7 points for a try - worth revisiting ?

Peeky Max

It is time for the authorities to look at the 5 + 2 for try and conversion? Is there too much reward for the art of kicking in the game or too less ? Would 7 + 1 be a more fair award for a try and 4 for a kicked penalty with 2 for a DG?

Flipper22

Peeky Max wrote: »

It is time for the authorities to look at the 5 + 2 for try and conversion? Is there too much reward for the art of kicking in the game or too less ? Would 7 + 1 be a more fair award for a try and 4 for a kicked penalty with 2 for a DG?

Why four for a penalty and 2 for a DG?

errlloyd

The game is well balanced.

Remember, adding points for a try increases the incentive for attackers to go for the try, but it also increases the incentive for defenders to cynically give away penalties.

Drop goals are also well balanced. At the moment they make the closing stages of games interesting. While not being worth enough to be over used in open play.

Peeky Max

Flipper22 wrote: »

Why four for a penalty and 2 for a DG?

Reduce the amount of foul play. Less points for DG means focus will be on trys

Heroditas

Let's add safeties as well to the game.

evil_seed

Peeky Max wrote: »

It is time for the authorities to look at the 5 + 2 for try and conversion? Is there too much reward for the art of kicking in the game or too less ? Would 7 + 1 be a more fair award for a try and 4 for a kicked penalty with 2 for a DG?

No

bilston

It's fine as it is, although conversions are interesting. Many of the best tries are scored in the corner on the back of a sweeping backs move yet lead to the hardest conversions. Is there an argument that all conversions should be taken from under the posts?

Squidgy Black

bilston wrote: »

It's fine as it is, although conversions are interesting. Many of the best tries are scored in the corner on the back of a sweeping backs move yet lead to the hardest conversions. Is there an argument that all conversions should be taken from under the posts?

No, I think the last thing we want is it ending up like the NFL, who are actually changing their rules to make extra point kicks more difficult, it adds to the excitement and skill of the game.

phog

If I was to make a change it would be a penalty in the red zone would be awarded 4 points if converted. It might reduce cynical play.

thomond2006

I wouldn't mind a version of the two point conversion in American Football trialled.

A team who has scored a try gets an option to attempt to tap from 10 metres out in order to get another try, worth 3 points. It might be an option where the normal conversion might be difficult (sideline in adverse weather) or as a last minute option when you are 8 points down.

Larbre34

I think 7 for a converted score is commensurate with the effort required usually.

The current scores were arrived at after years of tinkering, personally the only thing i would change is to reduce the drop goal to 2, but i wouldnt loose any sleep if the points never changed again.

sydthebeat

i think the scoring system is fine

the biggest influence on trys versus penalties has been the bonus point laws, which have been a brilliant addition.

in the case which has been mooted above, a team cynically fouls to prevent a try, will always risk loosing by more than 7.
also, penalty tries for contiunous cynical fouling are always a possibility.

its fine, no need to change, teams do not "kick too much".
a penalty kick from 40 meters with an oval ball is a tough skill to master, and should be rewarded appropriately.

Squidgy Black

thomond2006 wrote: »

I wouldn't mind a version of the two point conversion in American Football trialled.

A team who has scored a try gets an option to attempt to tap from 10 metres out in order to get another try, worth 3 points. It might be an option where the normal conversion might be difficult (sideline in adverse weather) or as a last minute option when you are 8 points down.

Wouldn't be a bad idea, but at what point do you call it an unsuccessful attempt? Until the ball's turned over or the attacking team gives away a penalty?

SomeFool

The one rule I'd love to see imported from the NFL is the coaches challenge, 2 per game, one in each half, would be a great addition I think.

padser

phog wrote: »

If I was to make a change it would be a penalty in the red zone would be awarded 4 points if converted. It might reduce cynical play.

The only problem I'd see with that is that we would see less teams going for tries when a penalty has been secured that gives you 4 points

padser

SomeFool wrote: »

The one rule I'd love to see imported from the NFL is the coaches challenge, 2 per game, one in each half, would be a great addition I think.

Definitely agree

padser

thomond2006 wrote: »

I wouldn't mind a version of the two point conversion in American Football trialled.

A team who has scored a try gets an option to attempt to tap from 10 metres out in order to get another try, worth 3 points. It might be an option where the normal conversion might be difficult (sideline in adverse weather) or as a last minute option when you are 8 points down.

I'd like that too

The_Captain

Maybe I'm not watching the right matches, but I see successful drop goals in about 1 in 10 games.

Don't see the reason for reducing the points for them

death1234567

SomeFool wrote: »

The one rule I'd love to see imported from the NFL is the coaches challenge, 2 per game, one in each half, would be a great addition I think.

padser wrote: »

Definitely agree

It wouldn't work. If coaches had challenges then they'd throw them for every possible forward pass/offside etc. The game of rugby isn't stop start like the NFL. It's at its best when there are few breaks in play. It's already too slow and adding in something else that wouldn't work and would slow the game down more would be a disaster.

baker59

The_Captain wrote: »

Maybe I'm not watching the right matches, but I see successful drop goals in about 1 in 10 games.

Don't see the reason for reducing the points for them

The skill to build up a drop goal and to execute it must be very high a lot more than a penalty. I like things how they are but if there was a change, for me, it'd be increase a drop goal to 4 points. One could think that this could introduce cynical penalties if a team was in the 22, 3 points down and the clock in the red but a yellow card followed by a tap and go surely would deter defending teams from doing that.

Right now teams seem to play for the penalty which is fine but a last minute drop goal is more exciting.

total former

Excuse my pedantry re the title, but "revisiting" suggests this was proposed by someone before. Was it?

irishbucsfan

total former wrote: »

Excuse my pedantry re the title, but "revisiting" suggests this was proposed by someone before. Was it?

I think it was one of Brian Moore's points when the ELVS were introduced.

But it would be revisiting I suppose based purely on the previous changes maybe?

.ak

Well the OP can't answer because he's a very naughty boy.

... So I guess we'll never know.

Sangre

The_Captain wrote: »

Maybe I'm not watching the right matches, but I see successful drop goals in about 1 in 10 games.

Don't see the reason for reducing the points for them

I think people were getting worried about their over use around 2007, especially with the WC winning Bok team. It seems to have gone out of fashion a bit again. I agree completely that its a difficult skill that should be rewarded, particularly since a failed kick gives the opposition a 22 kick and abiltiy to boot the ball up the field.

The_Captain

Sangre wrote: »

I think people were getting worried about their over use around 2007, especially with the WC winning Bok team. It seems to have gone out of fashion a bit again. I agree completely that its a difficult skill that should be rewarded, particularly since a failed kick gives the opposition a 22 kick and abiltiy to boot the ball up the field.

Everyone panicked when Francois Steyn started hitting drop goals from his own 22!

Riskymove

death1234567 wrote: »

It wouldn't work. If coaches had challenges then they'd throw them for every possible forward pass/offside etc. The game of rugby isn't stop start like the NFL. It's at its best when there are few breaks in play. It's already too slow and adding in something else that wouldn't work and would slow the game down more would be a disaster.

indeed there are issues

You could limit a team to 2 challenges or whatever if you like

challenges in NFL are connected to timeouts whereby if a challenge fails the team loses one of their timeouts so there is a consequence for frivolous challenges...what would be the equivalent in rugby?

I wouldn't mind a version of the two point conversion in American Football trialled.

I am of two minds on that.

why should one team be punished for scoring sufficient points to being more than one score ahead?

as mentioned an NFL play is over fairly quickly, rugby different

a related matter on scoring is that I heard someone once suggest a different range of points for penalties based on where they were on the pitch. I.e. distant ones or towards sideline should be worth more than in front of posts

Sangre

Riskymove wrote: »

a related matter on scoring is that I heard someone once suggest a different range of points for penalties based on where they were on the pitch. I.e. distant ones or towards sideline should be worth more than in front of posts

If a team has a penalty kick right in front of the posts its because a team has given a penalty away in the red zone metres from their own try line. I think an easy kick for 3 points is a fair trade off in that case.

I think scoring is quite balanced at the moment. The introduction of the bonus point system has been great.

The_Captain

Sangre wrote: »

If a team has a penalty kick right in front of the posts its because a team has given a penalty away in the red zone metres from their own try line. I think an easy kick for 3 points is a fair trade off in that case.

I think scoring is quite balanced at the moment. The introduction of the bonus point system has been great.

I prefer the French bonus point system. It makes the dominant team keep playing to stay ahead rather than sitting back trying to kill the game

dub_skav

Riskymove wrote: »

challenges in NFL are connected to timeouts whereby if a challenge fails the team loses one of their timeouts so there is a consequence for frivolous challenges...what would be the equivalent in rugby?

Substitution;
failed challenge lose substitution
No sub left, no challenge

Would that work?

irishbucsfan

dub_skav wrote: »

Substitution;
failed challenge lose substitution
No sub left, no challenge

Would that work?

No, teams should be able to use all their replacements.

There doesn't need to be a "loss" of any timeouts. In the NFL you get 2 challenges and if both are correct you get a 3rd challenge. People won't challenge frivolously based purely on the loss of the potential 3rd challenge. However the necessity of this in rugby is something I'd question really, not sure how much it'd be needed.

sydthebeat

i dont like the idea of a challange.

we already have it by proxy now with captains asking refs to look at something in the build up to a try.
im not sure of the official policy on this, but it seems like more and more refs are listening to captains and checking things.

i believe rugby is too dynamic a game for a "challange" and it doesnt need it.

The_Captain

There's already too much stopping to let the TMO pore over every detail

shuffol

One of the things I love about rugby is the diverse range of skills, be it scoring difficult penalties or drop goals. It adds interesting sub plots to games and should be preserved.

Zuffer

The game seems well balanced at the moment. Most of the time teams play for tries. They generally take points from a kickable penalty, but rarely take drop goals during the first 60 minutes unless it's a free shot at goal.

jacothelad

The only change I would favour is making a penalty for a deliberate act of foul play which will result in a yellow / red card being placed in front of the posts on the offending team's 22 if the non-offending team wish it. We've seen too much fake 'rucking'- Stamping, gouging, punching, swinging arm tackles, biting, butting, kneeing and charging into rucks using the shoulder on vulnerable opponents who can't defend themselves. etc. These are all punishable by the use of card sanctions. I'm not talking about the usual melees of pushing and shoving, jersey pulling and face contortions beloved of some but of serious and deliberate thuggery. With players getting bigger and stronger, with head and neck injuries becoming more prevalent and better understood, someone some day is going to be seriously injured by a violent act. Let's make it also a certain loss of points. It might help the sport get rid of the Armitages of this world.

.ak

shuffol wrote: »

One of the things I love about rugby is the diverse range of skills, be it scoring difficult penalties or drop goals. It adds interesting sub plots to games and should be preserved.

Indeed. And ofcourse that applies to scoring tries - no need to increase points for a method of scoring that can be done in countless different ways. Probably the reason I love the sport so much, it's not just a case of kicking it into a net, you can run it in, drive it over, kick it over and collect, and each of the above methods have different processes to each etc., etc.

.ak

jacothelad wrote: »

The only change I would favour is making a penalty for a deliberate act of foul play which will result in a yellow / red card being placed in front of the posts on the offending team's 22 if the non-offending team wish it. We've seen too much fake 'rucking'- Stamping, gouging, punching, swinging arm tackles, biting, butting, kneeing and charging into rucks using the shoulder on vulnerable opponents who can't defend themselves. etc. These are all punishable by the use of card sanctions. I'm not talking about the usual melees of pushing and shoving, jersey pulling and face contortions beloved of some but of serious and deliberate thuggery. With players getting bigger and stronger, with head and neck injuries becoming more prevalent and better understood, someone some day is going to be seriously injured by a violent act. Let's make it also a certain loss of points. It might help the sport get rid of the Armitages of this world.

Well I do think the whole area does need reviewing, and as someone (JdV?) said before, what use is a citing to me now? Where's the advantage?