Drop-goal 'should be one point'

[The TRUTH]

<div class='quotemain'>Bloody whining convicts. [/b]

[/b][/quote]



Just as i thought...you got nothing.



Well done.

 

[Prestwick]

Just as i thought...you got nothing.
[/b]

You dolt! You barbarian! You vagrant! Cease your ignorant Matthew Hayden style wittering and whinging this instant, for you have incorrectly used my line!

Why? Because neither you, nor John Connoly nor any other Australian have put forward any arguments for the idea of dropping the points value of a drop goal down to a single point other than the tired old "because we keep losing to drop goals" rubbish. However this is all smoke and mirrors, for the real reason why you chaps whinge is because you don't lose to drop goals all the time but down to your flawed insistence on trying to play the game as close to Rugby League as possible.

The whole sour grapes about seeing Steyn having the sheer gall of booting two over your goal posts and thus defying the age old principle of "Australians are awesome at everything", while amusing, is but a mere smoke screen for a game of cat and mouse that has been going on ever since the 1980s. That is the game of gradually changing the rules to make Union almost indistinguishable from League.

Oh yes, don't you try to hide it, all this whinging about scrums for the last twenty years, about how they "didn't add anything to the game" or that they were "dangerous and outdated" or that they "were a relic of the old Victorian game", that soon changed when even Wales' scrum was showing up your front row for the bunch of bone idle and clueless chumps that they are!

And so, we move onto the next target, drop goals. A much easier target as it seems to give an impression that teams do not have to do much to get one. Well, if that was the case, I am pretty angry at our England then in 2003, if we could have just booted over ten odd drop goals, then why did we potter about until well into extra time?! Good heavens me, the mind simply boggles at the incompetence of our world cup winners!

Tosh, utter tosh Mr Truth, and you know it. Setting up drop goals is time consuming and very risky with the dangers of a turnover and then a turn over very evident.

At the end of the day, you lost because you didn't make the game safe and rather than trying to blame everyone and everything else, why not take an in depth look into how your team lost the game..hmm?




Like you said yourself, you've got nothing.

 

[BokMagic]

Oh well boys, nothing to it really- John Connoly is simply taking over Eddie Moans` ***le as the world`s greatest whinger.

Hmmm, now let`s see- the Wallabies seem to cop a fair number of defeats due to drop goals- so let`s just reduce them to 1 point, diet rugby style. Well OK, then I reckon that the SA cricket team must start pushing to have spin bowling outlawed. Because we can`t bat against it and can`t bowl it properly. Pretty stupid, but much easier than learning the skill involved of course.....

 

[Dmx#1]

To be honest I dont care really, but if All Blacks lose the at the world cup because of a drop goal. Im gonna whinge about like about it like every other anti 3 pt drop goal person :%#%#: .Well hey at least im keeping it real.

 

[wlshby09]

I think its a great idea. Also, if it were up to me penalty goals would be worth only 2 or 1. To many teams nowerdays rely too much on penalties (English teams in paerticular). The game should be more about scoring tries.

 

[O'Rothlain]

I think any drop goal within the 22 say is worth either 1/2 points and say between the 10 and 22 line it should be say 3? [/b]

Like Basketball? I can just hear it now...
"And the ball is passed to Carter and he goes for the three pointer...and it's over! But wait, the officials are saying something....Ahhh his foot was on the line it's only a 2 pointer."

 

[Cymro]

<div class='quotemain'> I think any drop goal within the 22 say is worth either 1/2 points and say between the 10 and 22 line it should be say 3? [/b]

Like Basketball? I can just hear it now...
"And the ball is passed to Carter and he goes for the three pointer...and it's over! But wait, the officials are saying something....Ahhh his foot was on the line it's only a 2 pointer."
[/b][/quote]

It could work

 

[QKXV]

The numbers speaks for themselves here Truth, there's not enough Australian members that agree with you, mimic and the rest of the league wannabees to have the rules raped out of union until we are left with.... well american football or something not actually resembling rugby union at all...

Connolly can always call for admin to make some votes be counted as 3 votes instead...


How did you say the other day?...o yes, here fishy fishy

 

[sanzar]

<div class='quotemain'>
Just as i thought...you got nothing.
[/b]

You dolt! You barbarian! You vagrant! Cease your ignorant Matthew Hayden style wittering and whinging this instant, for you have incorrectly used my line!

Why? Because neither you, nor John Connoly nor any other Australian have put forward any arguments for the idea of dropping the points value of a drop goal down to a single point other than the tired old “because we keep losing to drop goals†rubbish. However this is all smoke and mirrors, for the real reason why you chaps whinge is because you don't lose to drop goals all the time but down to your flawed insistence on trying to play the game as close to Rugby League as possible.

The whole sour grapes about seeing Steyn having the sheer gall of booting two over your goal posts and thus defying the age old principle of “Australians are awesome at everythingâ€, while amusing, is but a mere smoke screen for a game of cat and mouse that has been going on ever since the 1980s. That is the game of gradually changing the rules to make Union almost indistinguishable from League.

Oh yes, don't you try to hide it, all this whinging about scrums for the last twenty years, about how they “didn't add anything to the game†or that they were “dangerous and outdated†or that they “were a relic of the old Victorian gameâ€, that soon changed when even Wales' scrum was showing up your front row for the bunch of bone idle and clueless chumps that they are!

And so, we move onto the next target, drop goals. A much easier target as it seems to give an impression that teams do not have to do much to get one. Well, if that was the case, I am pretty angry at our England then in 2003, if we could have just booted over ten odd drop goals, then why did we potter about until well into extra time?! Good heavens me, the mind simply boggles at the incompetence of our world cup winners!

Tosh, utter tosh Mr Truth, and you know it. Setting up drop goals is time consuming and very risky with the dangers of a turnover and then a turn over very evident.

At the end of the day, you lost because you didn't make the game safe and rather than trying to blame everyone and everything else, why not take an in depth look into how your team lost the game..hmm?




Like you said yourself, you've got nothing. [/b][/quote]



Yes, I think you're still confusing the origin of an idea with its merit (remember that a few kiwis have also agreed with the priciple here, what's their agenda?)... fine that you tell us off for complaining about losing to a team through a drop goal, but you still haven't really addressed the central argument: That is, that drop goals are the only way in the game you can score point without having to break the defence. If you have a good enough kicker you can be 50 meters out and still score one, and it's worth over half an unconverted try!



As I said earlier, I think 1 point is probably too far... My argument is that it doesn't deserve to be worth more than a coversion kick, as they require much more work to get to. A 2 point drop goal would give you a way to break a tight game, but also ensures that a try is even more desirable. Remember, drop goals used to be worth 4 points, and I'm pretty sure your argument would have been around then too. The question is what kind of game do you want to encourage teams to play?

 

[Juggernaut]

I think any drop goal within the 22 say is worth either 1/2 points and say between the 10 and 22 line it should be say 3? [/b]

And the ones between 10 and halfway or over halfway should be worth 4 - like the one Larkham kicked in 99.

 

[sambãd5]

i think they should be 3 the electricity in the air the moment the ball is passed to the flyhalf standing deep from the scrum half to when the ball has gone a metre away from the boot is great!

i think this moaning has come from england last campaigne from playing foward play turned penalty/drop goal - without scoring alot of tries.

imo, penalties should be 2, conversions should be 3. so:
Converted try : 8pts
drop goal : 3 pts
penalty: 2 pts.

3 drop goals beats one converted try
2 drop goals beats one unconverted try
4 penalties is equal to one converted try.

this will cause a faster game, as there is more need for a try, and if it is too dificult to score a try, a quick drop goal is on offer. in a close match such as a 19-20 game, with 75min played, it will bring more importance to not slowing the game down with penalties etc

anyway, even being a kiwi, with south africans being the biggest threat to the world cup, i find nothing more fun to watch than a drop goal from the sideline at the 40m mark - even from a bloody saffa!

 

[mj44]

nor any other Australian have put forward any arguments for the idea of dropping the points value of a drop goal down to a single point other than the tired old "because we keep losing to drop goals" rubbish.

I'd guess most rugby fans in australia don't like the 3pt drop goal because it is a cheap and boring way to score points. It doesn't require the effort or skill of a try, and a penalty is something you have to wait for. A drop goal you just march to the 22 and boot. Very boring. The idea of a drop goal should be to break a tied game, or to take the lead beyond one score (if the new rules come in there will be less penalties, so FG worth more).

I'm not sure about just 1pt for the FG though since penalties are worth 3. If they knocked penalties down to 2 and greatly reduced the number of penalties the FG worth 1 wouldn't be too bad.

Penalties and FG both being worth 2pt would be a positive change IMO.

Sam, don't like the idea of a 3pt conversion. If anything make a try worth 6 and keep the conversion at 2.

 

[sambãd5]

why not? as we all should know by now, a game is won on kicks, so if we take down penalties, or drop goals arnt we robbing the kicker of much of the credit due to him?

 

[sanzar]

why not? as we all should know by now, a game is won on kicks, so if we take down penalties, or drop goals arnt we robbing the kicker of much of the credit due to him? [/b]

Not really... It's just trying to emphasise the try scoring aspect of the game more. Kicking is MASSIVELY important in League and if you don't know that, you don't know a thing about league... there is a reason that Andrew Johns has been called to help the wallabies tactical kicking skills out (watch State of Origin from this year and it's pretty clear that excellent tactical kicking won those games for Qld in the same way Johns' kicking won it for NSW so many times). Also, penalties and drop goals may be worth much less in league, but that doesn't mean that guys like Hazem El Masri aren't important and given due credit. In fact I'm pretty sure that El Masri has one of the best kicking records in both codes. He pins them from the sideline as consistantly, if not more so, than the very best in Union.

How about this for a point scoring system:

Try - 6
Conversion - 2
Drop goal -2
Penalty - 3

Penalties need to be kept as a deterant for foul play, but if a coverted try was 8 points it would balance things a little. Then having drop goals as 2 would mean you'd need 4 to get a full converted try, but they'd still be useful in tight clashes.

 

[C A Iversen]

There is nothing wrong with the current system in my opinion, and I know the game has evolved. I have played rugby for a long time and I'm sure most of you have played a fair bit too. How the hell can you say that a drop goal is easy?

My team has had more than enough close losses over the years to other teams, and we would love to have bagged a drop goal to win. We've been banging around the oppositions 22 for about 15-20 minutes trying to get through.

We have a few very handy kickers, why, oh, why haven't we banged through an easy drop goal to win? Why, oh, why do I remember us only getting 1 of the last 8 attempts we've had over the last 4-5 years?

It might have something to do with the fact that the "easy drop goal" theory is full of it.

Really it is. You can crap on about it being so easy and teams not doing it because it's "against the spirit of the game", but you'd be wrong. Most teams want to win, by fair means or foul if need be. Thats why many teams have banged over easy penalties, where no-one can charge at you. Not looking at you, John Eales in particular.

There's a lot of pressure taking even an easy match-winning penalty, but a drop-goal is harder.

1. Putting the kicker (first five usually) into the pocket. Easy. Opposition should be aware at this point what is going to happen.

2. Giving a pass from halfback that goes to the perfect spot for the kicker, (between mid-chest and stomach about 30cm in front of body). Moderately hard. The opposition close in on first-five.

3. Transferring the eyes from halfback pass to the defence (assessing options) to dropping the ball onto the ground-foot combo and making sure you've struck it right. Bloody hard. Opposition should be within 2 metres of you.

If it's "Oh so easy" more of these would be winning all levels of rugby than tries or penalties. Thats not the case. This is a one-in-20 situation which Connolly has used as a smoke-screen.

I have given a decent argument as requested.

 

[sanzar]

It might have something to do with the fact that the "easy drop goal" theory is full of it.

Really it is. You can crap on about it being so easy and teams not doing it because it's "against the spirit of the game", but you'd be wrong. Most teams want to win, by fair means or foul if need be. Thats why many teams have banged over easy penalties, where no-one can charge at you. Not looking at you, John Eales in particular.
[/b]

I don't really know if this is really an answer to what most of us are asking... for one you're a little off anyway. Most teams don't want to win, ALL teams want to win, and generally at any cost, but that isn't the point... the point is accentuating the more attractive parts of the game. Remember that rugby is professional now and we are trying to sell it. So while teams will always try to win at all costs, we can affect the way the go about it to attract more fans.



Drop goals may not be easy for most players, but if you have a couple specialists, then it becomes much less of a percentage play, and even if you miss chances are you'll get the ball back close to (if not within) their half... As I said, just think of SA in the 1999 RWC, their game where they knocked England out with a bunch of drop goals was more like watching AFL, but less exciting.

There's a lot of pressure taking even an easy match-winning penalty, but a drop-goal is harder.

[/b]

This may be so, but a penalty needs to be a deterent against illegal play, a drop goal doesn't fall into this category.

 

[C A Iversen]

I always love it how your one of the few people who can politely disagree on this forum, Sanzar. The last few times I've given my opinion on other stuff, other people have bitten my head off.

I still stand by my opinion, but you've raised a good couple of counter points.

By the way, I find that drop-goals are an attractive part of the game as often as they happen at present. The happen so infrequently that it's a bit of an unexpected thing when they happen. Some of the examples given of overuse are so infrequent that even your own was 8 years old.

Finally, I'm not sure who said it, but apparently conversions are harder. Be serious, take a conversion and a drop goal from right out in front. Both pretty easy. Start going wider, and what happens, even without players charging at you? Drop-goals miss far more often. People practise conversions far more often. Even in seven's drop goals are sometimes used as conversions by some players and they have a much poorer sucess rate. To say drop-goals are easy was a ridiculous statement. I would like to see whoever said that post an unedited video on you tube showing how much easier drop goals are from different angles. Specialists are still lucky when they get them.

 

[sanzar]

I always love it how your one of the few people who can politely disagree on this forum, Sanzar. The last few times I've given my opinion on other stuff, other people have bitten my head off.

I still stand by my opinion, but you've raised a good couple of counter points. [/b]

'Civilized discourse' is generally more constructive I find .

But yeah, you have some good points too, which is generally why I think that taking it to 1 point is going too far... a 2 point drop goal would be perfect IMO. Same as a conversion kick and still a good game breaker, but still encourages the try a little more.

 

[Dumbo]

CA... they must be easy, I've seen enough of them flying past my head!
I'm still sticking with 1 point and penalties 3 and conversions 2.

 

[The TRUTH]

<div class='quotemain'>
Just as i thought...you got nothing.
[/b]

You dolt! You barbarian! You vagrant! Cease your ignorant Matthew Hayden style wittering and whinging this instant, for you have incorrectly used my line!

Why? Because neither you, nor John Connoly nor any other Australian have put forward any arguments for the idea of dropping the points value of a drop goal down to a single point other than the tired old "because we keep losing to drop goals" rubbish. However this is all smoke and mirrors, for the real reason why you chaps whinge is because you don't lose to drop goals all the time but down to your flawed insistence on trying to play the game as close to Rugby League as possible.

The whole sour grapes about seeing Steyn having the sheer gall of booting two over your goal posts and thus defying the age old principle of "Australians are awesome at everything", while amusing, is but a mere smoke screen for a game of cat and mouse that has been going on ever since the 1980s. That is the game of gradually changing the rules to make Union almost indistinguishable from League.

Oh yes, don't you try to hide it, all this whinging about scrums for the last twenty years, about how they "didn't add anything to the game" or that they were "dangerous and outdated" or that they "were a relic of the old Victorian game", that soon changed when even Wales' scrum was showing up your front row for the bunch of bone idle and clueless chumps that they are!

And so, we move onto the next target, drop goals. A much easier target as it seems to give an impression that teams do not have to do much to get one. Well, if that was the case, I am pretty angry at our England then in 2003, if we could have just booted over ten odd drop goals, then why did we potter about until well into extra time?! Good heavens me, the mind simply boggles at the incompetence of our world cup winners!

Tosh, utter tosh Mr Truth, and you know it. Setting up drop goals is time consuming and very risky with the dangers of a turnover and then a turn over very evident.

At the end of the day, you lost because you didn't make the game safe and rather than trying to blame everyone and everything else, why not take an in depth look into how your team lost the game..hmm?
[/b][/quote]



So, to summarize... - "yadda yadda yadda whinging Aussies blah blah blah sour grapes bacca bacca bacca OMGZ itz gonnaz be like leaguez".- thank you prestwick, but i think we covered that in your first post.... great rebuttal!

Now if you could remove your head from your arse for a minute, you would realize that the majority of the posters on this thread who voted 1 are non-aussies who actually gave a valid reason for their decision (unlike yourself).And if you direct your attention to the SA v OZ thread, you would also realize that no aussie on that thread whined about Steyn's drop goals, i actually complimented him on that very talent.

This topic has been discussed numerous times on this forum, well before the last match against SA, and well before you ever joined this forum.... it's something i've always believed should be changed, and from memory i can't recall any important match where Australia has lost because of a 3 point droppie that they would have won if it were only worth a single point - so there goes the whinging aussie/kiwi/antipodean theory.

As for a 1 point droppie changing the game to league....... even by your god-awful standards, thats a weak argument and not worthy of a responce.


Prestwick, let me put this as nicely as i can: you're an idiot. You know less then squat. In fact, if you and squat went to the movies, squat could wear a 'I'm with stupid' Tee shirt.