In the words of Nostrodamus,or the laws need looking at.

The New Zealand Rugby Almanack 1949 after congratulating the Boks on there Series win bewailed
the state of things.That penalty goals instead of tries had become the deciding factor after there
disastrous tour.They lost 7 of 24 games and drew several others but conceded just 8 tries in those
games.It went on to say that NZ would continue to play running rugby and not copy the Bok formula
Number 8 play.Forward dominated 10 man Rugby and the penalty goal.Of course that is precisely
what happened.For 19 years it was enough ,they lost 11 games 1950-69 despite having many
outstanding sides in the end .It came down to goal kicking have things improved?for every
5 versus 4 try win there are 4 or 5 penalty goal shoot outs.Today EVERY side fields a 85%
goal kicker,the laws are so complex penalties are inevitable.Not to mention professional fouls
and efforts to con the Ref.The leading Super side in the last two matches the Sharks have
notched 16 penalty goals.It really is the time for the IRB to go thru the law book line
by line to redress the balance    

Very interesting that it goes so far back

Defences has become tougher, so teams kick at goal.

The question to be asked is why are there so many penalties, and the andwer is simple, teams infringe to stop tries, specifically at the breakdown, as they would rather concede penalties than tries.

If the Sharks continuously win games and are outscored by tries then you have a case, but sadly that is not the case.

Sharks 31 - Bulls 16
Tries 4-1

Sharks 27 - Hurricanes 9
Tries 2 - 0

Sharks 37 - Lions 23
Tries 4 - 2

Sharks 35 - Reds 20
Tries 2 - 2

Bulls 23 - 19
Tries 2 - 1

Sharks 32 - Waratahs 10
Tries 2 - 1

What's the problem with that?

the volume of penalties is reflective of the punitive manner in which the laws of Rugby are written. A lot of referees could award a lot more penalties, but dont. the laws of rugby are designed to promote penalties but not the scoring of tries.

Couple of changes that might help;

Change the punitive philosophy from one of 'points scoring' by way of penalty goal, to one of 'player reduction' by way of 'penalty card', i.e. FAR GREATER USE OF THE YELLOW CARD (1 strike and you're out, not the current farce where multiple penalties are incurred before a card is used). The idea being to encourage teams to firstly play clean open rugby and secondly, for sides to WIN by scoring tries.

Further encouragement can be made by strictly reducing the time given to kickers from 1 minute to 30 seconds and by allowing a quick tap to be taken anywhere within 10 metres of the location of the offence.

Greater use of the Yellow card is I think the way to go and could be fortified by increasing the penalty period from 10 to either 15 or 20 minutes.

The issue is twofold. Professional players are fitter and can be replaced which has resulted in less space to attack and score tries from, and secondly the off field commercial imperative, especially here in the Northern hemisphere forces teams to do everything and more to stop the opposition and to generally play and win by way of negative rugby.

Penalise the negative players/teams not the game and paying public.

Teams cheat instead of giving away tries.

aucklandlaurie wrote:the volume of penalties is reflective of the punitive manner in which the laws of Rugby are written. A lot of referees could award a lot more penalties, but dont. the laws of rugby are designed to promote penalties but not the scoring of tries.

But if the laws are changed to make penalties less valuable teams will be willing to concede more, not less.

Notch wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:the volume of penalties is reflective of the punitive manner in which the laws of Rugby are written. A lot of referees could award a lot more penalties, but dont. the laws of rugby are designed to promote penalties but not the scoring of tries.

But if the laws are changed to make penalties less valuable teams will be willing to concede more, not less.

I hadnt put any thought towards considering whether the value of a penalty should be reduced, but rather the awarding of less penalties. Have a look at Steve Walsh on Friday night he ran some very long "advantages" he was doing everything but awarding penalties apart from at scrum time when he has very little discretion.

You mispelt the word idea

Cheers CJ.

Not sure if I agree with you Alan

I have only looked at the springboks but in all tests since 1996 (courtesy of pick & go).

The boks have won 141 matches. Of these only 12 have been where they scored less tries than the opposition. So in 92% of the time when the boks won the match, they scored more or an equal number of tries as the opposition.

In 77% of the time, they scored more than the opposition.

Tries scored is still a dominant figure in whether a team is victorious or not from that data.

Likewise in the 78 matches they have lost since 1996, only in 6 matches have they scored more tries than the opposition. So the opposition in again 92% of the time scored more or equal the numbers of tries as the boks.

Given that I wouldn't say its unfair and I see little if no bias against tries scored and win rates... and that is for a country famed for continually slotting over the 3 pointers, time and time again.

it may not look pretty but you cannot moan about a side slotting over penalties.  Its the fault of the infringing team that it is happening!

What i would suggest though is that drop goals are reduced to 2 points like a conversion! 3pts is a large score for a team that is effectivly unable to unlock a defense and score a try!

When have DGs been scored to tie matches rather than win them?

Andrew vs Sco 91
Andrew vs AUS 95
Stransky vs NZ 95
Guscott vs SA 97
Larkham vs SA 99
JW vs AUS 03

All the most famous DG in the modern era have been for teams going out to win a match rather than bring themselves back from the a deficit.

Obvious more have been scored but the threat of a DG can have its benefits too. It creates space and they are missed more often then penalties... its not as easy a skill as people think.

May I make the following points,the laws now in Scrum,Lineout,Breakdown,a Ref could
Ping EITHER side in every one of these.
IF all Refs went strictly by the Rules there would be no game,thats assuming that the
sides concerned are keeping them.
The object of the game is to score tries,that you can win by other means is of course to
be taken into account.
SA posters seem to be defensive but shouldn't be the Sharks was just an example of
the large number recently involved.
Goal kicking is a matter of practice and Kicking Coaches there to sort out the glitches.
It is not a case of only the win matters,take Last years Wales v Scotland match one
of the worst games ever.The World record numbe r of penalties awarded in a match.
EVERYTIME the game looked likely to come alive bang the whistle,the whistle.
Going back to the days of Tours had certain teams a consistent Goalkicker the Bok
v NZ tours of 1949,1956,1970 and 1976 would have at least been drawn.
Lions tours of 1959 and probably 1971 reversed,England 2002-3 would have lost
BOTH matches with the AllBlacks.
THAT is not saying the best teams didn't win those series but had the sides the luxuries
enjoyed today it would have been different.
Special boots,kicking tees, a standard waterproof boot,no charges of penalties,placers
for conversions,not to mention neutral Referees.
Defences much tougher now?before 1964,offside line centre off lineout,rear most foot
of scrum[tight or lose].Midfield backs lined up flat to it as balls hooked/thrown in the
attackers received ball and man.
This was supplemented by the sophiscated,6,7,8 Scrum defence evolved by SirWavell
Wakefield,and improved on b y the famous Nz cover defence.
In the days of reality when I learned the game tries from firstphase were impossible
or nearly.
Stats concerning tries scored by Boks especially v Nz are hardly relevant to this argument
Nz`s are very marginally better.
EVERY Bok side in my day and to a large time since had a Massive Pack which tried to
dominate by any means.Most of the streetwise stuff evolved thru there efforts and often
teams countered illegally because the Ref didn't pick it.
A crash tackler at inside centre,kicking halves,flying Loose forwards plus a great goal kicker
place/drop.Often they had great running backs but seldom used them,illegal play of course
was practiced by ALLSIDES.
The constant tinkering just makes things worse,bad things punish with a penalty minor
infringements a freekick.Persistent infringing Yellow followed by Red Card.
It is of course a fact that many series were lost not because of the refs decisions[though some were].But simply that the opposing Goal kickers were unsuccessful.

Put one point on the scoreboard for every penalty, and give teams the option of the extra two at goal.

Penalties should actually penalise teams and this would discourage the persistent cheating.

What the analysis shows is that if teams are equally matches, the quality of the kicker can make the difference.

The Boks have won 92% of the time when they have score equal or more tries as the opposition since 1996 (the pro era).

So only 12 times in 223 matches were the boks able to come away victorious whilst scoring fewer tries.... thats little over 5%. Showing only rarely can the kicker overcome a try deficit... which in part could be becuase teams are unwilling to concede tries by committing penalty after penalty.

But to be victorious against the best you need to take your chances, you need a good kicker, a pack who can hold their own, a functioning lineout, linebreakers and a decent defence. You can't simply play Carlos Spencer wild attacking rugby and backing it up with a 60% kicker and expect to bring home the trophies. Its entertaining yes but its recipe for disaster.

Nice to have you back Alan.

The laws are mostly fine. Two things need to be redressed.

1. The scrum is a joke. Fix it or get rid of it.

2. Breakdown. Referees simply do not police the real laws. This leads to copious infringing and unfathomable "interpretations" being popularised. If the IRB don't like the laws, they should change them rather than instructing their referees to ignore them.

If referees were strict with the breakdown most infringing would cease and the over all penalty count would decrease, the game would be more open and more tries would be scored.

Persistent infringers (two or three times) should be remorselessly carded until they come into line.

I'm sick of seeing every breakout end in a silly professional foul and the referees repeatedly warn players or continue to "coach" the ruck for acceptable personal variances in the law.

No more "hands off 7". Just penalise them.

Scrum penalties annoy me. If you have a weak tight head and the opposition knock on in your half, the resulting scrum leads to a penalty for the opposition and three points. How can that be right ? Would like to see all scrum penalties be replaced with free kicks, and NO PUSHING BEFORE THE BALL IS IN like the laws actually state !!!!!! One collapse should lead to the next scrum automatically being passive rather than 10 minutes of tedious resets ?

Like the idea of automatic yellow cards for deliberate offences, but am concerned that we might end up with 7 a side !

of course, league faced these challenges and resolved them with passive scrums, no competition for the ball in the tackle, ( except 1 v1 ) and 2 less players to make more space....

With respect Fa 100 under Mitchell with Carlos Spencer officiating his win stats were82%,and that
included back to back thrashings.For both Australia and SA by 50 plus points AWAY in 2003 3Ns
that against full strength sides.
IF you consider the RWC the ultimate prize the BOKS have yet to win a final by scoring a try.
As you correctly state against equal strength sides EVERY chance needs to be taken in 1949
for example.By the time of the First test NZ were equal or better in the Scrums,better in the
Lineouts and rucks[when allowed to develop].Had the better set of backs to run in tries.
In Tests scored all the tries in two,and 4-3 overall.
They had 3 weaknesses,the lack of a flying forward to get to the ball first before the ruck could form.
Half backs were inferior to the average provincial SA teams they met.Plus poor Goalkicking.
The reasons for the 1949 debacle i will treat in depth a later date.
Suffice to say for political or other reasons 18 of the best NZ players 16 of them Maori were
out of contention.

emack2 wrote:With respect Fa 100 under Mitchell with Carlos Spencer officiating his win stats were82%,and that
included back to back thrashings.For both Australia and SA by 50 plus points AWAY in 2003 3Ns
that against full strength sides.
IF you consider the RWC the ultimate prize the BOKS have yet to win a final by scoring a try.
As you correctly state against equal strength sides EVERY chance needs to be taken in 1949
for example.By the time of the First test NZ were equal or better in the Scrums,better in the
Lineouts and rucks[when allowed to develop].Had the better set of backs to run in tries.
In Tests scored all the tries in two,and 4-3 overall.
They had 3 weaknesses,the lack of a flying forward to get to the ball first before the ruck could form.
Half backs were inferior to the average provincial SA teams they met.Plus poor Goalkicking.
The reasons for the 1949 debacle i will treat in depth a  later date.
Suffice to say for political or other reasons 18 of the best NZ players 16 of them Maori were
out of contention.

Alan, buts that was not your point...

Forgive me if I'm wrong but you were saying that try scoring was becoming secondary to penalties.... which all the evidence begs to differ.

SA have been in 2 finals. They have scored 0 tries in both... but crucially, so have the opposition. So in that respect and in most one off games, defences are tight and tries are few and far between. 1 a piece in 11, 0 tries in 07, 1 a piece in 03 etc etc.

From both SA's RWC wins, tries scored was not contrary to the result and since 1996 they have only overcome a deficit 12 times in 223 matches. It simply goes to show that the number of tries scored is a very high dominator in determining the match winners. If you score more more than the opposition, in +90% of the time you will win.... and thats backed up by 18 years and +200 games of statistics.

NZ were never going to win the RWC with Spencer. How can NZ smash AUS by 40 points in Aug and then lose by 10 in Nov with near identical teams? The reason.... AUS were championship performers and in the clutch moments, the moments that really matter, that team was solid.

Mitchell played naive rugby. He thought that the talent NZ had would blow away sides and kicking would become insignificant... yet this was when they were at best neck and neck with England for the top side in the world. It was Kevin Keegan rugby... as long as we score more, we'll be ok.  

Papertiger forwards meant they wouldn't get the dominance required to play such a game against the very best meaning that the difference would always come down to the quality of the kicker (please note NZ June 03) and added to the point that to accomodate Spencer they required to drop another first choice player in favour of a more goal kicker in the backline.

Had NZ somehow beaten AUS and faced England they would have lost the final too.... why I am I so confident of this. Ok, you can never tell and in one off games both have a chance ala the QF in 07. However with the superior pack and a watertight defence England were unlikely to let the floodgates open and allow NZ to run away with things.
Added to that England had a kicker who at the time would never come second best in a showdown.

Merthens didn't suit his game plan but I bet he would have given his right arm for him come the KO stages of the RWC.

In tight games when teams are equally matches, the quality of the kicker in the respected sides are often the difference. That was the way it was in the past, its the way now and its the way it will be long after you and I are gone my friend!!!

Yes but Fa, you can't tell if teams are equal matches until the games been played.
To say NZ wouldnt have beaten England is just pure speculation based PRIMARILY on the fact that they beat Australia and didn't play NZ.

There was also no way England were going to beat NZ in 2012 but they thrashed them- no one or nothing hinted at that result- same last year England vs Wales.

You can't just roll out a whole lot of reasons re: why they wouldnt win 'just because they didn't play'.

Other factors like head to head (and in that year the need for the AB's to gain revenge on its recent loss) and the fact that we know England and especially its fans were hoping and praying that they'd be up against Oz in the final. Why would that be? Perhaps because NZ were tougher maybe?

Plus it was Merts that threw the intercept pass though I agree on Spencer not being involved- ok at super level but liability at test level.

In saying all that, I didnt like Mitchells methods, his autocratic approach, and straight out poor man management skills. Thats primarily why we lost that year. Oz were an ok side, nothing flash. So were England- an ok side- obviously 'great' from a NH point of view but no better than many AB sides before and since, and Oz in 99-01 Boks of 2009 were just as good, if not better.

Taylorman

Hence why I said in probabilty IMO. I never said it was concrete, just like if the 2012 matche had been played again, England wouldn't have come away with many more victories in 10 re-runs. A one off game can easily throw statistics out the window I agree (as highlighted when I pointed out the QF in 2007 as an example).

Reason why I said in all probability they would have lost the final was that a) the England pack was superior and NZ needed front foot ball to maximise Spencers usefulness, b) the AB backline was disjointed due to Umaga's injury and Spencer's kicking frailities meaning they had to select MacDonald outside of his main position.

Could they have won, sure of course, games can turn on a sixpence.... just like in 2012, one result doesn't mean it would have turned out that way had it been replayed.

NZ weren't a bad side in 2003, they had won the 3N smashing AUS at home and were very very dangerous. I think England fans would have been more nervous as the ABs even if the pedigree was less, the danger was always there.

Anyhow this got away from my point that when teams are equally matched... its often the kicker who is the difference. When you're playing with an unreliable kicker, or having to drop first choice players to make way for a kicker in a disjointed backline... i.e. McDonald in the midfield for a woeful Spencer... then in the tight matches, games can run away from you.... and tournaments such as the RWC become quite difficult tasks.

Same with Michelak with France... could they play 3 KO matches in a row with him playing to a consistently high standard.... no, and thats in part why they didn't win in 2003 either.

Well its a matter of agreeing to disagree then. I find the following arguments more compelling than having 'a better pack'.
- The ABs learn from their losses better than anyone else and the recent win by England over them will have had them sharply in focus.
-England had never won a World cup final- and possibly worse- had lost one by completely abandoning all logic in changing their game plan, and NZ had won one.
-The England vs NZ record in World cups was 0% with the 95 nightmare still fresh in the entire sides memory.

And sides have had better packs than NZ's many times and had found themselves on the losing side all the same.

And how many times do you hear the question "Why do you think you will beat the AB's today"? answered with "Because we have the better pack"...just doesnt happen.

Having read several comments here much tho hate RWCS NZ 1995 were NOT past there
best .[AS proven in 1996]
I saw the interview with Jonah Lomu during my absence about the Final and Nelson
Mandela.
It was just a case of a Nation coming together in my opinion NO other team was going
to win in 1995 but SA.[The parallel NZ 1956].SA `s only 2 wins period 1992-8 v Nz[1 in96].
In 1999 NZ were only just rebuilding and Australia were at there peak 1999-2001.
The NZ 2003 side from defeating both SA.and Aus by scoring 50 points away in 3Ns
the gap was reduced to one score difference in the home 3Ns leg.
Neither Aus or England played well in the RWC even the final was scrappy and could
have gone either way.
Nz v England Final IF it occurred with Umanga fit to play was by no means a certainty
for England
Only JW`s boot was the difference in Englands 2 wins v AB`s and were so close as
to have been in dispute to the final whistle.

not too sure about 95...I mean you can only say 'No other team was going to win'...after the event...ever...nothing is guaranteed until it happens.

I mean before it no one was saying that, and certainly not before the final...pretty sure the English money was on NZ., French as well...

The nearest to 'No other team was going to win' was 1987. Its the only World cup that would most likely have the same winner if replayed entirely, opposition sides winning the same games they did. The closest score to the ABs was 20 in the final, suggesting they would have beaten them all again.

Using 6 points as enough to say both sides were still in it at the end:

91- Oz could have lost 3, including the quarter and final
95- SA could have lost 2- semi and final
99- Oz could have lost the semi to the Boks but otherwise, very convincing.
03- England could have lost the final, but again, very convincing otherwise.
07- SA (oddly) could have lost to Tonga...but very convincing other than that.
11- NZ could have lost the final, the rest convincing.