Prestwick, again you've not actually answered anything I've put forwar... all you've tried to do is divert the argument by claiming it isn't important and then said all you we're only doing this cause we've lost a couple big games to drop goals - which is precisely what I meant about confusing origin with merit.
The fact is that the IRB are currently experimenting with a number of new laws to make the game more appealing, few of which were born out a major 'crisis' in safety in world rugby. Would you for example damand that they immediately scrap the idea (which they are trialing) to no longer allow players to kick out on the full if the ball has been passed from outside of it simply because it's not a crisis despite the fact that this may positively impact on the appealability of the game?
My argument on reducing the drop goal to 2 points is along the same lines, but your response shows you've failed to see past your own prejudices about SH rugby fans to see it. [/b]
No, I've always claimed that it isn't important, isn't important as you have (quite) rightly pointed out with the Stellenboch experiments in the past 18 months.
That specific proposed law is a bit of a double edged sword as it might take away that age old tactic of many a dopey NH kicker who simply hoofs the ball miles back into the oppositions half in the hope of finding touch. If you have seen allot of NH kickers, (be they full backs or fly halves) recently you'll notice that nine times out of ten, any ball that they kick usually ends up going down the throat of a very peeved All Black who then runs off and scores a try (usually).
Forcing the team with possession to attack rather than passing back into the 22 to kick out, or force the team to make sure the ball bounces inside of play before rolling out is a good idea as it will foster better practice in both kicking and attacking play, it would also probably subtly take the pressure off of hapless NH teams whose kicking accuracy is worse than Admiral Beatty's battle cruisers at the Battle of Jutland (i.e. not very good). The current way things are run fosters bad practice and laziness as well as negativity.
Drop goals are different however as, yes, while they can bypass the defensive team to score points, they are usually attempted sparingly (either to win a game at the last gasp in the final minutes or to try and make a game safe at the end of the first half or a way into the 2nd half) and they are simply not used enough to kill any excitement in a game. Modern defenses and player awareness these days can slow play down and even effect turnover ball to frustrate attempts to set up a drop goal. In these cases, this kind of contest can be just as thrilling and fascinating to watch as wide open and disjointed play. In any case, a penalty kick is much more likely in some cases and can kill the game to an even greater extent than repeated drop goal attempts.
In fact, reducing the points awarded to a drop goal to two, rather than acting to dissuade teams from taking drop goals, might actually
encourage teams to attempt
more drop goals as they feel that if a drop goal is the only avenue of action left open to them, they must then attempt more than usual because of the fact that they'd only get 2 points instead of 3. In other sports where kicking brings smaller rewards (such as International Rules football), Ireland prefer to keep up by kicking as many overs and behinds as possible while Australia go for the jugular to score direct goals. This attempt at social engineering on a grand scale might result in a serious own goal (excuse the pun) of making drop goals an even more attractive way of keeping up with the opposition team.
At the end of the day, you have used sophisticated language and politeness (which, I appreciate) to disguise the fact that your only argument for dropping the points value of a drop goal to one point is "because they're boring." I would dispute the "origin with merit" argument with the gradual move of Australian teams away from emphasis on the scrum over the last decade or so with increased reliance on other areas to make up for the lack of dynamic in their pack. This was something which was cruely exposed by various teams North & South (the Ospreys for example) in 2005. The most glaring example I think when Wales simply overran the Australian pack at a 5m scrum to swarm over the Australian line like the unlimited hordes of Chinese infantry over the Imjim River and score a try. Absolutely shocking.
Finally, I have predujuces about how
some SH
teams operate or how they operated in the past, not their fans. Although I make a humorous exception for Mr Truth, who never fails to raise a laugh. He was, after all, the inspiration for my dipiction of the "Australian" in my facial expressions guide. I wonder what paper he reads?
)
