Are too many games being decided by the boot?

MyKeyG

Watching Leinster the other day and remembering Munster's loss to the boot of Pienaar in the Heineken Cup a few years ago, to name just two examples does anyone else think a few too many games are being decided or at least overly influenced by the boot and not necessarily two quality teams going at each other? I know a valid argument is that if teams kept their discipline there'd be no problem but quite frankly when you look at the level of refereeing by the likes of Stuart Barnes and others you don't have to do a whole lot, or even anything sometimes to concede a penalty. Take for example getting pinged for not rolling away even though you had 19 stones of Samoan pinning you to the ground. You get the ping, they get the points.

It wasn't always a problem but in the modern game players are fitter and commit themselves quicker to breakdowns etc not to mention the ever changing law book. Would doing something like awarding free kicks for offences such as not rolling away or holding on instead of penalties be too radical? What about cutting penalty kicks down to two points and conversions to one? That a well worked try is only worth two points more than a soft penalty has always been a bit of a bone of contention for me. Not only that refereeing errors would have less impact on the scoreboard and it might force teams to play for tries if kicks at goal are reduced in either frequency or value.

To be fair to the enemy anyone in the soccer community will tell you the worst way to settle a game is with penalties but we accept it in rugby. Just an idea!

Heroditas

They tried cutting down on penalties and certain infringements a few years ago (2006ish) and replacing them with free kicks when they trialled the ELVs. They got binned fairly quickly.

We've really only seen tryfests in the last 20 years. Many games before then were low scoring affairs and decided by penalties. I know that it was a different era though - different skill levels, fitness etc

MyKeyG

Heroditas wrote: »

They tried cutting down on penalties and certain infringements a few years ago (2006ish) and replacing them with free kicks when they trialled the ELVs. They got binned fairly quickly.

We've really only seen tryfests in the last 20 years. Many games before then were low scoring affairs and decided by penalties. I know that it was a different era though - different skill levels, fitness etc

You're right it was 2006 but it was actually reported that players and coaches were quite accepting of the lower penalty count. The ELV's that were implemented into law were fairly trivial like the corner flag being incorporated into play, linesmen called referee's assistants etc. Of the substantial trials that were binned the trial to downgrade certain sanctions from penalties to free kicks is the only one that didn't appear to be particularly criticised.

NiallBoo

It's worth remembering that whenever you have a penalty, you also have an attacking opportunity that has been denied.

So when a team scores a lot of penalties instead of tries it doesn't mean they're crap at attacking, it can mean they didn't get the chance to score tries because of illegal defending. Sure Leinster won with penalties, but how many tries might they have scored if Bath weren't infringing?

Breakdown: You want to have quick ruck ball. If you stop penalising defenders who slow the ball down then the ball will spend A LOT more time in rucks...and we'll see a lot fewer tries because of it. As it is there's a lot of slowing down that's tolerated (especially by English sides/refs), one of the reasons that Super Rugby is more interesting is because the refs are stricter on this.

Can this be a bit harsh on defenders who get trapped in rucks? Maybe, but players are responding and not allowing themselves to get into that position. There's the odd call where the defender genuinely couldn't get out of the way but it's rare and a small price to pay for having cleaner rucks the other 99% of the time.

pickarooney

Have they tried making certain types of penalties non kickable? Or would that just be same as making them free kicks.

Heroditas

pickarooney wrote: »

Have they tried making certain types of penalties non kickable? Or would that just be same as making them free kicks.

A free kick is a non-kickable penalty, essentially.
So yeah you'd just be downgrading the penalty offence to a fk.

MyKeyG

NiallBoo wrote: »

It's worth remembering that whenever you have a penalty, you also have an attacking opportunity that has been denied...Sure Leinster won with penalties, but how many tries might they have scored if Bath weren't infringing?

But an opportunity isn't a guarantee and it seemed to me Bath were more clinical in attack anyway.
Without the infringements Leinster may have scored five tries maybe none personally looking at their overall play I would have to say the latter.

At the end of the day a kick at goal worth three points when a try is only five is something I've always been a little hung up on.

MyKeyG

Heroditas wrote: »

A free kick is a non-kickable penalty, essentially.
So yeah you'd just be downgrading the penalty offence to a fk.

Am I going completely out on a limb here by suggesting that the free kick sanction be adjusted to allow the kicking team hold possession should they kick to touch? That way the offended team don't get three easy points but they get the advantage of the lineout?

NiallBoo

MyKeyG wrote: »

But an opportunity isn't a guarantee and it seemed to me Bath were more clinical in attack anyway.
Without the infringements Leinster may have scored five tries maybe none personally looking at their overall play I would have to say the latter.

"Looking like scoring a try" is something that can't happen if your attempts are thwarted by illegal defending.

Anyway, you can't have a rule that says "give them a kick at goal if they're good at attacking and a free-kick if they're not".

MyKeyG wrote: »

At the end of the day a kick at goal worth three points when a try is only five is something I've always been a little hung up on.

You're assuming that a kick must be successful in one case and not in another - it would make more sense to compare 0-5 or 3-7 rather than 3-5.
Besides is it not fair try to balance things a little more in favour of the side that's following the rules? Even so I think it doesn't make up for the opportunity denied or that if a team is offending (especially around rucks), they're probably only going to get penalized once every few times they break the rules.

PS. I'm not a fan of watching kicks all day; I think it's as boring as anybody else, but if we don't penalise negative play then we'll see fewer tries scored and things will be REALLY boring.

stephen_n

They could try downgrading the points for a penalty to 2 and increasing the conversion to 3, it would certainly make going for the corner more attractive than taking the points on offer in most situations. The only thing is penaltys are a deterrent for fouling cynically and killing the ball, it would require the refs to be more forthcoming with cards at the breakdown to balance it up.

NiallBoo

MyKeyG wrote: »

Am I going completely out on a limb here by suggesting that the free kick sanction be adjusted to allow the kicking team hold possession should they kick to touch?

I think that might be worth trying anyway (ie. without changing when free kicks are awarded).
You might see less tennis-like passages of kicking if balls caught in the 22 were had possession retained when kicked to touch. Maybe excepting when kicks are kicked in the opponents 22 and caught cleanly (so that you don't eliminate cross-field kicks)

bilston

MyKeyG wrote: »

Watching Leinster the other day and remembering Munster's loss to the boot of Pienaar in the Heineken Cup a few years ago

Craig Gilroy and all of Ulster remember that day slightly differently!

As others have mentioned if a defending team concedes a penalty they have killed an attacking opportunity. It happened early on in our game against England when we had a massive overlap. It was a clever penalty to give away by England knowing that a referee would be reluctant to card a player so early in the piece.

The referees probably have to start officiating the same way in the first quarter as they would in the final quarter. That might act as a bit more of a deterrent.

MyKeyG

bilston wrote: »

Craig Gilroy and all of Ulster remember that day slightly differently!

As others have mentioned if a defending team concedes a penalty they have killed an attacking opportunity. It happened early on in our game against England when we had a massive overlap. It was a clever penalty to give away by England knowing that a referee would be reluctant to card a player so early in the piece.

The referees probably have to start officiating the same way in the first quarter as they would in the final quarter. That might act as a bit more of a deterrent.

Yes they defended brilliantly in the second half but the damage was already done in the first. In any case as I asked the other poster how do you quantify opportunity? There's no way to know what would have happened all I'm talking about is some middle ground for infringements that are technical rather than cynical.

Engine No.9

Maybe they could follow the gridiron model of awarding 6 points for a try scored followed by a 1 point conversion. It's still a 7 point score but thesubsequent kick only being a bonus and worth one would mean higher reward for a well worked score.

MyKeyG

NiallBoo wrote: »

"Looking like scoring a try" is something that can't happen if your attempts are thwarted by illegal defending.

Anyway, you can't have a rule that says "give them a kick at goal if they're good at attacking and a free-kick if they're not".

I never suggested such a rule or at least I didn't mean to. You seemed to suggest that the team infringed upon deserved the opportunity to score points with the penalty because of points they may have scored had the infringement not occurred and I believe that involves too much presumption. I mean define opportunity.

You're assuming that a kick must be successful in one case and not in another - it would make more sense to compare 0-5 or 3-7 rather than 3-5.
Besides is it not fair try to balance things a little more in favour of the side that's following the rules?

I don't agree. Don't get me wrong I'm not against penalties in their entirety merely the manner in which they're sometimes acquired and the impact it has on the result. A conversion attempt for two points is based on a single criteria, namely scoring a try, a penalty can come from sometimes dubious circumstances which brings me to my earlier point. Who is or is not playing within the rules is up to a referee's discretion. For example some referee's follow the 'supporting your own weight at the breakdown' religiously, others are more liberal.

Even so I think it doesn't make up for the opportunity denied or that if a team is offending (especially around rucks), they're probably only going to get penalized once every few times they break the rules.

Well again that's my point how do you define an opportunity denied? Leinster's second penalty was just inside the Bath half so you'd really wonder what level of opportunity was denied.

jacothelad

MyKeyG wrote: »

Watching Leinster the other day and remembering Munster's loss to the boot of Pienaar in the Heineken Cup a few years ago, to name just two examples does anyone else think a few too many games are being decided or at least overly influenced by the boot and not necessarily two quality teams going at each other? I know a valid argument is that if teams kept their discipline there'd be no problem but quite frankly when you look at the level of refereeing by the likes of Stuart Barnes and others you don't have to do a whole lot, or even anything sometimes to concede a penalty. Take for example getting pinged for not rolling away even though you had 19 stones of Samoan pinning you to the ground. You get the ping, they get the points.

It wasn't always a problem but in the modern game players are fitter and commit themselves quicker to breakdowns etc not to mention the ever changing law book. Would doing something like awarding free kicks for offences such as not rolling away or holding on instead of penalties be too radical? What about cutting penalty kicks down to two points and conversions to one? That a well worked try is only worth two points more than a soft penalty has always been a bit of a bone of contention for me. Not only that refereeing errors would have less impact on the scoreboard and it might force teams to play for tries if kicks at goal are reduced in either frequency or value.

To be fair to the enemy anyone in the soccer community will tell you the worst way to settle a game is with penalties but we accept it in rugby. Just an idea!

Yes, if only Munster had a player that day who could win games by kicking at goal.

padser

If you want to see more tries scored, I'd increase the value of a penalty to 4 points.

Teams will stop infringing in their own half, make sure they never ever end up on the wrong side of a ruck etc.

There wouldn't be an advantage to giving away a penalty to prevent a try scoring opportunity (or at least, not so much of an incentive).

But honestly....am I the only one who actually likes our game the way it is????

NiallBoo

MyKeyG wrote: »

I never suggested such a rule or at least I didn't mean to. You seemed to suggest that the team infringed upon deserved the opportunity to score points with the penalty because of points they may have scored had the infringement not occurred and I believe that involves too much presumption. I mean define opportunity.

Any time you have possession is an opportunity. Obviously if you're in your own 22 your chances are slim and in the opponents 22 the chances are high. Similarly, possession nearer the posts is more valuable than that at the side-lines (you have more attacking space and are more likely to score a try nearer the posts).

It would be great to have sanction that perfectly reciprocates the opportunity denied but it's just impractical. I think that the penalty rules are they are do about as good a job as is practically possible.
Often you're trading-off lesser chance of 7 for a better chance of 3. Penalties further from the try-line are in place of lesser try-scoring chances but equally are lesser 3-point chances. Similarly penalties nearer the side-line are a lesser chance of a 3-pointer but are in place of a try chance which had a lesser chance of try, and especially of conversion.

I think it's important to think that while the specifics might be off, that having penalties as we do, that things will balance out in the long run.



Anyway, I was making two points in my previous post:
1. The rules have to apply to all games. In the case of leinster, the penalties might have been more valuable than the possession/opportunities, but this is only sometimes the case. Some teams might have scored less than 18pts with that possession, some might have fewer. Heck, one team might have scored 42pts from it and another zero.

2. When an attacking team are infringed upon, our perception of how well they attack is changed negatively because, even if they don't score, we don't get to see them attack.
Imagine this - had Bath not infringed we would have seen Leinster attacking a lot more in the Bath half. They probably wouldn't have scored six tries but they probably would have scored some - either way you wouldn't have come away thinking that "leinster never looked like scoring a try" and would put more value on those opportunities. rules have to try and look past this.

MyKeyG wrote: »

I don't agree. Don't get me wrong I'm not against penalties in their entirety merely the manner in which they're sometimes acquired and the impact it has on the result. A conversion attempt for two points is based on a single criteria, namely scoring a try, a penalty can come from sometimes dubious circumstances which brings me to my earlier point. Who is or is not playing within the rules is up to a referee's discretion. For example some referee's...

Fair enough, I think we're all annoyed by dubious penalties but I think we would be better off addressing that at source with more accurate and consistent refereeing rather than changing the sanctions (which would have other knock-on effects) - blison made a good point on this above that refs should officiate "the same way in the first quarter as they would in the final quarter"

MyKeyG wrote: »

Well again that's my point how do you define an opportunity denied? Leinster's second penalty was just inside the Bath half so you'd really wonder what level of opportunity was denied.

A team aren't as likely to score a try from there, but they aren't as likely to kick a penalty either - As above, the rules have to be as general as possible - this case give more of an advantage to a team who have a very good kicker but equally being infringed there might give an unfair disadvantage to a team who have no hope of kicking a penalty from there.

Hmmm, that's long. I need to find something better to do with a day off...

chupacabra

Yera if we just remove the flankers from the pack and have a set number of consecutive un-contested rucks then that might solve our problems. :rolleyes:

CIARAN_BOYLE

Not connected with general discipline but Ive previously suggested that technical scrum penalties should be replaced by resetting the scrum/or a free kick 5 metres further down the pitch

Would reduce penalty kicks somewhat.

bilston

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Not connected with general discipline but Ive previously suggested that technical scrum penalties should be replaced by resetting the scrum/or a free kick 5 metres further down the pitch

Would reduce penalty kicks somewhat.

Interesting idea.

It does seem silly that games can be decided on scrum penalties. I've have played and watched the game for over 25 years and more often than not haven't a clue why penalties are given at scrum time. For the part time fan it must be very strange. Sometimes I think some referees, especially a certain English barrister, just guess...

thomond2006

If you mess up a lineout, you don't concede a penalty.

If you mess up a scrum, should you concede a penalty?

CIARAN_BOYLE

thomond2006 wrote: »

If you mess up a lineout, you don't concede a penalty.

If you mess up a scrum, should you concede a penalty?

Depends on how you mess up the lineout.

Pull someone down out of the air and it might end up with a penalty.

thomond2006

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

Depends on how you mess up the lineout.

I know it's a very general comment, but still...

There are far too many scrum penalties, meaning the scrum is IMO too important to a match.

CIARAN_BOYLE

thomond2006 wrote: »

I know it's a very general comment, but still...

There are far too many scrum penalties, meaning the scrum is IMO too important to a match.

True.

connemara man

thomond2006 wrote: »

If you mess up a lineout, you don't concede a penalty.

If you mess up a scrum, should you concede a penalty?

You can concede a penalty from a lineout dragging the man out of the air and being offside.

I think if the level of interpretation between refs got a fair bit more uniform it would stop a lot of penalties

pickarooney

Has anyone ever been able to reliably say that player X or team Y is 100% responsible for wheeling a scrum? Of all the penalties given in the game today this one is the dodgiest IMO.

NiallBoo

chupacabra wrote: »

Yera if we just remove the flankers from the pack and have a set number of consecutive un-contested rucks then that might solve our problems. :rolleyes:

Crazy-talk. Next you're going to suggest that clubs start paying their players!

Even then you'd probably have people holding on after the tackle to slow the ball down...

thomond2006 wrote: »

If you mess up a scrum, should you concede a penalty?

Because it's dangerous play to collapse a scrum

pickarooney wrote: »

Has anyone ever been able to reliably say that player X or team Y is 100% responsible for wheeling a scrum? Of all the penalties given in the game today this one is the dodgiest IMO.

The real question here is "why do refs penalise a team for wheeling a scrum"? when it's something that specifically isn't against the rules.

The Lost Sheep

MyKeyG wrote: »

Watching Leinster the other day and remembering Munster's loss to the boot of Pienaar in the Heineken Cup a few years ago, to name just two examples does anyone else think a few too many games are being decided or at least overly influenced by the boot and not necessarily two quality teams going at each other? I know a valid argument is that if teams kept their discipline there'd be no problem but quite frankly when you look at the level of refereeing by the likes of Stuart Barnes and others you don't have to do a whole lot, or even anything sometimes to concede a penalty. Take for example getting pinged for not rolling away even though you had 19 stones of Samoan pinning you to the ground. You get the ping, they get the points.

It wasn't always a problem but in the modern game players are fitter and commit themselves quicker to breakdowns etc not to mention the ever changing law book. Would doing something like awarding free kicks for offences such as not rolling away or holding on instead of penalties be too radical? What about cutting penalty kicks down to two points and conversions to one? That a well worked try is only worth two points more than a soft penalty has always been a bit of a bone of contention for me. Not only that refereeing errors would have less impact on the scoreboard and it might force teams to play for tries if kicks at goal are reduced in either frequency or value.

To be fair to the enemy anyone in the soccer community will tell you the worst way to settle a game is with penalties but we accept it in rugby. Just an idea!

Penalties are completely different things in soccer compared to rugby. I think you, like many others fairly recently tbh, are being unfair on Barnes. He is fairly black and white. You know exactly how he'll referee.
I don't think awarding free kicks in place of penalties for infringements like not rolling away would be of any use as it would mean more infringements which would lead to more yellows etc

pickarooney wrote: »

Has anyone ever been able to reliably say that player X or team Y is 100% responsible for wheeling a scrum? Of all the penalties given in the game today this one is the dodgiest IMO.

A lot of the time you can say a player/team is responsible however A referee has only one view of a situation and we're discussing here, in the main, pro games which are televised, so we at home are getting more views of a situation from different angles than the official Maybe gets a call from his/her AR for a second view and I don't think its dodgy what happens.

thomond2006 wrote: »

If you mess up a lineout, you don't concede a penalty.

If you mess up a scrum, should you concede a penalty?

Lineouts/scrums very different things. By messing up what exactly do you mean? A scrum that goes wrong has much more opportunities for something bad to happen to a player than a lineout so each will be refereed differently

total former

NiallBoo wrote: »

The real question here is "why do refs penalise a team for wheeling a scrum"? when it's something that specifically isn't against the rules.

Wheeling is not. Props turning in or pulling their opponents is though. That's what is penalised.

NiallBoo

total former wrote: »

Wheeling is not. Props turning in or pulling their opponents is though. That's what is penalised.

Neither of them are common causes of a scrum wheeling.

The first one is common, but seldom leads to wheeling.

I'd go as far as to say that the second one never happens and is probably actually impossible in a modern scrum.

I'm baffled at why wheeled scrums are frequently penalised when there's nothing illegal about them...at least nothing more illegal than your average completed scrum.

padser

thomond2006 wrote: »

If you mess up a lineout, you don't concede a penalty.

If you mess up a scrum, should you concede a penalty?

Fully agree this is an issue. In every other area of the game, you have the option to concede possession (don't compete at line out, don't contest a ruck, don't engage a maul, don't tackle a player, don't hold onto the ball when tackled) when you mess something up, or as a tactical retreat. The scrum is the only place where you have no options and if inferior you will concede penalties.

I constantly think it's unfair.

But......

If you change it, possibly you risk losing front row type players completely from the game. If I can afford to concede possession at scrum time do I keep Mike Ross in my team??? Would I prefer to have Ruddock, Heaslip, SOB and Jennings all on the field? Maybe

locum-motion

MyKeyG wrote: »

...but quite frankly when you look at the level of refereeing by the likes of Stuart Barnes ...

Yeah but TBH it wouldn't have mattered when Wayne Barnes was playing outhalf; he would have missed them all anyway!


:)

thomond2006

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Lineouts/scrums very different things. By messing up what exactly do you mean? A scrum that goes wrong has much more opportunities for something bad to happen to a player than a lineout so each will be refereed differently

By messing up I (loosely) mean losing possession or losing the contest.

damianmcr

Didn't Gilroy score a wonder try in that Quarter final?

MyKeyG

jacothelad wrote: »

Yes, if only Munster had a player that day who could win games by kicking at goal.

You can only kick at goal when you're given the opportunity. How teams get that opportunity and it's subsequent impact on the game as a team contest is the basis for my whole point.

MyKeyG

damianmcr wrote: »

Didn't Gilroy score a wonder try in that Quarter final?

Yeah it's amazing what a player can achieve when the opposition players stand around looking at him.:p Sour grapes maybe but I'll claim to my grave that try had more to do with the worst defending you'd ever see than a great run.

galwaylad14

I think the problem with the rules in rugby is they're far too open to the referees interpretation and every ref applies them somewhat differently. There's just so many infringements going on (literally every ruck I'd say half the players go in off their feet or from the side or both) and if the ref was to pull for all these the game would have nothing but constant penalties.

Likewise the scrum is a total mess and no one will convince me otherwise that the vast majority of referees are doing anything other than guessing. I don't think I'd award penalties for infringements in the scrum except when one team just literally can't keep the scrum up. Because they're the only ones when you can clearly see that one team is offending. All these ones for not scrummagin straight and wheeling etc are pure guesswork in my opinion and it's unfair to be punishing a team with 3 points against them when I don't honestly think the ref himself knows what he's punishing a player for.

I think there's a certain amount of snobbery on here towards rugby league but in fairness and I don't think anyone can deny this, it is governed by much more easily understood rules and is generally far more cut and dried in regards what constitues an offence etc.

The Lost Sheep

galwaylad14 wrote: »

I think the problem with the rules in rugby is they're far too open to the referees interpretation and every ref applies them somewhat differently. There's just so many infringements going on (literally every ruck I'd say half the players go in off their feet or from the side or both) and if the ref was to pull for all these the game would have nothing but constant penalties.

Likewise the scrum is a total mess and no one will convince me otherwise that the vast majority of referees are doing anything other than guessing. I don't think I'd award penalties for infringements in the scrum except when one team just literally can't keep the scrum up. Because they're the only ones when you can clearly see that one team is offending. All these ones for not scrummagin straight and wheeling etc are pure guesswork in my opinion and it's unfair to be punishing a team with 3 points against them when I don't honestly think the ref himself knows what he's punishing a player for.

I think there's a certain amount of snobbery on here towards rugby league but in fairness and I don't think anyone can deny this, it is governed by much more easily understood rules and is generally far more cut and dried in regards what constitues an offence etc.

Too often the outrage at a decision a referee makes revolves around breakdown - ruck - or at the scrum. They are not there in rugby league.(I know there is a scrum in league but its a different animal to union)

In what way would you change laws so that they are not determined by a referees interpretation?
I know you are primarily speaking about the pro game but I(as a referee) wholeheartedly disagree with your belief that most referees are only guessing.

Sangre

thomond2006 wrote: »

If you mess up a lineout, you don't concede a penalty.

If you mess up a scrum, should you concede a penalty?

I don't think that is comparing like with like. If the defending team choose note to fully contest a scrum, but at the same time don't collapse it, the attacking team will be able to walk the pack further down the pitch to gain field advantage (and likely better positioning for their backline). This isn't possible with a line out. A better comparison would be a maul and scrum and both of those are dealt with in similar ways, it's just that scrums appear to be more common.

I do agree that there is inconsistency with reffing the scrum though.

Taco Corp

If something was to change then enforcement of an immediate release of the ball in a tackle situation and I think there would be a huge improvement in the game as a whole.

Nermal

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

In what way would you change laws so that they are not determined by a referees interpretation?

Remove the contest for possession :pac:

Seriously - the only way that seems possible to me is to reduce the number of laws. The fewer things there are to interpret, the fewer arbitrary penalties there will be. The ELV allowing hands in the ruck would have been a step in that direction.

It's definitely bizarre how fans blithely accept that close matches (the world cup final!) are routinely decided by completely arbitrary refereeing interpretation. It's certainly not harming the viewing figures.

bilston

Taco Corp wrote: »

If something was to change then enforcement of an immediate release of the ball in a tackle situation and I think there would be a huge improvement in the game as a whole.

To be honest I tend to go the other way. I think when players are given a bit of leeway with the immediate release of the ball it tends to lead to a more fluent game. It's just my perception and I could be wrong but I get the impression that Owens is a bit more liberal in this facet of the game and the games he officiates are usually decent watches.

bilston

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

In what way would you change laws so that they are not determined by a referees interpretation?
I know you are primarily speaking about the pro game but I(as a referee) wholeheartedly disagree with your belief that most referees are only guessing.

Whether referees are guessing or not (and while I sometimes think they are I'm sure at professional level they aren't really the vast majority of the time) isn't the point. The perception is that games are being won and lost on a referee making calls at scrum time that the majority of those watching haven't a clue about.

I don't know what you do about it, maybe take away the option to kick at goal for technical scrum penalties?

The Lost Sheep

Nermal wrote: »

Remove the contest for possession :pac:

Seriously - the only way that seems possible to me is to reduce the number of laws. The fewer things there are to interpret, the fewer arbitrary penalties there will be. The ELV allowing hands in the ruck would have been a step in that direction.

It's definitely bizarre how fans blithely accept that close matches (the world cup final!) are routinely decided by completely arbitrary refereeing interpretation. It's certainly not harming the viewing figures.

What laws would you remove and why? ELV re hands in ruck was got rid of as it didn't help the game and was a mess.

bilston wrote: »

Whether referees are guessing or not (and while I sometimes think they are I'm sure at professional level they aren't really the vast majority of the time) isn't the point. The perception is that games are being won and lost on a referee making calls at scrum time that the majority of those watching haven't a clue about.

I don't know what you do about it, maybe take away the option to kick at goal for technical scrum penalties?

I don't think referees do guess. I think you completely disadvantage a team who have a stronger scrum by removing the option of a kick at goal for technical scrum penalties.

Thud

if you changed ruck penalties to frees you could still prevent cynical fouling by giving yellow cards more frequently, which generally results in more scoring so it'd be win win.

that or introduce black (or some other colour) cards (5 min sin bin) for lesser cardable offences

.ak

Maybe we should make a new rule where kickers have to remove their boots before kicking a ball.