Drop Goal

[Leonormous Boozer]

Trinh-Duc's DG yesterday completely changed the match. I think the long distance ones are brilliant because it punishes Tomas O'Leary for his s*** box kicks.

 

[ZeFrenchy]

Keep drop goals alive!

I like them, quite a lot. I youtube whenever I heard of a good drop goal being scored, and some of the most exciting rugby memories in the last years have included very relevant drop goals (rwc 2003, Ireland grand slam).

It is a feature that requires both skill from the kicker and a lot of team work. It not how it used to be: we don't see drop goals drect out of a scrum, even with the 5-metre rule. Now defences demand a lot more from teams in order for a rop goal to be attempted and successful.

Besides, it is only from time to time that drop goals become decisive, and it is only in he final minutes of high-stake games. Whenever a team scores three drop goals it is considered exceptional - and it is only 9 points!

I agree with the scrum idea. It would avoid long range attempts, that are becoming a bit silly (Martin Rodriguez and Frans Steyn try far too often, and are actually not very successful).

To encourage try-scoring, the easiest idea is to increase the points awarded for a try, or for a conversion. Making all kicks three points would make things easier, but perhaps it is too much of a punishment for teams without a reliable goalkicker. Tries and conversions being 6 and 1 point sounds like a good options, it would be worth analizing.

 

[ranger]

Ehm,

The goal of sports is winning. If you win scoring 8 dropgoals and your opponent scores 3 converted tries, you win 24-21. A win is a win, easy as that. We can argue all day about this, but in the end we are talking about the difference between winning and playing attractive rugby. If the 2 culminate, it means we have a fantastic display of the sport we all cherish. I don't mind South Africa winning with only dropgoals and penalties. I don't like the fact we failed to cross the tryline, but in the end we celebrate a win, not the number of tries.

If the All Blacks would win the way the Springboks did yesterday (or Schotland last november against the Boks) I am pretty sure nobody would mind.

A win is a win indeed, and you can't blame teams for wanting to win and finding the most efficient way for them to do it etc.
Obviously this is just a personal opinion, but i just think that tries should be the aim of the game.. Its more fun to play with that mentality and its better to watch. Penalties have their place in the game of punishing foul play and that's more than fair enough. Drop goals have their place too, but i just think that that place should be as a means of separating close scores at the end of games (I think Wilkinson's dropgoal is the greatest moment in WC just by the by). What im not a fan of is using dropgoals as a points accumulator, its just boring and not what i think of when i imagine rugby.

You say yourself, if attractive rugby and winning culminates then we have a fantastic game. bang on. Then why do you encourage winning by scoring 8 dropgoals in a game?

As for not minding if the All Blacks win by kicking, YOU COULD NOT BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH IF YOU TRIED. I have been ripped into for not being a "true fan" in the past, the reason being that i would rather watch my team lose a free flowing game than win with kicks. Especially if you're only watching it.. If i get up at 4 in the morning for a match, i want to watch a goddammed spectacle. If i were to watch the All Blacks win by nudging DGs, i would be ****** off. Sure they win, but what do i personally gain as an individual from that? nothing. ive just wasted 80 minutes of my life watching something boring. **** that.

A little anecdote; This year my coach was an old school English dude, used to play for the Harlequins in the 80s. Hes a tough guy and has a rigid "points on the board" mentality.. always kick a penalty if given the option, look for drop goals once you're past the 10, pick and goes and crash balls all day for momentum, never offload or throw risky passes, 3 phase set up minimum before you think about going wide (and even then, dont) etc etc..
This tactic may or may not have got us wins, but my perspective was that if i was trudging along to practice 2 nights a week and giving up drinking on friday nights for rugby, i didn't want to spend every game setting up and chasing kicks. Thats boring and gay.
So, being the captain, i would just play his game at practice, nod my head when he went over the game plan in the sheds, and then once we got into the huddle before kickoff i would just tell everyone to play instinctively and throw it around.
Suffice to say i didn't end the season as captain, we didnt make the finals and i wasn't nominated for any of the rep trials. We scored some stunning tries though (just ask Nickdnz) and i don't regret any decision i made one bit.

 

[Black Heart]

The idea of some teams playing drop goal rugby doesn't bother me. If a team like England wins a World Cup solely on drop goals then good for them. But I do worry about the lack of global appeal that comes with teams not bothering to make an attempt to score tries, especially when it comes to World Cups.

I'd support a zoning system for drop goals (and possibly even penalty goals) where by the number of points you're awarded for a kick is dependant on where you are on the field. I'm not sure how that would work exactly but I'm thinking along the lines of Basketball where you have 2 and 3 point shots.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Sounds like this is just another thread of people being annoyed that their nation's players can't execute them as well as the Bokke...

why mess with tradition?

 

[ranger]

Sounds like this is just another thread of people being annoyed that their nation's players can't execute them as well as the Bokke...

why mess with tradition?

...

?

 

[Black Heart]

...

?

That's the funny thing about South Africans, they're content most of the year until the Boks win one test against the All Blacks then suddenly they're the best team in the world again.

 

[TRF_heineken]

That's the funny thing about South Africans, they're content most of the year until the Boks win one test against the All Blacks then suddenly the best team in the world again.

well we are the only team who has beaten the no.1 ranked team this year...

 

[Black Heart]

well we are the only team who has beaten the no.1 ranked team this year...

Well done. Where's your throphy?

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

The idea of some teams playing drop goal rugby doesn't bother me. If a team like England wins a World Cup solely on drop goals then good for them.

This seems like the exaggeration of the anti-drop goal league. Teams like England and South Africa tend to average around one a game, they play games where they don't get any. People have been harking back to 1999 (yep, 12 years ago) to Janie de Beer and his five in a game. Outside of that occasion it doesn't happen all that much. Even then it took five of them to get 15 points (1 point more than two tries), so a phenomenal amount of skill was on display there.

There are games with 8-10 penalties in them too, but people don't mention them much as being boring and really, seriously, they are. Justifiable or not, they are much much more boring, but they are necessary.

Teams winning World Cups solely on drop goals? I doubt it. When England won their World Cup, they also scored a try (the same number of tries Australia scored in that game).

If you guys want to blame anything, blame the rules that allow defending to be too consistently solid. That's why DG's happen. In a deadlocked defensive situation, where you've tried running rugby, running rugby, running rugby, what else can you do? That's exactly what happens when the AB's have run into solid defence at previous World Cups, they aren't able to execute a set play like a Drop goal to break the deadlock or to get our nose in front. 1995, 2007.

I'd rather not lose the world cup because we don't want to do something that simply must take a reasonable amount of skill. If the final is lost by a penalty kick from 48m out, is that really that much better?

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

If a free-flowing spectacle of tries is what people want AT ALL COSTS the better way to do it is to have a firmer hand or adapt rules to counter fringe illegal play at the breakdown and ITO playing offside (something NZ are masters of) rather than looking at the drop goal which isn't as much something people play for (as SA and Eng get blamed for) as opposed to being a resort after failed attempts at fast ball usually due to the former. The only times people really go for it is in very tight matches where I feel it hightens tension and is a wonderful part of the game.

 

[Black Heart]

This seems like the exaggeration of the anti-drop goal league. Teams like England and South Africa tend to average around one a game, they play games where they don't get any. People have been harking back to 1999 (yep, 12 years ago) to Janie de Beer and his five in a game. Outside of that occasion it doesn't happen all that much. Even then it took five of them to get 15 points (1 point more than two tries), so a phenomenal amount of skill was on display there.

There are games with 8-10 penalties in them too, but people don't mention them much as being boring and really, seriously, they are. Justifiable or not, they are much much more boring, but they are necessary.

Teams winning World Cups solely on drop goals? I doubt it. When England won their World Cup, they also scored a try (the same number of tries Australia scored in that game).

If you guys want to blame anything, blame the rules that allow defending to be too consistently solid. That's why DG's happen. In a deadlocked defensive situation, where you've tried running rugby, running rugby, running rugby, what else can you do? That's exactly what happens when the AB's have run into solid defence at previous World Cups, they aren't able to execute a set play like a Drop goal to break the deadlock or to get our nose in front. 1995, 2007.

I'd rather not lose the world cup because we don't want to do something that simply must take a reasonable amount of skill. If the final is lost by a penalty kick from 48m out, is that really that much better?

Of course it was an exaggeration and like I said, I have no problem with teams relying on drop goals or penalties to win a World Cup. I was speaking from a marketing perspective.

 

[TRF C A Iversen]

If a free-flowing spectacle of tries is what people want AT ALL COSTS the better way to do it is to have a firmer hand or adapt rules to counter fringe illegal play at the breakdown and ITO playing offside (something NZ are masters of)

You had me agreeing until that part about us being off-side. We are no more offside than South Africa, Australia, England or anyone else at the breakdown. I personally think the offside rulings are pathetically inadequate a lot of times for many international teams. It seems to me that referees are afraid of adding to the already huge number of times they have to blow their whistle.

I think the rule should be that all defensive players should be a full metre back (maybe two) from the hind most foot. Not on the hindmost foot as they are now. People will say "how can you properly measure that?" I'd answer, "it's not like they can properly judge the mark they are looking at now and at least it'll keep everyone back from that hindmost foot well and truly!"

 

[ZeFrenchy]

This seems like the exaggeration of the anti-drop goal league. Teams like England and South Africa tend to average around one a game, they play games where they don't get any. People have been harking back to 1999 (yep, 12 years ago) to Janie de Beer and his five in a game. Outside of that occasion it doesn't happen all that much. Even then it took five of them to get 15 points (1 point more than two tries), so a phenomenal amount of skill was on display there.

There are games with 8-10 penalties in them too, but people don't mention them much as being boring and really, seriously, they are. Justifiable or not, they are much much more boring, but they are necessary.

Teams winning World Cups solely on drop goals? I doubt it. When England won their World Cup, they also scored a try (the same number of tries Australia scored in that game).

If you guys want to blame anything, blame the rules that allow defending to be too consistently solid. That's why DG's happen. In a deadlocked defensive situation, where you've tried running rugby, running rugby, running rugby, what else can you do? That's exactly what happens when the AB's have run into solid defence at previous World Cups, they aren't able to execute a set play like a Drop goal to break the deadlock or to get our nose in front. 1995, 2007.

I'd rather not lose the world cup because we don't want to do something that simply must take a reasonable amount of skill. If the final is lost by a penalty kick from 48m out, is that really that much better?

This.

Carter has said he has been working on his DGs, btw. He slotted one already the 3N (only the third of his AB career).

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

You had me agreeing until that part about us being off-side. We are no more offside than South Africa, Australia, England or anyone else at the breakdown. I personally think the offside rulings are pathetically inadequate a lot of times for many international teams. It seems to me that referees are afraid of adding to the already huge number of times they have to blow their whistle.

I think the rule should be that all defensive players should be a full metre back (maybe two) from the hind most foot. Not on the hindmost foot as they are now. People will say "how can you properly measure that?" I'd answer, "it's not like they can properly judge the mark they are looking at now and at least it'll keep everyone back from that hindmost foot well and truly!"

LOL, it's almost RWC time and I am getting my bias on in addition to a little light trolling. But!! Owen Franks is a very big culprit you have to admit. We have our own share of guys that especially like to fall over and then roll away just in time for the ref not to blow LOL I'll admit as well.

 

[McTallshort]

"I was speaking from a marketing perspective."

Are we talking about a sport or a product then? Im not convinced by this argument that tries= exciting game and Drop goals/Penalties = dull game. The most exciting,inspiring and emotional game I have watched in recent times was the 2nd Lions test in SA which was settled on a penalty taken 50 yards out. Did I think at the end "oh what a dull game settled on a kick" or "there should have been more tries" Did I hell! I drowned my sorrows and thanked the gods of rugby that I was able to watch such a fantasic test match. If some spotty suger junkie with a subscription to sky sports doesnt like it and switches over to basketball then so what?

At international level tries are hard to come by and so they should be, drop goals are difficult to excute and very very few players are able to pull them off in a pressure situation like a test match.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

"I was speaking from a marketing perspective."

Are we talking about a sport or a product then? Im not convinced by this argument that tries= exciting game and Drop goals/Penalties = dull game. The most exciting,inspiring and emotional game I have watched in recent times was the 2nd Lions test in SA which was settled on a penalty taken 50 yards out. Did I think at the end "oh what a dull game settled on a kick" or "there should have been more tries" Did I hell! I drowned my sorrows and thanked the gods of rugby that I was able to watch such a fantasic test match. If some spotty suger junkie with a subscription to sky sports doesnt like it and switches over to basketball then so what?

At international level tries are hard to come by and so they should be, drop goals are difficult to excute and very very few players are able to pull them off in a pressure situation like a test match.

Very true but the general Aus and NZ rugby fan doesn't like it so we'll have to do something about it.






EDIT: Nah, ignore this post; I can do it with more finesse. Just doing a little bit of trolling today LOL.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

You say yourself, if attractive rugby and winning culminates then we have a fantastic game. bang on. Then why do you encourage winning by scoring 8 dropgoals in a game?

I am not saying I prefer winning through dropgoals over winning through tries, I am just saying I prefer winning over losing.

I rather win with a 2 tries and 4 dropgoals than losing while scoring 5 tries. Last November we lost to Scotland despite them not scoring a single try, while we did. That sucks.

 

[cardassian]

I think one of the best things about rugby is that are are different ways to score points and different ways to win.
Dropping goals and kicking penalties are a vital part of the mix and I feel that the balance in the game is great as it is.
While I love seeing free flowing rugby and lots of tries scored I also like seeing good hard defence, kicks when the pressures on, scrums, drop goals (remember Zinzan Brooke kicking a fantastic one) etc...

 

[IslandPower]

what make it like league where the drop goal is often only used at the end of a match when its close to seal it or at the end of the second half?

Reducing the points from penalties will just encourage teams to cheat more, and slow down opposition ball. And if that incluedes more cards comming out then im against it.