Great Debate Rules and Regulations

[Norseman]

Originally posted by sanzar+Dec 13 2005, 07:00 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sanzar @ Dec 13 2005, 07:00 PM)</div>

Originally posted by Norseman@Dec 13 2005, 05:27 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-loratadine

@Sep 27 2005, 02:53 AM
yeah theres only one code in rugby.

As an unbiased viewer, union puts too much importance on the kicking game when it comes to scoring points.

True. Penelties are unfortunately unchangable, as you'd be opening a can of worms with infringements, but drop goals should be weighted on distance IMO... if you get one within 40 metre's it should be 1 point, anything past that 3. [/b]

If you give more points for longer goals, then aren't you rewarding the team for being farther away from the goal? And isn't the point to score tries/points?

It would never happen, but maybe they should restructure the point system more like American football. I know the scoring changed a few times because of this very reason from when the game 1st started.

In football, the bulk of the emphisis is on scoring TD's, not field goals.

 

[wigan_rlfc]

Originally posted by Ripper+Dec 13 2005, 07:16 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ripper @ Dec 13 2005, 07:16 AM)</div>

Originally posted by sanzar@Dec 11 2005, 12:31 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Coco

@Dec 11 2005, 08:17 AM
There is only one true code in rugby and that is the Union code!

Look at how many players switch from League to Union - Jason Robinson, Lote Tiqiri etc.?

And how many exactly switch from Union to League - I'm waiting for an answer!?

Coco

P.S No offence to any league fans and you St Helens. Looks like I'm going to get a roasting like Lora!

Well in Australia we've had tonnes go from Union to league... Mostly cause of the money. Ricky Stuart was one of the bigger names, but it doesn't happen much anymore.

Funnily enough it seemed to dry up as soon as Rugby turned professional? [/b]

There's still a few going across but not as many big names. Come to think of it, I can't think of any big name Union players that league would really benefit from having in its ranks.

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by Norseman+Dec 13 2005, 07:59 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Norseman @ Dec 13 2005, 07:59 PM)</div>

Originally posted by sanzar@Dec 13 2005, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Norseman@Dec 13 2005, 05:27 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-loratadine

@Sep 27 2005, 02:53 AM
yeah theres only one code in rugby.

As an unbiased viewer, union puts too much importance on the kicking game when it comes to scoring points.

True. Penelties are unfortunately unchangable, as you'd be opening a can of worms with infringements, but drop goals should be weighted on distance IMO... if you get one within 40 metre's it should be 1 point, anything past that 3.

If you give more points for longer goals, then aren't you rewarding the team for being farther away from the goal? And isn't the point to score tries/points?
[/b]

Debateable. If you said that to Clive Woodward, he'd tell you you're a moron and that the point is to WIN by any means necessary... At least that's what he continuely told the Aus and NZ press when asked about England's tactic's and style of play.

 

[Norseman]

Originally posted by sanzar+Dec 14 2005, 01:15 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sanzar @ Dec 14 2005, 01:15 AM)</div>

Originally posted by Norseman@Dec 13 2005, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by sanzar@Dec 13 2005, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Norseman@Dec 13 2005, 05:27 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-loratadine

@Sep 27 2005, 02:53 AM
yeah theres only one code in rugby.

As an unbiased viewer, union puts too much importance on the kicking game when it comes to scoring points.

True. Penelties are unfortunately unchangable, as you'd be opening a can of worms with infringements, but drop goals should be weighted on distance IMO... if you get one within 40 metre's it should be 1 point, anything past that 3.

If you give more points for longer goals, then aren't you rewarding the team for being farther away from the goal? And isn't the point to score tries/points?

Debateable. If you said that to Clive Woodward, he'd tell you you're a moron and that the point is to WIN by any means necessary... At least that's what he continuely told the Aus and NZ press when asked about England's tactic's and style of play. [/b]

Winning by any means I agree with. But the premise of the game is to move the ball with the ultimate goal being a try in the enemies territory. And there lies my rub - too much importance placed on kicking/scoring.

 

[wigan_rlfc]

Originally posted by Norseman+Dec 13 2005, 11:39 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Norseman @ Dec 13 2005, 11:39 PM)</div>

Originally posted by sanzar@Dec 14 2005, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by Norseman@Dec 13 2005, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by sanzar@Dec 13 2005, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Norseman@Dec 13 2005, 05:27 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-loratadine

@Sep 27 2005, 02:53 AM
yeah theres only one code in rugby.

As an unbiased viewer, union puts too much importance on the kicking game when it comes to scoring points.

True. Penelties are unfortunately unchangable, as you'd be opening a can of worms with infringements, but drop goals should be weighted on distance IMO... if you get one within 40 metre's it should be 1 point, anything past that 3.

If you give more points for longer goals, then aren't you rewarding the team for being farther away from the goal? And isn't the point to score tries/points?

Debateable. If you said that to Clive Woodward, he'd tell you you're a moron and that the point is to WIN by any means necessary... At least that's what he continuely told the Aus and NZ press when asked about England's tactic's and style of play.

Winning by any means I agree with. But the premise of the game is to move the ball with the ultimate goal being a try in the enemies territory. And there lies my rub - too much importance placed on kicking/scoring. [/b]

.....and not enough on Entertainment.

 

[Norseman]

....and not enough on Entertainment.


That's probably why rugby doesn't catch on in the States.

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by Norseman@Dec 14 2005, 02:48 PM
....and not enough on Entertainment.


That's probably why rugby doesn't catch on in the States.

In which case, why is rugby union bigger than league over there? League is certainly more based on try scoring... And if NFL is so entertaining, why is it of such little relevance outside of North America?

 

[wigan_rlfc]

Originally posted by sanzar+Dec 14 2005, 01:32 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sanzar @ Dec 14 2005, 01:32 PM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Norseman

@Dec 14 2005, 02:48 PM
....and not enough on Entertainment.


That's probably why rugby doesn't catch on in the States.

In which case, why is rugby union bigger than league over there? League is certainly more based on try scoring... And if NFL is so entertaining, why is it of such little relevance outside of North America? [/b]

Because Union had a stronger foothold from the begining. Rugby Union is played at a fair few high schools and Universities. However Rugby League is growing in the USA at the moment I think.

 

[MightyQuin]

Originally posted by Norseman@Dec 13 2005, 08:59 AM
It would never happen, but maybe they should restructure the point system more like American football. I know the scoring changed a few times because of this very reason from when the game 1st started.

In football, the bulk of the emphisis is on scoring TD's, not field goals.

They have restructured the points several times over the last 20 or so years, with tries going from 3, to 4 to 5 points .

The problem is, the higher the value of a try, the more incentive there is to give away a penalty by the defence.

Unlike rugby league or American Football, if the penalty is conceded near the goal line, you get no extra benefit from playing on for a try rather than taking the field goal.

In League you get a full set of 6 tackles again, in Football you get to replay that down and often get moved closer to the line as well - in Union, there is no benefit from the penalty, sometimes even a disadvantage as the defence get to reset.

Increasing a try to 6 points or decreasing a penalty to 2 would only increase the number of penalties.

Another option might be to automatically sinbin any player who gives away a penalty inside their own half or 22m - maybe for 2 mins, or 5 mins (rather than the full "yellow card" period of 10 mins), or even until the next stoppage in play where their team has regained possession - but this sinbin only happens if the attacking team choose not to kick at goal.

Also, allow a penalty (except quick tap) to be taken at anypoint across the pitch, level with where the penalty was awarded if not going for goal - this could open up better angles for a kick to touch, or move a scrum into the centre of the pitch for more attacking options.

I also think Drop Goals should be dropped to only 1 or 2 points though instead of 3.

 

[wigan_rlfc]

Originally posted by MightyQuin@Dec 14 2005, 01:54 PM
I also think Drop Goals should be dropped to only 1 or 2 points though instead of 3.

Rugby League dropped from two to one after someone kicked five in a match. This would be a good idea in Union as there is too much reliance on the boot. I seem to remember one journalist not long after the last World Cup who thought drop Goals should be ncreased to four or five points....idiot

 

[Norseman]

Originally posted by wigan_rlfc+Dec 15 2005, 01:50 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wigan_rlfc @ Dec 15 2005, 01:50 AM)</div>

Originally posted by sanzar@Dec 14 2005, 01:32 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Norseman

@Dec 14 2005, 02:48 PM
....and not enough on Entertainment.


That's probably why rugby doesn't catch on in the States.

In which case, why is rugby union bigger than league over there? League is certainly more based on try scoring... And if NFL is so entertaining, why is it of such little relevance outside of North America?

Because Union had a stronger foothold from the begining. Rugby Union is played at a fair few high schools and Universities. However Rugby League is growing in the USA at the moment I think. [/b]

I would have guessed league just by the fact the Aussies came over and played the Eagles last year. Eagles were up big at halftime

 

[Norseman]

Originally posted by MightyQuin+Dec 15 2005, 01:54 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MightyQuin @ Dec 15 2005, 01:54 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Norseman

@Dec 13 2005, 08:59 AM

It would never happen, but maybe they should restructure the point system more like American football. I know the scoring changed a few times because of this very reason from when the game 1st started.

In football, the bulk of the emphisis is on scoring TD's, not field goals.

They have restructured the points several times over the last 20 or so years, with tries going from 3, to 4 to 5 points .

The problem is, the higher the value of a try, the more incentive there is to give away a penalty by the defence.

Unlike rugby league or American Football, if the penalty is conceded near the goal line, you get no extra benefit from playing on for a try rather than taking the field goal.

In League you get a full set of 6 tackles again, in Football you get to replay that down and often get moved closer to the line as well - in Union, there is no benefit from the penalty, sometimes even a disadvantage as the defence get to reset.

Increasing a try to 6 points or decreasing a penalty to 2 would only increase the number of penalties.

Another option might be to automatically sinbin any player who gives away a penalty inside their own half or 22m - maybe for 2 mins, or 5 mins (rather than the full "yellow card" period of 10 mins), or even until the next stoppage in play where their team has regained possession - but this sinbin only happens if the attacking team choose not to kick at goal.

Also, allow a penalty (except quick tap) to be taken at anypoint across the pitch, level with where the penalty was awarded if not going for goal - this could open up better angles for a kick to touch, or move a scrum into the centre of the pitch for more attacking options.

I also think Drop Goals should be dropped to only 1 or 2 points though instead of 3. [/b]

That's probably the best explanation iIve heard why they can't restructure the points any further. But maybe away around this would be keeping the same points closer to the goal?

 

[Norseman]

Originally posted by wigan_rlfc+Dec 15 2005, 02:02 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (wigan_rlfc @ Dec 15 2005, 02:02 AM)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-MightyQuin

@Dec 14 2005, 01:54 PM
I also think Drop Goals should be dropped to only 1 or 2 points though instead of 3.

Rugby League dropped from two to one after someone kicked five in a match. This would be a good idea in Union as there is too much reliance on the boot. I seem to remember one journalist not long after the last World Cup who thought drop Goals should be ncreased to four or five points....idiot

[/b]

More like a stupid $%@# idjet.

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by Norseman+Dec 15 2005, 08:58 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Norseman @ Dec 15 2005, 08:58 AM)</div>

Originally posted by wigan_rlfc@Dec 15 2005, 01:50 AM

Originally posted by sanzar@Dec 14 2005, 01:32 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Norseman

@Dec 14 2005, 02:48 PM
....and not enough on Entertainment.


That's probably why rugby doesn't catch on in the States.

In which case, why is rugby union bigger than league over there? League is certainly more based on try scoring... And if NFL is so entertaining, why is it of such little relevance outside of North America?

Because Union had a stronger foothold from the begining. Rugby Union is played at a fair few high schools and Universities. However Rugby League is growing in the USA at the moment I think.

I would have guessed league just by the fact the Aussies came over and played the Eagles last year. Eagles were up big at halftime

[/b]

Yeah, but the Kangaroo's had binged for a week before that

.

Seriously. Yanks will never get into rugby, the same way Gridiron will never truly expand beyond North America... You say yanks find rugby too slow, well I can assure you most people outside the US find Gridiron too slow (yes I know the plays are executed quickly, but that doesn't change the fact that it takes close to 4 hours to get through 60 minutes of play).

 

[Norseman]

I said to myself at halftime that the Eagles needed to score 12 pts to have a chance. They lost by 12.

I don't want the NFL to expand. Gridiron as a sport, maybe. But I'm like most fans. Americans just don't care if it's played outside the States like the rugby, soccer or cricket worlds do. But the NFL is pushing it ( they played a game in Mexico City this season that drew over 100,000).

80% of gridiron games last between 3 and 3 1/2 hours. And the length of the games isn't an issue with Americans, unless you're talking about commercials at certain parts of a game or the vid ref. But they just instituted a new rule where the replay booth shuts off after 90 seconds.

But it's funner when you watch several college games on Saturday, with all the highlights. Then watch a couple hours of pre-game on Sunday mornings, watch the regional morning NFL game, then straight to the main or one of the afternoon NFL games. Then it's about 90 minutes of 'Primetime' on ESPN. Summarized highlights of all the games, analysis, player/coach interviews, injury reports etc...then about a half hour of pre-game for Sunday Night Football - then the Sunday Night game.

Go to work on Monday, then come home and watch several hours of 'Monday Night Countdown' ending with the 'Jacked up!' segment before you watch Monday Night Football.

But the longer length is just a reflection on the difference in the games and is not an issue like it is with rugby fans.

 

[sanzar]

Originally posted by Norseman@Dec 15 2005, 06:51 PM
But the longer length is just a reflection on the difference in the games and is not an issue like it is with rugby fans.

Bingo. Just as the more continuous paced speed of rugby isn't an issue with rugby fans... and the afterburners are still there in any case

 

[Norseman]

>>Just as the more continuous paced speed of rugby isn't an issue with rugby fans<<


I don't undestand this one.

 

[tafkag]

Originally posted by Norseman@Dec 14 2005, 03:48 PM
....and not enough on Entertainment.


That's probably why rugby doesn't catch on in the States.

Thier loss, not ours.

 

[back row youth]

i personally dont see any problem with the kicking game in union, it is and always has been a part of the game, as there is something to gain from it, where as in league kicking often has little or no gain so the dont do it, however a lot of tries seem to be scored in league as a result of cross field kicks or up and unders, where as in union comparativly few are scored in this manner, suggesting that each code has its own type of kicking game, and both should be left as they are.

 

[Gay-Guy]

Ok well I was thinking yesterday reagrding League and Union.

League is the manipulation of events to allow ONE person to use his individual skills to get through.

Rugby transcends this as sometimes it includes MORE THAN one person to get through. You have a sense of individuality when you are trying to break the line. You also have a sense of team when more players add numbers to your individuality when they drive in trying to break the line. The realisation that ones individual strength is only a limited thing.