Drop-goal 'should be one point'

[Prestwick]

Why would I call it football? I object too being told what to call a sport by a bunch of liberal media elites.

I was brought up to believe that rugby was about passing the ball out wide and playing running rugby. There's simply no need for drop goals anymore. In an age when rugby was played in the UK and it was always wet and harder to score a try maybe there was a reason for drop goals but this is simply not the case anymore [/b]

Great, another person who believes in implementing Rugby League by stealth. And since when was it harder to score in the UK "because it was always wet"...

*queue Lord of the Rings music*

In a time of war....

...in a time of conflict and mayhem...

...in a world of everlasting....rain...

....there can be only one way of winning a game of rugby...

Seriously mate, I'd just stick with backing the "fagger-roos" or whatever you guys call your dive-ball team. Believe it or now, between 1898 and 1999 it wasn't always pouring down with rain in the British Isles. If it was, how come nations like Ireland, Wales and even Scotland & England have produce some eclectic running styles in their time?

EDIT: Basically, looking up at the vote bar there you can safely assume that the entire nation of Australia has voted there to cut it to one point and everyone else has voted to keep it as it is! :lol:

 

[solomar]

What if a drop goal was only worth points if you scored a try, and only one per try?

That would effectively limit the total number of drop goals you could get in a game to be no more than the number of tries you scored. You could still use them, but you couldn't abuse them by scoring nothing but drop goals.

 

[Prestwick]

What if a drop goal was only worth points if you scored a try, and only one per try?

That would effectively limit the total number of drop goals you could get in a game to be no more than the number of tries you scored. You could still use them, but you couldn't abuse them by scoring nothing but drop goals.
[/b]

Yes, but that would be useful if the perception that every game has at least five drop goals scored were true. Actually, if you took into account most games in the Guinness Premiership at least, drop goals themselves are quite rare and if they are taken, usually towards the end of the first half or the beginning of the 2nd to put extra pressure on the opposing side.

The idea that many matches are won or lost on drop goals is a false one.

 

[Marco Polo]

Yes, but that would be useful if the perception that every game has at least five drop goals scored were true. Actually, if you took into account most games in the Guinness Premiership at least, drop goals themselves are quite rare and if they are taken, usually towards the end of the first half or the beginning of the 2nd to put extra pressure on the opposing side.

The idea that many matches are won or lost on drop goals is a false one.
[/b]

I am struggling to come up with more that two or three international matches since 2003 since that have been won with a drop goal. SA Vs Aus a few weeks ago and I seem to remember ROG ping one over against wales a few years back. Aside from that nothing else spring to mind immediately.



In my opnion drop goals are relatively rare. This is because IT IS A DIFFICULT SKILL TO MASTER and it is well worth retaining as it adds variety to the game. I would far rather be defending a two point lead facing a 40m drop goal attempt rather than relying on my kicker to ping it over in the last minute,



Jeez what will the aussies come up with next. If its not complaining about the drop goal, its the scrum because they have crap props, or NH officials because they actually referee rucks and forwards passes properly.



Why not **** off and play rugby league at least that way all the other countries that play it (one) let you win all the time.



I am just waiting for the next aussie to start a "Rugby Union should have two less player, uncontested scrums and no lineouts" thread :toss:

 

[Kiwi Londoner]

Its funny when Aussies go on and on about kicking in Rugby, when their national sport is about putting the foot to ball. I'm sick of this whole 'expansive rugby' thing, I actually enjoy tight, tryless, penalty galore games. Its tight, its interesting for the viewer, and it keeps me, the player, concentrated and on edge.

Changing the laws for quick rugby is killing the game. It would only benefit New Zealand, Wales and Australia. Which is bad.

 

[barbu677]

The drop goal in its current form is pretty much the only thing that stops rugby from becoming a mediated version of American Football. It is a skillfull act, with tactical implications and it ensures that rugby has some variety and not just 100% running and scrums. Not that there's anything wrong with running and scrums, but all great games need balance.

 

[Henry Penry]

keep it 3. Connoly just mad at it coz Frans Steyn won the game for the boks with 2 drops.. haha

 

[stalefish1]

john connolly's only saying that because of steyn's cracking drop-goals. the first one was a monster. whining australians.

 

[moggy]

I think id keep them at 3 points or make them more valuable as id quite like to see a few more in the premiership as they add a bit more uncertainty into the game as they can get charged down, hit the post or go wayward.

 

[mj44]

Although if it was one point it would of still been England's World Cup...

So what do you think?? [/b]

My point. Drop goals should be to break deadlocks, not a way to get cheap points. The way the game is currently we should all just be playing for field position and slotting drop goals everytime we get within 35-40.

keep it 3. Connoly just mad at it coz Frans Steyn won the game for the boks with 2 drops.. haha [/b]

I'm an aussie, but I am also a rugby fan and I felt it was a cheap victory. I would have preferred to see the boks bust over for a try or equalise with a penalty goal. It just takes so much more effort to score, for a drop goal all you need is half decent territory and a good kicker in space. Drop goals (or penalties) should not be a substitute for getting over the line.

 

[Darkest Wish]

I think they should keep it at three, personally. It takes a lot more skill than you would think to be able to make dropkicks like that.

 

[Dmx#1]

Maybe they should make it one point during open play, but when a team has advantage change it to a 3 point drop goal. This way it stops teams from doing drop goals all the time and at the same time encourages teams to do less penalty's in drop goal range.

 

[Darkest Wish]

That actually sounds like it could seriously work...

Good rule! Send a letter.

 

[Brodizzle]

john connolly's only saying that because of steyn's cracking drop-goals. the first one was a monster. whining australians.
[/b]

Knuckles is a douchebag, we all know that....i think the idea someone posted somewhere (on these forums or elsewhere, I read too much rugby opinion pages) to keep drop goals and penalties the way they are and do away with conversions is the ideal solution...maybe make tries worth 1 point and conversions 7, otherwise the conversion doesn't make much sense if the try is the main reward, the conversion just a 'top up'...

As for 'Kiwi Londoner' talking about AFL being our national sport, I refuse to even recognise it as a viable sport let alone our national sport, the only way it existing is that the majority of my fellow Australians are bloody idiots

 

[Dmx#1]

<div class='quotemain'>
john connolly's only saying that because of steyn's cracking drop-goals. the first one was a monster. whining australians.
[/b]

maybe make tries worth 1 point and conversions 7, otherwise the conversion doesn't make much sense if the try is the main reward, the conversion just a 'top up'...
[/b][/quote]

But to me that would sound like encouraging drop goals even more and decreasing the amount of tries scored in a game. A team could score 4 tries and miss all conversions while the opposing team does 2 drop goals to rob the game. I think that your underestimating the conversions value in rugby. Most of the time penaltys and conversions are the determing factor on who wins. Im not knocking your suggestion im just saying

 

[sorrydaijin]

It is annoying as hell when teams only go for drop goals, but it could be countered to a degree with a rushing defense, which would then provide holes for scoring tries, so I don't see any point in changing the rules.

Seriously, would you rather watch a team edge up the field and then pot a drop goal from behind the 22, or would you like to see running rugby and big busts up the middle? A team vying for field position to pot a goal is not great to watch. THAT is the only thing I have against field goals, and even that doesn't bother me if it only happens a couple of times each game.

I say keep it at 3 and just tackle the kickers harder so they are too scared to stand still for a clean shot.

 

[dobrien7]

There's too many fekken rules being changed as it is, leave it alone I say.

 

[sorrydaijin]

keep it at 3 and just tackle the kickers harder so they are too scared to stand still for a clean shot.
[/b]

Ooooh, or make it legal to tackle a drop kicker late

 

[bringbackbuck]

How about changing the point value according to where it taken from on the field?