Tri Nations: Springboks - All Blacks @ Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium (20-8-2011, 15:05)

[User1245]

In fairness, rugby's rules have constantly changed, proving to be a good thing. South Africa was on of the first countries to start lifting players in a lineout. Rucking has been taken out of the game. In fact the origin of rugby was that a try was essentially worthless unless it was converted, which was the way to score. I don't believe rugby has yet got the perfect formula. I think that it runs a little too much on which team is best able to take advantage of the specifics of the rules, rather than a focus on pure skill, which is unappealing to a mass auidence. I think just making all kicks two points would be perfect, as it could still decide matches, and it would still benefit teams like South Africa who have amazing kickers but it would also encourage teams to try their luck a bit more in finishing off tries.

The thing about something like Soccer, is that it is such a basic game to know the rules to and follow. I think most people can pick up the rules of a game of soccer within two or three games maximum. I've loved rugby all my life, but I still get penalised when playing it for things I didn't know was wrong and things that the referee misinterpreted. For example: My team won the semi final by a couple of points, however we scored five tries and they scored one. Now I got penalised for tackling the halfback after the ball was clearly out of the ruck, because I apparently grabbed him while I was still coming through the gate of the ruck...try explaining that to a first time viewer.

The referee just has too much on his plate in rugby and because there are so many ways that any given situation can be interpreted, it becomes just too subjective. In soccer, players can either be offside, touch the ball with his hand, obstructed, dangerously tackled or fake a dangerous tackle. That's all a referee looks out for. That's nothing in comparrison to the hundreds of very specific rules in rugby, and because it's so easy to break anyone one of them, it is just too rewarding to do nothing but milk penalties.

IN SAYING THAT:

Rugby is sure a lot better than it was in 2009, mainly because of a change in law interpretations at the breakdown, lessoning the effects of not playing any running rugby.

Yes I agree some rule changes were for the best, especially when rugby was an amateur game. The game is now professional and has not had any major structural changes since and has grown consistently. The only major changes I can think of are: (1) the quick throw in (2) picking up lineout jumpers and (3) not being allowed to kick directly into touch if you ran back into your 22. These aren't really fundamental and structural changes imo. The emphasis on locks being tall didn't change and you still need a fullback that can kick well. The ELV's (which I supported) changed a very minor aspect of contesting for the ball, the contest itself didn't change. Ask your average casual rugby viewer (often the largest market & also heavily targeted to swing their sport alliance) what he/she thinks about rugby since 2009. They will not know what you're on about. Die hard rugby followers like you and myself can say "yes, the game is better" but according to what? Has rugby popularity in NZ increased since then? And is that the only factor?

I'm in the opinion that point changes and charges to the structured nature of rugby will be a bad thing... Using RL as an example of sporting success is a purely AUS/NZ phenomenon. That's bias cherry picking according to your viewer target market.
The most widely watched, best supported and well funded contact sport in the world is American Football. That game is mostly stoppages, and it would be a cheap and easy research to equate that: strategic game + stoppages = more viewers.

AUS/NZ need to re-look their take on declining of rugby popularity in their countries. Take in all the various factors such as population decline and economic stagnation, before you start tinkering with our beloved game. There is nothing wrong with the general rugby way is currently structured. Divert your focus to the external factors outside of rugby. And the realities that each of your countries face. NZ's growth across the board has slowed down or is decline, and AUS had many other sports that were professional, before rugby followed suit, and is now contesting in a sport saturated market.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Yes I agree some rule changes were for the best, especially when rugby was an amateur game. The game is now professional and has not had any major structural changes since and has grown consistently. The only major changes I can think of are: (1) the quick throw in (2) picking up lineout jumpers and (3) not being allowed to kick directly into touch if you ran back into your 22. These aren't really fundamental and structural changes imo. The emphasis on locks being tall didn't change and you still need a fullback that can kick well. The ELV's (which I supported) changed a very minor aspect of contesting for the ball, the contest itself didn't change. Ask your average casual rugby viewer (often the largest market & also heavily targeted to swing their sport alliance) what he/she thinks about rugby since 2009. They will not know what you're on about. Die hard rugby followers like you and myself can say "yes, the game is better" but according to what? Has rugby popularity in NZ increased since then? And is that the only factor?

I'm in the opinion that point changes and charges to the structured nature of rugby will be a bad thing... Using RL as an example of sporting success is a purely AUS/NZ phenomenon. That's bias cherry picking according to your viewer target market.
The most widely watched, best supported and well funded contact sport in the world is American Football. That game is mostly stoppages, and it would be a cheap and easy research to equate that: strategic game + stoppages = more viewers.

AUS/NZ need to re-look their take on declining of rugby popularity in their countries. Take in all the various factors such as population decline and economic stagnation, before you start tinkering with our beloved game. There is nothing wrong with the general rugby way is currently structured. Divert your focus to the external factors outside of rugby. And the realities that each of your countries face. NZ's growth across the board has slowed down or is decline, and AUS had many other sports that were professional, before rugby followed suit, and is now contesting in a sport saturated market.

Very well said.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

To be honest, I think John Mitchell would be excellent in that role. He's obviously made the Lions attack very good, despite not a huge amount of resources. He'd do well providing he stayed away form selections, although I even think he'd be pretty good in that aspect in rebuilding a Boks side.

I'd love John Mitchell as backs coach. But like you said I'd be scared of him having the last say about selections as he's made a few weird selection decisions when he was NZ coach but still, he made a brave call and backed his decision and I respect him for it. Also at the Lions, things like moving Wikus van heerden to lock has really paid off. He has made a young team with limited resources highly competitive. CC isn't S15 but the Lions are looking good with their only defeat so far at the hands of the WP and only just.

I wonder whether he'd be able to do both; coach the Lions and be the Boks' backs coach. Maybe if he weren't involved with the CC and only the Super series he might.

 

[calculon]

You can't change the scoring system, as that means Scotlands tallies will no longer be divisible by 3!

No seriously, given the nature and conditions of rugby in Europe, I'll say that those countries should just stop playing against SH teams if the scoring system is changed, imo they just won't be able to 'adapt' and score more tries than their SH counterparts (if they could, they would have reached some form of parity by now at least)

Nah, I say keep penalties at 3 pts. Go to 2 pts. for a drop goal and give 6-7 for a try. The spectacle is more important and I think NH teams would be forced to start playing a better class of rugby then. SH teams would still dominate to the same degree more or less, and all would be right with the universe. Screw divisibility!

 

[DariusLovehall]

Yes I agree some rule changes were for the best, especially when rugby was an amateur game. The game is now professional and has not had any major structural changes since and has grown consistently. The only major changes I can think of are: (1) the quick throw in (2) picking up lineout jumpers and (3) not being allowed to kick directly into touch if you ran back into your 22. These aren't really fundamental and structural changes imo. The emphasis on locks being tall didn't change and you still need a fullback that can kick well. The ELV's (which I supported) changed a very minor aspect of contesting for the ball, the contest itself didn't change. Ask your average casual rugby viewer (often the largest market & also heavily targeted to swing their sport alliance) what he/she thinks about rugby since 2009. They will not know what you're on about. Die hard rugby followers like you and myself can say "yes, the game is better" but according to what? Has rugby popularity in NZ increased since then? And is that the only factor?

I'm in the opinion that point changes and charges to the structured nature of rugby will be a bad thing... Using RL as an example of sporting success is a purely AUS/NZ phenomenon. That's bias cherry picking according to your viewer target market.
The most widely watched, best supported and well funded contact sport in the world is American Football. That game is mostly stoppages, and it would be a cheap and easy research to equate that: strategic game + stoppages = more viewers.

AUS/NZ need to re-look their take on declining of rugby popularity in their countries. Take in all the various factors such as population decline and economic stagnation, before you start tinkering with our beloved game. There is nothing wrong with the general rugby way is currently structured. Divert your focus to the external factors outside of rugby. And the realities that each of your countries face. NZ's growth across the board has slowed down or is decline, and AUS had many other sports that were professional, before rugby followed suit, and is now contesting in a sport saturated market.

Very well stated.

 

[Shaggy]

I'm definitely with Steve-o on this one - constantly changing rules are not a good thing for attracting and retaining new fans in any sport ... Rugby's laws are complex enough as it is, without constant changes. While I realise that rules and the way the game is played, are constantly changing, I think it's better when these changes occur from evolution rather than revolution ... in other words, changes are made more slowly, after careful consideration, rather than as a quick fix to increase viewership/revenue.

... I really can't see that tinkering with the point system will do much either, other than teach a new generation of rugby made kids some new arithmetic skills with numbers other than 2,3, and 5, and perhaps cause a skill, such as the ability to make a drop goal, not worth while, so that it disappears from the game.

I may be opening myself up here (as I haven't done the research), but I would suspect that the ratio, in terms of the number of penalties and drop goals scored, in comparison to tries, in the 1987 and 1991 World Cups (when tries were worth 4 points), does not differ significantly from the subsequent world cups.

... In my opinion, the greatest incentive for running rugby/scoring more tries, has been the four try bonus point, awarded in pool play for World cups, and Super rugby, but you can see that teams really don't worry about how they score the points, just that they score them, when it comes to the finals/knock out stages in those tournaments

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

The thing that baffled me here is the focus on the dropgoal when those are not as boring as penalties. I think rugby fans are tired of rules changing

 

[ZeFrenchy]

I'm definitely with Steve-o on this one - constantly changing rules are not a good thing for attracting and retaining new fans in any sport ... Rugby's laws are complex enough as it is, without constant changes. While I realise that rules and the way the game is played, are constantly changing, I think it's better when these changes occur from evolution rather than revolution ... in other words, changes are made more slowly, after careful consideration, rather than as a quick fix to increase viewership/revenue.

... I really can't see that tinkering with the point system will do much either, other than teach a new generation of rugby made kids some new arithmetic skills with numbers other than 2,3, and 5, and perhaps cause a skill, such as the ability to make a drop goal, not worth while, so that it disappears from the game.

I may be opening myself up here (as I haven't done the research), but I would suspect that the ratio, in terms of the number of penalties and drop goals scored, in comparison to tries, in the 1987 and 1991 World Cups (when tries were worth 4 points), does not differ significantly from the subsequent world cups.

... In my opinion, the greatest incentive for running rugby/scoring more tries, has been the four try bonus point, awarded in pool play for World cups, and Super rugby, but you can see that teams really don't worry about how they score the points, just that they score them, when it comes to the finals/knock out stages in those tournaments

I haven't checked the numbers either, but I'll have to disagree with you. Watching replays of 1991 RWC games, I saw at least a couple of times drop goals being scored directly from a scrum in the opposition's 22. Do you see that happenning now?
And for rule changes, the only change needed is in the scrum, an perhaps you just need a memo that adjusts the interpretation somehow. Drop goals as a "problem" is hugely overrated IMO. The record for DG in a game is five (international), three is exceptional, and two is rare. No team's gameplan is "winning on dropgoals".

Besides, I happen to enjoy drop goals; But that's obviously subjective, so there's no point in elaborating.

 

[Shaggy]

I haven't checked the numbers either, but I'll have to disagree with you. Watching replays of 1991 RWC games, I saw at least a couple of times drop goals being scored directly from a scrum in the opposition's 22. Do you see that happenning now?
And for rule changes, the only change needed is in the scrum, an perhaps you just need a memo that adjusts the interpretation somehow. Drop goals as a "problem" is hugely overrated IMO. The record for DG in a game is five (international), three is exceptional, and two is rare. No team's gameplan is "winning on dropgoals".

Besides, I happen to enjoy drop goals; But that's obviously subjective, so there's no point in elaborating.

Yeah, my point is that if a drop goal was (and is) worth 3, and a try was worth 4, and is now worth 5 ... a drop goal was comparatively a greater scoring option back in 87 and 91, and even if you saw a drop goal a couple of times in the tournament, it's not like drop goals were being attempted in plague like proportions, so the whole lessen the value of a drop goal argument, doesn't really hold up for me either.

 

[DariusLovehall]

I agree with the less change is better sentiment to a point but one of the things which makes me envious of league is consistency of referring decisions.

Every second referee has a different interpretation of the breakdown laws and so many games are decided on refs getting it wrong that it can border on farcical.
Aside from that i can't stand watching a ref give a scrum penalty based on nothing but guesswork..... Games have been decided by these decisions as well - sometimes after the ball
made it back to the halfback and is in his hands and the ref will blow a scrum penalty for the front row going down or whatever when he Really Doesn't Know who took it Down!

And im def a fan of making the drop goal 1 point !!!

 

[FlukeArtist]

@ Steve-O

"AUS/NZ need to re-look their take on declining of rugby popularity in their countries. Take in all the various factors such as population decline and economic stagnation, before you start tinkering with our beloved game. There is nothing wrong with the general rugby way is currently structured. Divert your focus to the external factors outside of rugby. And the realities that each of your countries face. NZ's growth across the board has slowed down or is decline, and AUS had many other sports that were professional, before rugby followed suit, and is now contesting in a sport saturated market."

What population decline???
And what has economic stagnation got to do with it??
Both Red herrings.
If you are speaking about playing numbers, you may well be right, which again goes to prove my point that Rugby is losing popularity.

You aren't from NZ or Australia, so you probably can't grasp the point that there is competition for the punters dollars when it comes to contact sport.
League has never been a popular sport in South Africa, so i'm not surprised that this point is missed by you.
To state "there is nothing wronmg with the general way rugby is structured" is putting your head in the sand.
Especially when it comes to NZ and Australia. You lose those 2 markets, you are losing a VALUABLE asset to the game.

Try and imagine Rugby without strong teams from NZ & Australia.

Like it or not, League is on an upward swing at the moment, especially in Auckland.
I tell you what, I'm sure the Blues or Auckland would be stoked if they could consistently draw crowds like the Warriors do.
And I can tell you why the Warriors are winning in the crowd stakes: its because currently, it is simply better entertainment.
If Wellington ends up getting a team in the NRL in the next few years as well, rugby will lose ground in another city.

To cite league as an example in Aus & NZ is "biased cherry-picking" is nonsense. .
So is comparing NFL stoppages with penalties - You should be comparing NFL field goal points with penalties - THAT is the true comparison.
In NFL, as in League- the emphasis is on crossing the try-line, or geting a Touch-down
Which again further proves my point re entertainment.

 

[Shaggy]

@ Steve-O

"AUS/NZ need to re-look their take on declining of rugby popularity in their countries. Take in all the various factors such as population decline and economic stagnation, before you start tinkering with our beloved game. There is nothing wrong with the general rugby way is currently structured. Divert your focus to the external factors outside of rugby. And the realities that each of your countries face. NZ's growth across the board has slowed down or is decline, and AUS had many other sports that were professional, before rugby followed suit, and is now contesting in a sport saturated market."

What population decline???
And what has economic stagnation got to do with it??
Both Red herrings.
If you are speaking about playing numbers, you may well be right, which again goes to prove my point that Rugby is losing popularity.

You aren't from NZ or Australia, so you probably can't grasp the point that there is competition for the punters dollars when it comes to contact sport.
League has never been a popular sport in South Africa, so i'm not surprised that this point is missed by you.
To state "there is nothing wronmg with the general way rugby is structured" is putting your head in the sand.
Especially when it comes to NZ and Australia. You lose those 2 markets, you are losing a VALUABLE asset to the game.

Try and imagine Rugby without strong teams from NZ & Australia.

Like it or not, League is on an upward swing at the moment, especially in Auckland.
I tell you what, I'm sure the Blues or Auckland would be stoked if they could consistently draw crowds like the Warriors do.
And I can tell you why the Warriors are winning in the crowd stakes: its because currently, it is simply better entertainment.
If Wellington ends up getting a team in the NRL in the next few years as well, rugby will lose ground in another city.

To cite league as an example in Aus & NZ is "biased cherry-picking" is nonsense. .
So is comparing NFL stoppages with penalties - You should be comparing NFL field goal points with penalties - THAT is the true comparison.
In NFL, as in League- the emphasis is on crossing the try-line, or geting a Touch-down
Which again further proves my point re entertainment.

Hang on, weren't you advocating that the changes were needed to increase number WORLD WIDE a few posts ago (your post on page 36) ... now it turns out that you are actually talking about the threat that league poses to the New Zealand, or more specifically the Auckland rugby market.

... You seem to have edited out quite a bit of what he is saying here - the cherry picking remark, was proceeded by him pointing out that Rugby League is an issue local to Australia and New Zealand, and so you are looking to make global changes to the rules, to fix a local problem, and so you aren't looking at it as a world wide problem at all.

... The stuff about the NFL is relevant as well, as he clearly states that NFL is the most widely viewed contact sport in the world, and that, it's a stop - start sort of a game, which proves that a game doesn't have to be fast and not have interruptions for it to be entertaining

I really can't see that the lowering of the value of penalty goals and drop goals, is going to solve any problem of league taking away patrons from Union in New Zealand or Australia anyway ... most New Zealand and Australian teams like to run the ball, and have a focus on scoring tries anyway

 

[FlukeArtist]

[TEXTAREA][... My points here are, if i'm prepared to give away three points by slowing the game down, and preventing the attacking team from scoring a try, surely lessening the amount of points i'm penalised by, is going to encourage negative play, and slow the game down ... perhaps if the penalty was equal to or greater than the value of a converted try, or if the ref actually yellow carded offenders for cynical play STRAIGHT AWAY, without any warnings, this would genuinely penalise offending teams, the number of infringements would drop, the ball would be recycled quicker, the game would be faster, and your goal of a more entertaining match might be achieved
[/TEXTAREA]


Teams will still give away a possible two points- its not like they aren't getting penalised at all, and Remember- the ref still has the option of yellow cards too to penalise repeat offenders.
Why not use a system like Basketball, when the ref notes down the player's number who commited the foul, and once a certain amount is reached, they are binned/off?



[TEXTAREA]Agreed, it can be hard to tell sometimes, but a large number of infringements that occur are related to slowing the ball down ... my thinking is that if a faster game = more tries being scored = a more entertaining game = more people watching, then a bigger disincentive/a larger penalty, is going to lessen the number of infringements, so the ref is going to have to make less marginal calls.

[/TEXTAREA]


So you are going to speed the game up by ostensibly encouraging teams to take shots at goal (and effectively STOPPING the game) by assigning a higher point value to the kicks???
That dosn't make sense to me at all.
Your argument is actually counter-productive to the outcome you want to see.
Obviously- its not working currently. Otherwise we wouldn't even be having this debate.

[TEXTAREA]Well, I apologise for not clarifying my position more - my interpretation of your point was that faster = more tries = a better spectacle for fans to watch = more people watching/growth of the game ... also, that penalties and drop goals aren't as entertaining.

... My position is that, assuming all of the above is true, lowering the value of penalties, is going to increase the number of penalties awarded, and thus, make the game less attractive to punters.

I actually don't think that scoring more tries, is as effective a tool at increasing viewership, as player participation, viewer education of the rules, and good marketing of the game ... you really just need to look at the evil round ball code to see what all of these three things can do ... Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, and it can go for 90 minutes without either team scoring.


[/TEXTAREA]

See my points above re this one.


[TEXTAREA]My opinion on drop goals is, if they are so easy to execute, and if they are an easy reward, why doesn't everyone do it ... if the reward is so great, and you don't have the personnel to kick them successfully, pick players that do

... I personally feel that they aren't as easy to execute as many people feel, and that you have to have achieved specific field position to kick them anyway, so if a team can get themselves in a position to score the points, great[/QUOTE][/TEXTAREA]

Easy to execute of not (and this is a moot point) I don't think I can ever be convinced that that the skill and endeavour it takes to execute 2 drop goals should ever exceed the reward for scoring a try.
Lets face facts here- more often that not drop goals are taken because teams cannot cross the try-line.
Which means it is relatively less difficult way to accumulate points.
I stand by my previous statement that drop goals should be game-breakers, not game winners.

 

[donmcdazzle]

Drop goals aren't the problem. It's penalties at scrums that wind me up. Half the time the ref is guessing and that results in 3 points for one team, doesn't seem balanced. Either that or change the rules regarding scrums. I can't fathom why props aren't allowed tp put their hand on the ground to maintain balance. They get no forward momentum from doing this, it is just to stop the thing collapsing, which would mean less resets. The dominant scrum will still be dominant. So many soft 3 pointers get awarded for a prop slipping his bid, rebalancing by putting his hand on the ground.

Drop goals have never been any teams main source of points, and they're so much harder to pull of than a succesful penalty shot. Also, they're only really pulled off in an attacking position, like 20-30m out in front of the posts, so it takes some endeavour to get to that position. Penalties can be hit from anywhere in the opposition half (and sometimes beyond). Leave DG's at 3 points.

 

[FlukeArtist]

Hang on, weren't you advocating that the changes were needed to increase number WORLD WIDE a few posts ago (your post on page 36) ... now it turns out that you are actually talking about the threat that league poses to the New Zealand, or more specifically the Auckland rugby market.

... You seem to have edited out quite a bit of what he is saying here - the cherry picking remark, was proceeded by him pointing out that Rugby League is an issue local to Australia and New Zealand, and so you are looking to make global changes to the rules, to fix a local problem, and so you aren't looking at it as a world wide problem at all.

... The stuff about the NFL is relevant as well, as he clearly states that NFL is the most widely viewed contact sport in the world, and that, it's a stop - start sort of a game, which proves that a game doesn't have to be fast and not have interruptions for it to be entertaining

I really can't see that the lowering of the value of penalty goals and drop goals, is going to solve any problem of league taking away patrons from Union in New Zealand or Australia anyway ... most New Zealand and Australian teams like to run the ball, and have a focus on scoring tries anyway

I think you are missing the main thrust of the argument re points change here- which was about ENTERTAINMENT.

My argument re League was that it is taking the entertainment dollars away in Auckland currently, and has done so for a while in Australia.

I was commenting about worldwide growth earlier, and in the more recent post I was replying to comments made about NZ & Aus rugby v League raised by Steve-O.
(so to calrify)- I have commented on BOTH those specific markets ie: Worldwide global appeal and growth, and local competition from otehr contact sports.
I am speaking about the popularity and growth of the sport both loaclly and globally.

Its not "global changes to deal with a local problem" because both, In my opinion relate to the need to address ENTERTAINMENT value in the game in order to GROW the game's appeal.

yes, most NZ / Aust teams like to run the ball and score tries. I have never disputed taht, what I have disputed is that it is a sad indictment on the game where you get scenarios like (I think it was NickD raised) where his team win by 5 points, but have scored 5 tries to 1!!!
How can that be defended? Thats ridiculous.
He then went on to mention that he didn't even know why he was being penalised at times.
As I have stated before, penalties are a grey area a lot of the time, and it is not just that one team should get a 3 point leg up on the basis of interpretation given that all the skill and endeavour it takes to score a try only give you 5 points.

Massive disparity there

reyou NFL comment- you'll note I said nothing about the stop-start nature of it, and stated the emphasis there is on Touchdowns.
Touchdowns get 6 points. Conversion (extrs point) gets 1 point. A field goal gets 3 points.
Where is the emphasis re the points?? Its on scoring a touchdown.
THAT is the crowd pleasing aspect of the game after all.

 

[JW.]

Up your discipline and you won't have a problem with penalty's. I think the point system is just fine. A penalty is awarded when someone commits an offence, and an offence should be penalised. Lowering the points for a penalty will just invite things like slowing the ball down etc. to stop a try, because the ref isn't going to go to the pocket after 1,2 or 3 offences. And by then you could have already stopped a couple of tries. Because you'll only get 1-2 points against you. Which is hardly a punishment.

And Rugby as I see it is getting bigger and bigger in Europe, America and Asia just look at Russia, Georgia, Japan, America, Uruguay and even Holland. So it seems to be fine as it is gathering more people?

 

[Shaggy]

[TEXTAREA][... My points here are, if i'm prepared to give away three points by slowing the game down, and preventing the attacking team from scoring a try, surely lessening the amount of points i'm penalised by, is going to encourage negative play, and slow the game down ... perhaps if the penalty was equal to or greater than the value of a converted try, or if the ref actually yellow carded offenders for cynical play STRAIGHT AWAY, without any warnings, this would genuinely penalise offending teams, the number of infringements would drop, the ball would be recycled quicker, the game would be faster, and your goal of a more entertaining match might be achieved
[/TEXTAREA]


Teams will still give away a possible two points- its not like they aren't getting penalised at all, and Remember- the ref still has the option of yellow cards too to penalise repeat offenders.
Why not use a system like Basketball, when the ref notes down the player's number who commited the foul, and once a certain amount is reached, they are binned/off?

Well, I guess we are looking at two separate aspects of the slowing of the game, i'm saying that the offenses that the players commit slow the game down more than actually shooting for goal, and prevent the attacking team from scoring potential tries ... lowering the value of penalty kicks, and giving players warnings and chances before actually facing any consequences for cynical play, isn't going to speed the game up any, is it?

[TEXTAREA]Agreed, it can be hard to tell sometimes, but a large number of infringements that occur are related to slowing the ball down ... my thinking is that if a faster game = more tries being scored = a more entertaining game = more people watching, then a bigger disincentive/a larger penalty, is going to lessen the number of infringements, so the ref is going to have to make less marginal calls.

[/TEXTAREA]


So you are going to speed the game up by ostensibly encouraging teams to take shots at goal (and effectively STOPPING the game) by assigning a higher point value to the kicks???
That dosn't make sense to me at all.
Your argument is actually counter-productive to the outcome you want to see.
Obviously- its not working currently. Otherwise we wouldn't even be having this debate.

Sure it does, you seek to lessen the number of penalty goals by lessening the value of a penalty goal, and i'm saying that a more effective way to prevent the number of penalty goals, is not to make giving away a penalty worth while to cynical offenders ... most rugby players can do maths, so if they can see they are going to concede the same or more points, they won't offend as much, and there will be less penalty kicks, so the game will be faster ... my preference is for the value of scoring of tries/penalties/drop goals/conversions to remain the same, I only mentioned sterner penalties against offending players as a solution to the excessive number of penalty kicks, that you say are slowing the game down

[TEXTAREA]Well, I apologise for not clarifying my position more - my interpretation of your point was that faster = more tries = a better spectacle for fans to watch = more people watching/growth of the game ... also, that penalties and drop goals aren't as entertaining.

... My position is that, assuming all of the above is true, lowering the value of penalties, is going to increase the number of penalties awarded, and thus, make the game less attractive to punters.

I actually don't think that scoring more tries, is as effective a tool at increasing viewership, as player participation, viewer education of the rules, and good marketing of the game ... you really just need to look at the evil round ball code to see what all of these three things can do ... Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, and it can go for 90 minutes without either team scoring. [/TEXTAREA]

See my points above re this one.

I don't think you've really addressed this one, I get that you advocate that a faster game and more tries = a better spectacle and increased viewership, but i'm saying that there are greater factors that can be used to increase the popularity of rugby, and you only need to look at the soccer model to see it

[TEXTAREA]My opinion on drop goals is, if they are so easy to execute, and if they are an easy reward, why doesn't everyone do it ... if the reward is so great, and you don't have the personnel to kick them successfully, pick players that do

... I personally feel that they aren't as easy to execute as many people feel, and that you have to have achieved specific field position to kick them anyway, so if a team can get themselves in a position to score the points, great[/TEXTAREA]

Easy to execute of not (and this is a moot point) I don't think I can ever be convinced that that the skill and endeavour it takes to execute 2 drop goals should ever exceed the reward for scoring a try.
Lets face facts here- more often that not drop goals are taken because teams cannot cross the try-line.
Which means it is relatively less difficult way to accumulate points.
I stand by my previous statement that drop goals should be game-breakers, not game winners.

Yeah well, I really don't see it as a big issue ... two drop goals for a team do not occur that often in a match anyway, it's a legitimate way of scoring - leave it alone in my opinion

 

[donmcdazzle]

Up your discipline and you won't have a problem with penalty's. I think the point system is just fine. A penalty is awarded when someone commits an offence, and an offence should be penalised. Lowering the points for a penalty will just invite things like slowing the ball down etc. to stop a try, because the ref isn't going to go to the pocket after 1,2 or 3 offences. And by then you could have already stopped a couple of tries. Because you'll only get 1-2 points against you. Which is hardly a punishment.

And Rugby as I see it is getting bigger and bigger in Europe, America and Asia just look at Russia, Georgia, Japan, America, Uruguay and even Holland. So it seems to be fine as it is gathering more people?

But when that offence is questionable (see my above point about props putting their hand down to keep the scrum from collapsing), is it really worth more than half a try? I agree on the value of a penalty being fine, it's just some things really don't feel like they're worth 3 points in comparison to others. Slowing ball down when one team is on attack? Fair enough. But the scrum penalties are a bit of a joke.

 

[JW.]

The scrum penalties are down to the referee and they should sort that out. It's ridiculius how some ref's just don't even look at the feed and just walk to the back of the scrum. How can you see what the props are doing then, let alone if the ball is put in straight. If you put your hand on the floor in a scrum it means you aren't binding, which is illegal and it should stay that way.

 

[Shaggy]

I think you are missing the main thrust of the argument re points change here- which was about ENTERTAINMENT.

My argument re League was that it is taking the entertainment dollars away in Auckland currently, and has done so for a while in Australia.

I was commenting about worldwide growth earlier, and in the more recent post I was replying to comments made about NZ & Aus rugby v League raised by Steve-O.
(so to calrify)- I have commented on BOTH those specific markets ie: Worldwide global appeal and growth, and local competition from otehr contact sports.
I am speaking about the popularity and growth of the sport both loaclly and globally.

Its not "global changes to deal with a local problem" because both, In my opinion relate to the need to address ENTERTAINMENT value in the game in order to GROW the game's appeal.

yes, most NZ / Aust teams like to run the ball and score tries. I have never disputed taht, what I have disputed is that it is a sad indictment on the game where you get scenarios like (I think it was NickD raised) where his team win by 5 points, but have scored 5 tries to 1!!!
How can that be defended? Thats ridiculous.
He then went on to mention that he didn't even know why he was being penalised at times.
As I have stated before, penalties are a grey area a lot of the time, and it is not just that one team should get a 3 point leg up on the basis of interpretation given that all the skill and endeavour it takes to score a try only give you 5 points.

Massive disparity there

reyou NFL comment- you'll note I said nothing about the stop-start nature of it, and stated the emphasis there is on Touchdowns.
Touchdowns get 6 points. Conversion (extrs point) gets 1 point. A field goal gets 3 points.
Where is the emphasis re the points?? Its on scoring a touchdown.
THAT is the crowd pleasing aspect of the game after all.

I get that you believe that more tries will increase the entertainment aspect of Rugby Union and allow it to compete better with rugby league, and that it should make the game more appealing to the masses globally, but, if the emphasis is already on scoring tries in NZ (and not taking penalties) then it doesn't matter if the value of a penalty is anyway ... as JW has implied, if you score 5 tries to 1, and you win by only 5 points, the winning team either has a discipline problem, or has a goal kicking problem, or both, and these are aspects that should be resolved by coaches and players, not by rule changes

... I could be wrong (I often am, so sorry if I am), but I think Steve-O's comment was responding to your global comment, and his initial NFL comment was to illustrate that a game can attract a large global following, despite it being stop-start ... I know that you are saying that the fans watch the game for the touch downs, but, at the end of the day, they aren't going to turn their back on their team if it wins by field goals as a result of penalty offenses, they just want to see their team win