More tries, fewer penalties

First topic message reminder :

As pointed out in The Other Place, the great suit wearing chiefs of the IRB set out with a master plan to abolish dull rugby following the disasterous spectacle of 2007, and the super rugby final with its throw back Brumbies playing JakeWhiteBy showed how disasterously their plan failed.

Now some simple minded folk suggested a while back that rather than endlessly tinkering with the laws to speed up the game that a penalty should merely be devalued to encourage try scoring.

Aha! Said the aforementioned suit wearers...that will merely backfire by encouraging teams to concede more frequent penalties actually having the opposite effect to the one desired. So they merrily tinkered away with breakdown rules and scrum set sequences and the like until we reached the inevitable confusing place we are in now.

So I hereby propose the solutions:

1) A try is worth 7. 
2) A conversion worth 3.
3) A penalty worth 2.
4) infringements in the 22 automatically earn a penalty and a cumulative 5 minute sin bin for the perpetrator. If said villain cannot be identified then the captain wears it.
5) scrum penalties are all free kicks

Done. A better game all around.

Knowsit17 wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Wasn't it a TMO who missed a blatant try by a player obviously so crushed by being denied a WC winning try that he hasn't recovered since?

More like TMO justice to compensate for awarding England a blatant NON-try earlier the same year (vs Scotland, Jonny's foot clearly in touch as he grounded)  

Ah yes. Jonny's 'return' match. That try made little difference in a 42-20 England win.

And iirc Tigers actually managed to win a Premiership final that year.

Not sure about that. 7 undeserved and unearned points for free gifted by TMO incompetence whilst revealing an actual bias in adjudication is fairly important in determining an outcome.

I think the game's point system is fine as it is. Gaining penalties by pressure is as valid as a worked try. What is required to sort the penalties out, imho, is back to old way of scrums, pack down no pushing until ball's in, as well as policing of line outs, maybe even ban jumping again. This way a truly stronger side will get the penalties from pushing scrums back, we'll see more mauls and wedges at lineout time, and penalties will be earnt, instead of a lottery.

My 2c worth

The points are fine as they are, but I'd award one point automatically to the scoreboard for every penalty awarded irrespective of field position.

ChequeredJersey wrote:3 neutral judges to watch all tries and award an average score out of 10 (plus 2 for the conversion) for the quality of try.

Plus: +++ bonus points for artistic execution of the touchdown, although even that can go terribly wrong:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1914XF8afo

For me the answer is actually quite strait forward. The referee just has to be much stricter on the use of the yellow card (for technical offences, generally hands in the ruck or other slowing of the ball malachies). None of this 'if you do it again' I might maybe forget the card in my pocket rubbish.

Very simply if the irb reviewed and re-affirmed the guidance for referees and then reiterated the protocols a few months down the line then I'm sure the player behaviour will have been adjusted.

I am certain that across the board it has been proven that teams score more when the opposition has a player in the bin.

kingelderfield wrote:For me the answer is actually quite strait forward. The referee just has to be much stricter on the use of the yellow card (for technical offences, generally hands in the ruck or other slowing of the ball malachies). None of this 'if you do it again' I might maybe forget the card in my pocket rubbish.

Very simply if the irb reviewed and re-affirmed the guidance for referees and then reiterated the protocols a few months down the line then I'm sure the player behaviour will have been adjusted.

I am certain that across the board it has been proven that teams score more when the opposition has a player in the bin.

But yet, I don't believe more yellow cards are the answer.

What is the use of having to effectively ruin the contest by having 15 play 14?

The problem lies within the complexity and ambiguity of the laws. Refereeing interpretations vary so much that it is almost impossible to "plan" how to play a referee, even if you try to play up to the referee during a game, you can get it wrong.

The best solution is to simplify laws, make them more clear cut and ensure that everyone is on the same page.

I was reading on another website where the breakdown was under discussion, and one guy came up with the idea that the law s of the scrum and line out should be observed as to where you may stand if not part of the ruck.

The 5 meter back ruling, will provide much more space for an attacking team rather than the last line of feet for example.

kingelderfield wrote:For me the answer is actually quite strait forward. The referee just has to be much stricter on the use of the yellow card (for technical offences, generally hands in the ruck or other slowing of the ball malachies). None of this 'if you do it again' I might maybe forget the card in my pocket rubbish.

Very simply if the irb reviewed and re-affirmed the guidance for referees and then reiterated the protocols a few months down the line then I'm sure the player behaviour will have been adjusted.

I am certain that across the board it has been proven that teams score more when the opposition has a player in the bin.

Old King

I dont think thats the answer at all. when the yellow card was first introduced we were told how it would take infringements out of the game and the number of penalties and instances of offending would reduce,what we need is a five minute card for repetitive "technical" offences and 10 minutes for foul play, every time there is an instance of 15 players playing against 14, it takes away the spirit of the contest and kills the game.

Players will always push up to and beyond the line of the laws and sadly the game is negatively effected by the persistent offender being able to disrupt the game before eventually the referee takes some action.

Penalty after penalty does not make a flowing game of rugby and artificially creating space on the pitch through 5 yards here and there won't impact on a players/coaches mentality - if they can get away with it then they will do it, if they are detrimentally effected then they will either learn of lose.

I do accept that this is more of an issue for the Aviva/Top14 leagues than the S15/Pro12 where winning and losing has far greater monetary consequences.

Maybe you guys need to consider the bonus point try formula?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

kingelderfield wrote:For me the answer is actually quite strait forward. The referee just has to be much stricter on the use of the yellow card (for technical offences, generally hands in the ruck or other slowing of the ball malachies). None of this 'if you do it again' I might maybe forget the card in my pocket rubbish.

Very simply if the irb reviewed and re-affirmed the guidance for referees and then reiterated the protocols a few months down the line then I'm sure the player behaviour will have been adjusted.

I am certain that across the board it has been proven that teams score more when the opposition has a player in the bin.

 Old King

 I dont think thats the answer at all. when the yellow card was first introduced we were told how it would take infringements out of the game and the number of penalties and instances of offending would reduce,what we need is a five minute card for repetitive "technical" offences and 10 minutes for foul play, every time there is an instance of 15 players playing against 14, it takes away the spirit of the contest and kills the game.

I just don't think that the 5 minute technical penalty option provides a substantive disincentive for professional players.

Yes I agree, and more so, when a poorly apportioned penalty mangles the contest, however if policed well and strictly applied then you will see teams/players changing their approach. Currently this is not the case and hence we do have the persistent infringer who cut by cut is killing the game.