad for a great player like Martyn Williams and bad for Rugby. I think the only fair way to decide a playoff match is to play until someone scores in sudden death. Only difference is I would not play a period of extra time beforehand. After 80 minutes, take a rest for 10 minutes or so, then play sudden death. Winner take all.

doctor_grey wrote:A penalty kick off like we saw in that match was bad for a great player like Martyn Williams and bad for Rugby. I think the only fair way to decide a playoff match is to play until someone scores in sudden death. Only difference is I would not play a period of extra time beforehand. After 80 minutes, take a rest for 10 minutes or so, then play sudden death. Winner take all.

That doesn't address the issue though as sudden death could go on and on and on.
Toss a coin and have done with it.

Yeah, I know it's not a perfect solution. But I can't see another way. I want to see a Rugby playoff match decided by teams playing Rugby. Not by an artificial competition.

One of the big problems now is that full extra period. I would get rid of it and go straight to sudden death.

Cardiff Dave wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:A penalty kick off like we saw in that match was bad for a great player like Martyn Williams and bad for Rugby. I think the only fair way to decide a playoff match is to play until someone scores in sudden death. Only difference is I would not play a period of extra time beforehand. After 80 minutes, take a rest for 10 minutes or so, then play sudden death. Winner take all.

That doesn't address the issue though as sudden death could go on and on and on.
Toss a coin and have done with it.

How often do you see two teams play 30-40 mins without so much as a penalty being scored? Because that's all it would take, first team to notch up a pen or drop goal takes the spoils, it wouldn't have to be first to score a try. A coin toss is for the most dire of circumstances in any sport, it shouldn't have to come to that so easily. Who wants to see a game decided by random chance?

Alternatively if extra/sudden death time is played with no new developments you could award it to the side that's scored the most tries if they're not level in that department.

Imagine the pressure on the ref if it came to sudden death though, he'd be hauled over the coals for any decision that he makes especially if it turned out to be the wrong one.

And who would kick off? As I imagine the team that's kicking will be happiest.

How about just taking it down to 10 men on each team (sub off flankers, 8, 11 and fullback) and then first try wins?

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what they do in the NFL when normal time runs out?

gowales wrote:Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what they do in the NFL when normal time runs out?

sudden death overtime.
Only caveat is something along the lines of: If the first team to receive scores a field goal on their initial possession then the other team gets a shot. Otherwise first team to score.

Seems legit. Grid iron is very much a case of possession so i can see the sense in that.

Yeah, it works for them.
A draw after regulation doesn't happen much (as in Rugby).

Everyone buys into it. No one involved with the NFL wants anything other than deciding the match by the players playing the game.

Pick a guy for each side and let them fight. Winner takes all

I enjoyed the penalty shoot-out in 2009.

Great theatre!

ChequeredJersey wrote:Pick a guy for each side and let them fight. Winner takes all

Nah, let's choose scrum-halves instead.............

But then Phillips would always win...

How well did he take a punch in front of that McDonalds in Cardiff?

I actually love penalty shoot outs in soccer. But it doesn't suit rugby. Goal kicking is a specialist skill that not all the players have or even need to have.

Scrum off? Best of three maybe? And it finally gives the tight five a chance to shine.

I'm not sure what the alternative would be though. The match had to be decided somehow. You couldn't leave it as a draw. That's the frustrating thing about sport sometimes - drawing. I suppose what they could have done is only let the 10s take the kicks rather than all the players.

Fight off. It's simple. Last man standing

I saw the hockey version mentioned when NZ ended up losing to the eventual gold medal winners after a 2.2 gridlock after two rounds of extra play.

Excellent way to decide I thought. At least its based more on the match skills of both players. One player against another from the 22 is too easy for the attacker but being the same for both makes it even. Deciding who went against who would be tricky but thered be some entertaining matchups alright. I like it better than penalty's which is a straight steal from football. Why does rugby need to deploy its negative scoring form as the dcider. Tries are more positive.

Sometimes I get the feeling that no team deserves to win and no team deserves to lose.
What really is so bad about a draw?....sometimes its a fair result.

Laurie,
For regular season matches I agree. But the original post was discussing a playoff game in the Heineken Cup. In that particular playoff match, Cardiff and Leicester played to a full time draw. Then played a period of extra time, They next went to penalty kicks. Each player had to kick at goal until the second team couldn't draw even or get ahead. The whole match turned on a flanker, Martyn Williams, a terrific player, who missed his kick.

For a match to turn on the kicking skills of a flanker is, to me, unfair. So the question on the table is about alternatives which could be better, I favour a sudden death period to be played after regulation time expires.

Do you know the rule in the Super Rugby playoffs?

Yes Doc,

It goes like this, they play 2X10 minute periods of extra time (with a 2 minute half time).

If they are still tied, then:

An up to 10 minute period of sudden death, of Golden point, or in other words first team to score wins, whether it be a try, penalty, or drop goal.

I think 100 minutes of super xv would sort most rugby players out.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Sometimes I get the feeling that no team deserves to win and no team deserves to lose.
What really is so bad about a draw?....sometimes its a fair result.

I don't think it's a bad thing as such, sometimes it's just the way things are. However, a lot of players find drawing frustrating. I suppose it makes them look at the missed opportunities more, what they did or didn't do, how close they were to beating the other side and a penalty shoot out can be a seemingly cruel way of ending a well played match.

I also think some people view wanting to win as a bit politically incorrect, it's viewed as a bad thing. Winning can make a huge difference to someone's career progression, how much they earn etc, so you can understand why players get frustrated with a draw. A penalty shoot out is an apparent cruel way of deciding things, but that's sport for you. It's not about who deserves to win, but who does.