Conversions

bilston

I've often wondered this, but is it not unfair that a team scoring a try in the corner has to take a conversion from the touchline?

A try is a try after all, why should it matter where they are scored along the try line?

Some of the best free flowing tries are often scored in the corner, yet the reward is a touchline conversion.

Is it time to look at conversions?

Here are a few options...

1) Leave it as it is...if it ain't broke then don't fix it...

2) Give teams an option (this is maybe OTT)!, take a conversion in front of the posts and you'll get 1 point, take it from the 15 you'll get 2 points, take it from the touchline you get 3.

3) Just make all conversions be taken from in front of the posts.

4) Similar to #3 , except spice it up by making it a bit like American Football, maybe have a scrum half passing to an out half who then has to drop goal it against a rush defence.

5) Do away with conversions full stop. It gives too much power to kickers. There are after all 14 other players on the pitch, why should one player be so crucial to the outcome of a match?

Either way if two teams scored four tries each in a pulsating game but one team scores all 4 of their tries under the posts and the other team scores 3 tries under the posts and one in the corner, is it really fair that they get a harder conversion at the end which could be the winning and losing of the match?

wp_rathead

Either way if two teams scored four tries each in a pulsating game but one team scores all 4 of their tries under the posts and the other team scores 3 tries under the posts and one in the corner, is it really fair that they get a harder conversion at the end which could be the winning and losing of the match?

I say leave it as it
The defending team obviously forced the scoring team to have to go out wide so their "reward" is the attacking team has a harder conversion

The Lost Sheep

bilston wrote: »

I've often wondered this, but is it not unfair that a team scoring a try in the corner has to take a conversion from the touchline?

A try is a try after all, why should it matter where they are scored along the try line?

Some of the best free flowing tries are often scored in the corner, yet the reward is a touchline conversion.

Is it time to look at conversions?

Here are a few options...

1) Leave it as it is...if it ain't broke then don't fix it...

2) Give teams an option (this is maybe OTT)!, take a conversion in front of the posts and you'll get 1 point, take it from the 15 you'll get 2 points, take it from the touchline you get 3.

3) Just make all conversions be taken from in front of the posts.

4) Similar to #3 , except spice it up by making it a bit like American Football, maybe have a scrum half passing to an out half who then has to drop goal it against a rush defence.

5) Do away with conversions full stop. It gives too much power to kickers. There are after all 14 other players on the pitch, why should one player be so crucial to the outcome of a match?

Either way if two teams scored four tries each in a pulsating game but one team scores all 4 of their tries under the posts and the other team scores 3 tries under the posts and one in the corner, is it really fair that they get a harder conversion at the end which could be the winning and losing of the match?

A try is a try no matter where its scored but where the conversion is taken from is determined by the scoring team.
Why should a conversion be taken in front of the goals no matter where the try is scored from?
What gives a kicker the right to kick from in front of the goals when the try is scored right in the corner?
I would say leave it as it is. Option 2 is adding complications unnecessarily. 3 reduces skill in kicking so why do that?
The opposition is already given the opportunity to rush up and attempt to stop a conversion so 4 already happens.
Don't agree at all with removing conversions. Surely we should get rid of penalties with logic of n5. As penalties and kicking them at goal makes one player all too crucial to determining the result of the game.
Its completely fair that a conversion being harder could be the winning and losing of a match. Players always have the option of moving closer to posts to make kick easier

Dave_The_Sheep

I've often wondered this, but is it not unfair that a team scoring a try in the corner has to take a conversion from the touchline?

No.

A try is a try after all, why should it matter where they are scored along the try line?

If you can't get it under the posts, then you don't deserve the conversion under the posts. That's part of what makes scoring under the posts - 'in the centre of the line' - more valuable than going around the defensive line in the corner.

Some of the best free flowing tries are often scored in the corner, yet the reward is a touchline conversion.

No.

Because free flowing tries scored by the winger after a worked overlap should be worth more than a prop forcing his way over under the posts? No.

Is it time to look at conversions?

No.

Here are a few options...

1) Leave it as it is...if it ain't broke then don't fix it...

Yes.

phog

Awarding 3 points for the try and 4 points for the conversion would probably force players/teams to score closer to the posts.

neelia11

phog wrote: »

Awarding 3 points for the try and 4 points for the conversion would probably force players/teams to score closer to the posts.

then you get more pick and go over and over. Wales lost to england but scored 3 tries to englands 1. Obviously that means wales have discipline issues which prevented england getting quick ball etc

galwaylad14

Would leave them as it is but I think I'd change the value of a try to 6 points and the conversion to 1. Think there's a bit too much emphasis on the kicker at the moment and this is the simplest way to take a tiny bit of that emphasis away. Wouldn't devalue penalties as that would just lead to too much infringing by the defensive team.

But that's just a very minor change and don't think it would change anything too dramatically, nor would I want it to.

CMOTDibbler

phog wrote: »

Awarding 3 points for the try and 4 points for the conversion would probably force players/teams to score closer to the posts.

It used to be zero for the try and a point for the conversion.

Back in my day

galwaylad14

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It used to be zero for the try and a point for the conversion.

Back in my day

Sure isn't that why it was originally called a "try"? You scored one and you got a "try" at goal, i.e a kick to try and score a point.

CMOTDibbler

galwaylad14 wrote: »

Sure isn't that why it was originally called a "try"? You scored one and you got a "try" at goal, i.e a kick to try and score a point.

Yep. You converted your try into a goal. They were goals like soccer and points weren't awarded. Only after 1894 was a try worth more than a conversion.

Years|Try|Conversion
1871–1875|{colsp=2}Match decided by a majority of goals.
1876–1885|{colsp=2}Match decided by a majority of goals, or if the number of goals is equal by a majority of tries.
1886–1891|1-point|2 points
1891–1894|2 points|3 points
1894–1904|3 points|2 points
1905–1947|3 points|2 points
1948–1970|3 points|2 points
1971–1977|4 points|2 points
1977–1991|4 points|2 points
1992–present|5 points|2 points

sydthebeat

Touchline conversions reward skill and practise.
If rugby is to be a fair game then one teams kicker should be allowed "beat" his opposite in a skills match up.

(not trying to drag this off topic) but one factor of a game that always didnt sit well with me was the restart after a penalty.
If the kick is scored the team that scores is "penalised" to the tune of the restart being from half way (and them from their own 10 m line), but if its missed they get a bonus of restarting nearly 30 meters further up the pitch.

if anything the reverse makes more sense.

bilston

galwaylad14 wrote: »

Would leave them as it is but I think I'd change the value of a try to 6 points and the conversion to 1. Think there's a bit too much emphasis on the kicker at the moment and this is the simplest way to take a tiny bit of that emphasis away. Wouldn't devalue penalties as that would just lead to too much infringing by the defensive team.

But that's just a very minor change and don't think it would change anything too dramatically, nor would I want it to.

Changing a conversion to 1 point is probably the best idea, it upholds the idea of scoring as close to the posts as possible while slightly reducing the impact goal kickers have on matches.

the perfect ten

I never understand why a penalty try is awarded under the posts thereby making the conversion a mere formality. The referee is awarding a try on the basis that it would have been scored anyway so he should be allowed to rule on where it actually would have been scored.

I have seen many examples where a maul has been collapsed very close to the touchline as it is about to go over the tryline and yet the try is awarded under the posts.

CMOTDibbler

the perfect ten wrote: »

I never understand why a penalty try is awarded under the posts thereby making the conversion a mere formality. The referee is awarding a try on the basis that it would have been scored anyway so he should be allowed to rule on where it actually would have been scored.

I have seen many examples where a maul has been collapsed very close to the touchline as it is about to go over the tryline and yet the try is awarded under the posts.

It's a penalty try. The idea is to penalise the infringing team the full value of the try. It would be a bit of a farce if you could infringe in some places for five points and in others for seven. It would be tantamount to rewarding cynicism.

razorblunt

Extra points for position of kick? Should be 3 points if a prop takes it successfully.

It a prop converts from the touchline then they win the whole game. Like catching that golden thing in Quidditch.

Digifriendly

galwaylad14 wrote: »

Would leave them as it is but I think I'd change the value of a try to 6 points and the conversion to 1. Think there's a bit too much emphasis on the kicker at the moment and this is the simplest way to take a tiny bit of that emphasis away. Wouldn't devalue penalties as that would just lead to too much infringing by the defensive team.

But that's just a very minor change and don't think it would change anything too dramatically, nor would I want it to.

AFAIK they are trialling the 6 point try in the Welsh clubs leagues. BTW has anyone noticed that in the Super Rugby games you can now kick for touch and have a line-out even when time is up on the clock? This seems only fair as at present under existing laws you can call for a scrum but not have a line-out when clock goes to red.

errlloyd

Quidditch was surely one of the most poorly thought out fictional sports. Like when you actually do any game theory analysis it makes no sense whatsoever. Effectively catching the snitch is worth so much that 12 players on the pitch are pretty much pointless.

Don't get me started on how colossally moronic you would have to be to catch the snitch in a world cup final you are losing by more than 150 points. Like maybe she wanted to make the character out to be both hugely arrogant, ridiculously selfish and incredibly stupid, but even still. That is going for a drop goal when the clock says 80 and you're losing by four points.

If I was a manager now, I'd forget this whole chasers scoring ****e, I'd park the bus, by putting two chasers in goals, meaning 3 goalies for 3 hoops, concede nothing, and use the extra player as a spotter for the seeker.

Journeyman_1

But Krum knew that Ireland were just far too good and would never allow his team to get within 150 at that point and the only outcomes were them losing by a little or losing by a lot.


It's nice that it also allowed Fred and Georges story to progress nicely with a big cash investment that didn't have to come from Harry, while introducing a character that would play a significant role in that book...

errlloyd

See the problem here is that the quidditch supporting community are obviously overly accepting of Krum's defeatism. Probably because of casual fans band wagonning on the world cup final. Instead of being remembered as a the goofball who blew humble Bulgaria's only chance at winning the world cup final, he gets lauded as an heroic loser. Rugby fans would roast him, quite rightly, as we did Clermont when they missed out on the cup by not taking the points.

I feel their governing body needs to step and make some fundamental rule changes.

1: Catching the snitch should either we worth fewer points, the rest of the game seems fine. Bulgaria clearly only the made final by being able to catch the snitch so quickly the rest of the game was mathematically irrelevant.

2: Questions need to be asked about how such young players are making it to the world cup. Bludgers (and then subsequent falling) greatly increase the chance of double impact concussion. Research from the NFL shows how dangerous this is for young people.

pickarooney

****. Spoilers for Harry Potter on the rugby forum! We only just finished book one.

dregin

bilston wrote: »

I've often wondered this, but is it not unfair that a team scoring a try in the corner has to take a conversion from the touchline?

A try is a try after all, why should it matter where they are scored along the try line?

Some of the best free flowing tries are often scored in the corner, yet the reward is a touchline conversion.

Is it time to look at conversions?

Here are a few options...

1) Leave it as it is...if it ain't broke then don't fix it...

2) Give teams an option (this is maybe OTT)!, take a conversion in front of the posts and you'll get 1 point, take it from the 15 you'll get 2 points, take it from the touchline you get 3.

3) Just make all conversions be taken from in front of the posts.

4) Similar to #3 , except spice it up by making it a bit like American Football, maybe have a scrum half passing to an out half who then has to drop goal it against a rush defence.

5) Do away with conversions full stop. It gives too much power to kickers. There are after all 14 other players on the pitch, why should one player be so crucial to the outcome of a match?

Either way if two teams scored four tries each in a pulsating game but one team scores all 4 of their tries under the posts and the other team scores 3 tries under the posts and one in the corner, is it really fair that they get a harder conversion at the end which could be the winning and losing of the match?

Originally, all a try got you was an opportunity to kick at goal and was awarded no points in itself. The better positioned the try - the better your chance of scoring it. I've a feeling you already knew that, sorry if I'm coming across as a pedant Anyway, yeah. Leave it as is, imo.

CMOTDibbler

errlloyd wrote: »

See the problem here is that the quidditch supporting community are obviously overly accepting of Krum's defeatism. Probably because of casual fans band wagonning on the world cup final. Instead of being remembered as a the goofball who blew humble Bulgaria's only chance at winning the world cup final, he gets lauded as an heroic loser. Rugby fans would roast him, quite rightly, as we did Clermont when they missed out on the cup by not taking the points.

I personally think Krum's actions were no different from the scrum half of a team getting a hiding, taking the ball from the ruck and kicking it into the stands on the stroke of the 80th minute to prevent a humiliating defeat becoming an embarrassing, humiliating defeat*.

errlloyd wrote: »

I feel their governing body needs to step and make some fundamental rule changes.

1: Catching the snitch should either we worth fewer points, the rest of the game seems fine. Bulgaria clearly only the made final by being able to catch the snitch so quickly the rest of the game was mathematically irrelevant.

The snitch doesn't always get caught and can often get caught by the winning team. It's a test of skill like a drop goal from your own half*.

errlloyd wrote: »

2: Questions need to be asked about how such young players are making it to the world cup. Bludgers (and then subsequent falling) greatly increase the chance of double impact concussion. Research from the NFL shows how dangerous this is for young people.

Ah yes, but in Quidditch they actually do have a magic sponge

*See what I did there

Journeyman_1

pickarooney wrote: »

****. Spoilers for Harry Potter on the rugby forum! We only just finished book one.

I apologise, I wish I could read these for the first time again

These spoilers are nothing though, wait until

Hagrid tells Harry he's a wizard!!!

. The books really start to get interesting then!

razorblunt

Holy crap, my Quidditch remark has derailed the whole thread.

I'm all for tangents and this is a beauty.

wp_rathead

razorblunt wrote: »

Holy crap, my Quidditch remark has derailed the whole thread.

I'm all for tangents and this is a beauty.

It's so beautiful it must be part Veela

DGRulz

Today I Learned; theres apparently a large enough cross over between rugby fans and Harry Potter fans.

Moflojo

The thing that really bothers me about conversions is the length of time they take out of the game. All conversions should be taken as drop goals I say. I'm sick of seeing Owen Farrell pulling his finger every time England score a try!

Deano7788

Moflojo wrote: »

The thing that really bothers me about conversions is the length of time they take out of the game. All conversions should be taken as drop goals I say. I'm sick of seeing Owen Farrell pulling his finger every time England score a try!

Ah but then we wouldn't have the brilliance that is

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXchMP2rvNk

postitnote

Whoever scores the try has to kick the conversion. I think in a perverse way it was because i knew that i'd never be trusted to take a kick, but i still wanted to give it a go in a match.

stephen_n

I'd be more thinking along the lines of making a conversion 3 and a Penalty 2 points to encourage more tries.

Quin_Dub

Moflojo wrote: »

The thing that really bothers me about conversions is the length of time they take out of the game. All conversions should be taken as drop goals I say. I'm sick of seeing Owen Farrell pulling his finger every time England score a try!

I'd stop the game clock after the try is awarded and only restart it from the kick-off afterwards - I'd do that for all kicks at goal to be honest..

Allowing teams to eat up huge swathes of time for kicks is wasteful in my view..