Are penalty kicks ruining games ?

Awkward Badger

Seen this posted on another site recently. The NZ v England game was cited as an example of where teams were happy to kick penalties at the expense of playing exciting running rugby. Until the last 10 minutes that is. For some in the SH particularly its an issue with test rugby and they feel something needs to be done to encourage teams to kick less and run more.

One of the solutions mentioned was reduce the points for a penalty and/or increase the points for a try. But of course that would bring with it more issues such as higher penalty count and by the time you have found solutions of every knock on effect you're left not knowing at all how it would actually pan out in practice.

I'll admit penalty-fest games can be boring but not always I don't think. I think there is a lot of good and exciting play that goes into getting those penalties in those kickable positions and taking the points keeps the game close and exciting as opposed to winning or losing by a considerable margin.

I'd be inclined to think its not that big of an issue and maybe having a look at just being a bit quicker with yellow cards for deliberate fouls in your own 22 to try dissuade players from infringing might reduce the amount of kicks.

Do you guys think its ruining games ? Or have any views on how things could be changed if its an issue ?

jacothelad

I don't know about deliberate fowls but I once owned a yellow Ford Escort that was once deliberately attacked by a very large goose....:D

I think the time taken over penalties is ludicrous. A man comes on. He gives the players a drink. The player faffs about with a tee, looking for the best spot. The ref makes him move the tee 6 inches back. The player has a cup of tea and a biscuit, wipes his boots, picks a few strands of grass and throws them up in the air while watching intently, checks his boots again, carefully and slowly he retreats his step pattern, shakes his arms to loosen them. Looks up at the posts. Looks down at the ball. Shakes his arms to loosen them again in case they've tightened up in the last 10 seconds. Looks down at the ball again. Up to the posts again, Down again. Rocks back on his heels. Looks up to the posts again. Cups his hands together and does a little foot jig. Steadies himself.. Again. Steps forward and kicks the ball.

The clock needs to be stopped or refs need to blow them up for going over time.

Richard Hillman

I was fuming when England went for a kick at goal when they got a penalty inside the NZ 5 yards line. It stunk of a lack of ambition and for me was anti-rugby. It wasn't even a gimme of a kick.

I also agree about the time it takes for a kick. It needs to be reduced even more.

Nba man

More free kicks, maybe only full penalty awarded when in the opposition 22, but still have yellow cards for cynical play no matter where on the pitch, tho it would probably just promote more scrums which is already a problem area in terms of excitability

19543261

The problem with people saying this is a problem is that their problem is "This match is boring, how to get rid of boring matches" when no matter what you do there will always be matches people find boring. Changing a games rules for that reason is a terrible idea.

Neil3030

19543261 wrote: »

The problem with people saying this is a problem is that their problem is "This match is boring, how to get rid of boring matches" when no matter what you do there will always be matches people find boring. Changing a games rules for that reason is a terrible idea.

Exactly this.

Go watch 7s or basketball if you want constant scoring.

former legend

Neil3030 wrote: »

Exactly this.

Go watch 7s or basketball if you want constant scoring.

100%.

So the NZ v England game was a bit dull but the Arg v Ireland game had 5 tries, France v Oz had 9, what problem is this trying to solve, exactly?

ScissorPaperRock

I think stopping the clock for penalties is a good idea. Or even have a time limit for the kick and also stop the clock for the game.

chupacabra

meh, I guess from a neutral perspective games with a lot of kicks at goal are boring but if you feel that way then go watch sevens. My love of the XV game is about tactics, strategy and execution. Sure I first became interested in the game because of the likes of Cullen, Robinson and Lomu but once I started playing the game I developed a very deep appreciation for the more tactical, strategic elements of the game.

Honestly I would prefer an absorbing 9 - 6 game to a ridiculously over the top 55 - 33 game.

Losty Dublin

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I was fuming when England went for a kick at goal when they got a penalty inside the NZ 5 yards line. It stunk of a lack of ambition and for me was anti-rugby. It wasn't even a gimme of a kick.

I also agree about the time it takes for a kick. It needs to be reduced even more.

You infringe the laws of the game. In doing so, you run the risk of losing your team 3 points depending on where the infringement took place as well as losing possession and tactical position during the game. This places the onus on the team not in possession to minimise the tactical advantage of the opposing team. Kicking for position and for goal are also integral skill sets of the game which least one player per team needs, more if possible.

You also have the balanced risk of infringing and giving away 3 points when your team may end up losing 5 or even 7, something the opposition can exploit during the match. Do it the wrong way and you can lose a player, 5/7 points or even both. This places the clear onus on the team in possession to make good their tactical advantage.

These are two excellent reasons on why not to infringe on the field of play and what makes rugby football the greatest field sport of them all.

hermano

This is just like the scrum argument. If you start watering down or getting rid of these parts of the game you just end up with Rugby League

Davei141

The England NZ game was by far the most exciting game of the day, yet had the least amount of tries. Tries have to be earned, they aren't supposed to be easy to score.

CIARAN_BOYLE

I wouldn't be opposed to a small number of penalties being downgraded to free kicks but generally I think the balance is right at the moment.

padser

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I wouldn't be opposed to a small number of penalties being downgraded to free kicks but generally I think the balance is right at the moment.

I was at a talk by Nigel Owens a few weeks ago where he made an interesting point on this. He was basically saying every time you make changes to rules it tends to have a few knock on consequences and you need to anticipate these before doing it.

The example was reducing things from penalties to free kicks. It has the advantage obviously reducing the number of three pointers so teams will go for more tries. However it also reduces the cost to a team for infringing the rules....so you get more foul plays.

Taco Corp

ScissorPaperRock wrote: »

I think stopping the clock for penalties is a good idea. Or even have a time limit for the kick and also stop the clock for the game.

if the time limits were fully enforced or even reduced there would be an immediate improvement

Jacovs

Varsity rugby in South Africa implemented something like this already. Correct me if im wrong, but I think they award 5 for a try, 3 for a conversion, and 2 for a penalty.

danthefan

Though NZ v England was a really compelling game, even without being free-flowing. That was two top class teams going head-to-head, don't mess with it imo.

Should be noted both teams had a couple of chances (NZ especially) that they would have finished off on another day.

errlloyd

Penalties are perfectly balanced right now. There is all ready an element of professional fouling that exists in rugby, reducing their points would increase that, less deterrent from slowing the ball down or collapsing mauls and scrums.

I also think that teams go for the corner just the right amount of the time to make it interesting.

Swiwi.

I'm pretty happy with rugby laws as they stand. The scrum, and particularly the time spent there, still needs sorting. Maybe the odd scrum infringement could be a free-kick rather than a penalty, but then teams often elect to take their free-kick in the form of a scrum anyway, so it solves nothing. I do recall the experimental law variations, and there was way too many free-kicks in that version of the game.

Having the Lions series decided by Corbisiero being a better scrummager than Alexander or whoever it was, though, was a hollow victory for mine.

Losty Dublin

Of course, if penalty kicks only got you two points or if they were curtailed then we'd lose moments like this from the game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wrp4c-x95w

Think long and hard about what you don't want in the game

SaveOurLyric

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I was fuming when England went for a kick at goal when they got a penalty inside the NZ 5 yards line. It stunk of a lack of ambition and for me was anti-rugby. It wasn't even a gimme of a kick.

I also agree about the time it takes for a kick. It needs to be reduced even more.

Kicking points rather than just a 'try' to kick points is the essence of rugby. A try is really only a winning of the right to have a kick at the posts even though the points balances have been fiddled with over the years.

Agree kickers taking too long is an issue. J Sexton is beyond the beyond over the last two years. In the past though it wasnt much better even if they didnt go for all the squat-like-youre-on-the-jacks, cup-your-hands-like-you-are-saying-a-prayer-over-the-ball, etc malarkey. They just spent ten minutes kick a tee mound from the turf.

Stop the clock is a decent idea.

(scrum reset nonsense is a much worse sapper of playing time while the spectators are bored stiff)

Don't change the point scoring, just stop the clock or penalise slow kickers.

Bring the number down to 45seconds from when the player points at the posts. Referee blows whistle after 45 seconds and if the ball isn't kicked by then it's a scrum from the penalty position to the opposition. My only worry would be we'd see people giving their kicker more time to relax/mentally setup by seeking treatment at every ruck that their team is given a penalty at, as the referee would need to wait for these players before asking the question. At least the clock issue would stop though.

Kickers are absolutely taking more and more time than they need to. Sexton is a prime example of this. Watch him taking kicks in Croke Park against Munster compared to his routine now. It's 20 seconds longer at this stage.

Taco Corp

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't change the point scoring, just stop the clock or penalise slow kickers.

Bring the number down to 45seconds from when the player points at the posts. Referee blows whistle after 45 seconds and if the ball isn't kicked by then it's a scrum from the penalty position to the opposition. My only worry would be we'd see people giving their kicker more time to relax/mentally setup by seeking treatment at every ruck that their team is given a penalty at, as the referee would need to wait for these players before asking the question. At least the clock issue would stop though.

Kickers are absolutely taking more and more time than they need to. Sexton is a prime example of this. Watch him taking kicks in Croke Park against Munster compared to his routine now. It's 20 seconds longer at this stage.

I like all of this. I think in terms of the part I bolded, the ref doesn't need to call time off until after the kick is taken (unless for serious injury ) as medics can still treat any players while the kick is taken. after the kick is taken the ref can call time off

Losty Dublin

Captain_Hindsight wrote: »

I like all of this. I think in terms of the part I bolded, the ref doesn't need to call time off until after the kick is taken (unless for serious injury ) as medics can still treat any players while the kick is taken. after the kick is taken the ref can call time off

Problem.

If the clock stops for kicks at goal, this means that the player decides when the clock is stopped and started rather than the match officials deciding this. Indeed, even a non player has control over the clock being stopped; remember that a kick of goal may be indicated by the arrival of the kicking tee. As it stands, only the the referee may stop and restart the game. The matter of players wasting time over kicks isn't reason enough to make such a fundamental change to the officiating of the game.

Swiwi.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Kicking points rather than just a 'try' to kick points is the essence of rugby. A try is really only a winning of the right to have a kick at the posts even though the points balances have been fiddled with over the years.

Agree kickers taking too long is an issue. J Sexton is beyond the beyond over the last two years. In the past though it wasnt much better even if they didnt go for all the squat-like-youre-on-the-jacks, cup-your-hands-like-you-are-saying-a-prayer-over-the-ball, etc malarkey. They just spent ten minutes kick a tee mound from the turf.

Stop the clock is a decent idea.

(scrum reset nonsense is a much worse sapper of playing time while the spectators are bored stiff)

LOL. When my grandparents were in nappies! Historically, yes, but over time the try has taken pre-eminence, and this is reflected in the points awarded for same. The history of rugby and its development is interesting, but I don't really think nowadays that teams strive to cross the chalk so they can "try" for a conversion.

Nermal

Make it a drop kick, would encourage more going for a line-out from penalties given away further away from the posts?

sydthebeat

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Problem.

If the clock stops for kicks at goal, this means that the player decides when the clock is stopped and started rather than the match officials deciding this. Indeed, even a non player has control over the clock being stopped; remember that a kick of goal may be indicated by the arrival of the kicking tee. As it stands, only the the referee may stop and restart the game. The matter of players wasting time over kicks isn't reason enough to make such a fundamental change to the officiating of the game.

Not quite getting you.

Penalty awarded, ref asks for decision.
Shot at goal requested. Ref stops watch, 45 seconds begin.
Time begins again on drop off or scrum.

All the time the control of the time off is in the refs hands.

Not quite sure it's that much of a blight on the game so as to require a law variation at this stage though.

Losty Dublin

sydthebeat wrote: »

Not quite getting you.

Penalty awarded, ref asks for decision.
Shot at goal requested. Ref stops watch, 45 seconds begin.
Time begins again on drop off or scrum.

All the time the control of the time off is in the refs hands.

Not quite sure it's that much of a blight on the game so as to require a law variation at this stage though.

The problem with it is simple. It's taking part of the control of part of the game (When to stop and start time on) from the referee and giving it to the players and arguably even a non player. The control of the game by a referee is a fundamental aspect of the game; there are better ways to deal with slovenly kickers than law changes.

sydthebeat

Losty Dublin wrote: »

The problem with it is simple. It's taking part of the control of part of the game (When to stop and start time on) from the referee and giving it to the players and arguably even a non player. The control of the game by a referee is a fundamental aspect of the game; there are better ways to deal with slovenly kickers than law changes.

As I said, I don't think it's such an issue to warrant a change. .. but your post reads of more than a little preciousness.
If everyone understood the consequences of the call, their no loss of control.

The clock starts in Basketball when a player throws the ball in or from a free throw. Same in Rugby League for kicks, clock is stopped after a set amount of time and the referee restarts when the player runs up. American Football has the clock stopped until the ball returns into play. It's not an issue.

d2ww

How much time are kickers allowed now, btw?

Swiwi.

d2ww wrote: »

How much time are kickers allowed now, btw?

90s from moment kick indicated I think. Used to be 1 minute once ball on tee. Off the top of my head though.

sydthebeat

Swiwi. wrote: »

90s from moment kick indicated I think. Used to be 1 minute once ball on tee. Off the top of my head though.

90 seconds for a conversion, 60 for a penalty... IIFC???