All Blacks and the Drop Goal

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=10839557
Interesting article about NZ and the Dropped Goal,thoughts here are mine.With the greater use of Defence
as a major weapon the "Pot" is a legitimate weapon too.In today`s climate when you get into the Red Zone
you need to come away with points.Score tries if you can fine if not take em in 3`s.To learn that in the 2007
RWC they wer`nt even practised seems foolhardy.Given that in the event of a tie breaker being needed it was
a Drop goal shoot out.England had been bombed out by Jannie De Beer,1995 and 2003 won by them and
Argentina made the Semis courtesy of Hernandez boot.The perception that is some how not rugby or boring
is ludicrous.The game is Rugby Football not Basketball.No matter how many media pundits want pretty
patterns.You play to your strengths there are more than one way to win and in my long career watching
i`ve seen them all.Some not pretty but some of the greatest teams in the game won ugly AB`s 1950-65
for instance and they dropped one series in that time.

Call me boring but I love drop goals. Love the skill and that it can often come out of nowhere as well as being prepped for-see DC on Sat. Also remember that when defences focus on defending it they can leave themselves open to other attacks.

You have guys like Frans Steyn who can kill you from 60 with one and it encourages you to keep the ball in hand.

Hate them personally. Always have. I repeat, that's just a personal preference - they are legal and if a team chooses to win a game by popping over one, two or three of them, so be it.

But I don't like them at all - not an opponent scoring them against my side or seeing my side do them.

I realise it's certainly a skill. It can be a tense period in a game when you know a side are looking to set one up and the opposition are desperate to keep them away from the zone where it might be attempted. So it can be a dramatic aspect to a game but no - I wouldn't miss them if they were taken out of the game.

If you can't score a try you should, in my opinion, pay the price by losing the tight game.

It is a way to score points, teams that chose not to use them are refusing opportunity.

However Morne Steyn loved to drop kick cause he had nothing better to offer. How many overlaps has he squandered over the last 4 years, for the sake of a missed drop goal?

Zinzan Brooke 50 m drop goal from the touchline - a great thing of beauty.

My answer to those ( I I tend to agree) that kicks both penalty and drops are too prevalent / easy to get is to do what they did in American football - move the posts back 10 m to make kicks harder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0nfYW-wIZ4

SecretFly wrote:Hate them personally. Always have. I repeat, that's just a personal preference - they are legal and if a team chooses to win a game by popping over one, two or three of them, so be it.

But I don't like them at all - not an opponent scoring them against my side or seeing my side do them.

I realise it's certainly a skill. It can be a tense period in a game when you know a side are looking to set one up and the opposition are desperate to keep them away from the zone where it might be attempted. So it can be a dramatic aspect to a game but no - I wouldn't miss them if they were taken out of the game.

If you can't score a try you should, in my opinion, pay the price by losing the tight game.

+1.

I really hate it when a player takes a pot shot during a penalty advantage though - that's when you should be having a proper crack at the line. For that reason I'd like to see a drop goal worth 2 points rather than 3. That means they're still worth attempting to win a tight game in the dying minutes, but less likely to be a scoring tactic in themselves.

New AB bonus scheme to keep players at home. A set awarded or each drop goal.
New Zealand issues Hobbit moneyRunes make coins beautiful, but exchange rates are uglier than Gollum

By Simon Sharwood, APAC Editor •
Posted in Bootnotes, 9th October 2012 05:08 GMT
New Zealand has issued coins, all legal tender, marked with ElvenDwarven runes and bearing images of scenes and characters from the new Hobbit film trilogy.The coins are of course collectibles, but New Zealand Post describes them as “legal tender commemorative coins.” That means you could plonk them down on a Kiwi bar and demand a nice cold Tui* in return. You'd be mad to do so, however, as the coins sell for well above their face value.

A golden set of three NZ$10 coins bearing images of Gandalf, Thorin Oakenshield and Bilbo Baggins will set you back NZ$10,995 (US$9040 or £5600). Other coins cost less, but will still cost you far more than their face value.

I love how Carter's been using it-nothing on or he's been backpedalling only to swivel and hit one. Should be more of a last resort than a first option which Steyn was doing.

Guess it's one of those ironies that by giving value to a kick teams want to negate it therefore don't kick themselves in case they screw up and put the opposition in a good position to implement said kick. Kind of like when they allowed lifting in lineouts-encouraging people to keep the ball in play more.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
I really hate it when a player takes a pot shot during a penalty advantage though - that's when you should be having a proper crack at the line.

I agree with this bit. Personally I reckon they should call advantage over if a player attempts a drop goal.

There should be a signal that a player can give to a ref to indicate that they don't want the advantage though. That way they don't have to go through the hacked dropkick or knocking on deliberately.

The advantage...any advantage should have a clearly definable cut off point - let's say third person who receives possession ends the advantage - or certainly something that the refereee could be held to. At present we have refs who can give very long advantages and some who are very miserly with it.

Anyway, that's moving to a different topic.

ALthough I am a fan of dropgoals and think that they are the most under rated aspect of rugby I agree with the penalty kick / dropgoal advantage.

Only worth playing with value of drop goals is if they become a significant part of the points scored. They are not.

It would also be interesting to see if raising the value of penalties might focus a few minds a bit more and lead to less offenses committed in the wrong areas.

Variety is very important - as mentioned above if a team is worried about the DG they have to commit more players to the rucks and mauls and it makes more space elsewhere.

Variety is also one of Union's greatest strength

lostinwales wrote:It would also be interesting to see if raising the value of penalties might focus a few minds a bit more and lead to less offenses committed in the wrong areas

There is a fine line to thread. If penalties are valued too low then teams will infringe without a care. If penalties are valued too high then teams will start looking for penalties - one of the biggest scourges on the game.

Look at scrums now - teams just want to win penalties at the scrum. Thats all they care about.

I hate that too Stag-I don't want the scrum to lose its status as a weapon but you get a lot of teams just keeping the ball at the 8's feet just waiting for a penalty to come. Maybe there could be a time limit on holding the ball there if the scrum's not moving. Any other ideas? I also hate when it's blown up when the ball is practically in the 9's hands. I'd like the refs to tell the 9 to get on with it.

LondonTiger wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
I really hate it when a player takes a pot shot during a penalty advantage though - that's when you should be having a proper crack at the line.

I agree with this bit. Personally I reckon they should call advantage over if a player attempts a drop goal.

I do agree with you on that one. If the Ref is playing advatage and a drop goal is attempted Advatage over.

But if a drop goal is attempted in the line of play then that is a different story altogether.

If your centres and wings and fullback are all in the sin bin, it's a great option. Unfortunately you have to sit so far back in the pocket because defences anticipate what you're doing that you run the risk of your vision being obscured by navel flint.

Bludee hell Kia, if youve got 2 centres, 2 wings and a fullback in the bin, then I dont think your gunna be all that handy to the posts.

Your forwards are all there. They just have to go through a hundred phases to get handy to the posts. Where there's a will there's a relative....

Good on ya Kia. Never say die.