New rugby points system.....concerning

I decided to go watch my local rugby team play their semi final match on Saturday (Wanganui vs Wairarapa). 
Firstly, it was funny/sad to see Zac Guildford playing for Wairarapa...what a fall from grace. It was also sad to see the Wanganui back-line play at a higher level than the current Springbok back-line. 
Anyway, they are trialing this new points system.
6 Points for a try, 2 points for a conversion, 2 points for a penalty, and 2 for a drop goal.
Firstly, it is worth noting that this is disgustingly poor practice of mathematics. We could just simplify to 3 for a try, and 1 for penalties, conversions, and drop goals....but I guess people don't care?
The two more important problems however, are slightly more concerning for any team except New Zealand.
1) Making tries worth more and penalties worth less, instantly extends the already large gap between New Zealand and the rest, simply because their game is more geared towards tries. The law changes a while back clearly benefited NZ more than the others, and now yet another, more serious change to benefit them?
2) It will encourage teams to infringe a whole lot more (especially in their own 22). This is because it will be rarely mathematically correct to kick penalty goals. Even though it is currently mathematically incorrect to go for the 3 points in most positions (although most teams don't realise this), this points change will ensure that it is virtually always a poor decision to take the points. 
I will add that these law changes are slowly but surely taking different arts out of the game. The Springboks were hurt with the change a while back stating that you cannot pass back into the 22 and kick it out on the full anymore. This lessened the art of both territory kicking, and line-outs. Many law changes have been made around scrums, most of which have lessened that particular art of the game. Now with this law change, the art of goal-kicking would be seriously dampened.
I sincerely hope NZ don't get their way on this one.

 this is not about favouring one nation or another,..... this is about making rugby more attractive,.... having to interrupt the game for more than a minute (is always far more than a minute) for kicking to goal is the opposite of attractive

the try is the essence of rugby,.... usually involving the team or at least some of the players,.... the tactics and gameplans,..... a kick is an individual and very particular skill,.... it's not NZ's problem that the other nations are so inaccurate gatting tries ,.... but may be with that new system they have to adapt and go for the ties,.... good news for rugby

I wouldn't mind if only penalties inside the 22 count 3 points and the rest 2 points, as conversions and drop goals,.... drop goal is just a way of refusing to attack,.... to give the possibility of kicking to goal and get 3 points after a penalty at the half-line or even further is a joke

I think Basque has a good idea about where a penalty is kicked from- because rugby is also a territorial game. 
Most cynical fouls happen in the 22, so it should be worth 3 points to prevent cynical fouls. 
Otherwise cynical fouls in the 22 need to be treated more harshly. If it is the same player who gets flagged twice- they get a yellow card. If the same player gets flagged four times in the 22, it is a red card.

 MrPace
The point system used was basically the same as previously used by the Varsity League in SA, but there is another variant to it used in the Varsity Cup competition this year and these variations are as follows:-
*   All tries count 7 points*   A try scored through an attacking move stating in own half counts 11 points*   A try scored through an attacking move between the halfway line and the opponents 22 counts 9 points.
Basically I am opposed to the idea that penalties should determine outcome of matches.   After all the idea with the game is to score tries.   However scoring more than 7 points for a try is to my mind excessive and they limit should to my mind be 6 points for a try and three points for a conversion.   Penalties and dropped goa;s should however, only count two points. 
The only negative is that defending teams gives away penalties when defending since the penalty is so much less in value than scoring of a try.   There is one extra about that  which should be added to the system.   First penalty in own 22 OK, second penalty an automatic yellow card and a warning, third penalty an automatic penalty try.   That would scare off teams from illegalities in defense.      
 

 Basque, I very much like the idea about penalties being worth more inside the 22. If anything is to be changed about the points system, that is about the only change I think would improve the game, as well as 1 point for a drop goal. I will point out that attempts to make rugby ''more attractive'' have been made for the last 10 or so years, yet rugby is only becoming less popular, less competitive, and more frustrating. So maybe they should focus on how to revive the novelty of the game (one idea might be going back to old style super rugby). Mo re quality, less quantity, and a simpler format.

Drop goals could be fine as 3 points as long as they are taken in the 22. 
One of the main problems of the current setup is that the smaller and more skilful players of yesteryear are gone. Players like Cullen, Paulse, Montgomery have less space to use their attacking game. 
If there were more space on the field, smaller more skilled players could make more of a mark. A player like Kolbe, Senatala, Elton Jantjies and company could be more of a threat in open play. 
Many backline players today could be loose forwards due to their being less space on the field. Less space means more defence in contact- as a result of fitter loose forwards in the professional era that close down space faster.
Polynesian players perform better as big backline players with skills, and this forces other teams to choose devoid of skill cart horses that at least equal size.

If the rules could be changed to make more space and time for the backline, we could see smaller players returning to the teams. Perhaps pushing players back more than 10 metres behind the ball at the ruck , scrum, lineouts etc.

I like your mathematical point Mr Pace. The scoring system is fine as it is.

"Firstly, it is worth noting that this is disgustingly poor practice of mathematics. We could just simplify to 3 for a try, and 1 for penalties, conversions, and drop goals....but I guess people don't care?"
I'm guessing Missed A Space hasn't really thought this one through.

I'm quite sure the IRB are well aware that a 6-2-2 scoring system is effectively the same as 3-1-1 but they at least have the intelligence to know that rugby's scoring system changes every few years so rather than halve everything to keep simpletons like Missed A Space happy, they'd rather keep it as it is so if there's a minor adjustment in future they don't have to make dramatic changes again.

Just common sense . . . but "I guess people don't care?"

LMAO!  

Actually no....that's not the reason. The IRB doesnt make a change in the scoring system with eye on the next change. The last change in scoring occurred 24 years ago....and no doubt every change is thought of as permanent. Once again you simply dont understand how organizations think from your low vantage point. The obvious reason to keep a 6/2/2 scoring system is to keep the records somewhat intact....so that a 60 to nil drubbing doesn't become a 30 to nil drubbing. Shame Lochte, and there you were thinking you had finally solved a mathematical problem LMAOFY!

Mozart
Your comments are clear as daylight - you do not consider scoring of tries is important - penalties can make up that deficiency - so two many points for scoring of tries is totally unacceptable.  

Mozart
Your comments are clear as daylight - you do not consider scoring of tries is important - penalties can make up that deficiency - so to o many points for scoring of tries is totally unacceptable.  

Well you can argue about the dimensions but a TRY is worthy of more credit...touchdown in grid iron (ironically is not a touch "down" but a run over the scoreline is 6 pointer) not to mention all the other rewards of scoring in this rebellious form of footy.

A try should be 7 points (or maybe 8)...afterall isn't the excitement, effort and reward justified by getting there...this would bugger our rugby up and change it to exciting, entertaining rugby...rugby as a game (as a world game) will score in entertainment and will force SA and England to play the game like NZ and (France) and maybe the Argies too, we won't like it but it might be a blessing in disguise...I'm all for it...world cup finals will be true results...penalties and conversions 1 or 2 but I prefer 1....don't you Dr Win...(no more Just Win) lolz  Imagine poor Ol' Beeno...will have to take early retirement because of severe hypertension

So I read Moffie's reply wondering why the senile old codger was sputtering and sounding even more vitriolic and defensive than usual and then I saw why . . . the blithering old fool also didn't think it through and agreed with Missed A Space's dumb reasoning!
LMAO . . . FY!

Well you can argue about the dimensions but a TRY is worthy of more credit...touchdown in grid iron (ironically is not a touch "down" but a run over the scoreline is 6 pointer) not to mention all the other rewards of scoring in this rebellious form of footy.

A try should be 7 points (or maybe 8)...afterall isn't the excitement, effort and reward justified by getting there...this would bugger our rugby up and change it to exciting, entertaining rugby...rugby as a game (as a world game) will score in entertainment and will force SA and England to play the game like NZ and (France) and maybe the Argies too, we won't like it but it might be a blessing in disguise...I'm all for it...world cup finals will be true results...penalties and conversions 1 or 2 but I prefer 1....don't you Dr Win...(no more Just Win) lolz  Imagine poor Ol' Beeno...will have to take early retirement because of severe hypertension

Challenges to change is a good thing...tries are what real rugby is about...this is the ultimate skill of the game...any game is climaxed by tries not boring robotic penalties...especially before the game gets hot...drop goals can be exciting as they were in 1995 when Joel did his thing but it really did not make us the best XV in the world...Sean Fitzpatricks side was better than us...and if we are intelligently humble, thoroughly, unbiased honest we will admit this despite the huge efforts by Francois's side...what a great man, and the efforts by this wonderful SA side...more character than talent...just great men and the best coach after dear ol' Mac...they knew rugby and were adaptable. Strong resolve and character won this game...not the hype of the best...but the rhetorical question in sport which makes champions is the side...Joel might be lucky but Joel took a very high calculated risk.

Nice try Lochte, but you completely missed the reason for not divoding by two.....dont try using your head, you always have it handed to you. LMAOFY!

 Fiddling with the scoring system won't fix anything...it'll make things worse. The best thing WR can do is to see how things pan out if they actually instruct their officials to apply the existing laws properly.

Spot on Draad....less is more in rugby laws.

 For me penalty kicks and conversions should count 1 point - same with drop goals.   Tries should count 6 points.   That will be in line with the basic ideals of rugby - namely to score tries,   There is a condition though - one penalty within the 22 of the defending team should be allowed - a second penalty should result in a yellow card and a third penalty in a penalty try.
That would put pay to the usage of contravention penalties to prevent opposing teams to score tries.     

 Not a bad idea actually, that way no team could "cheat" their way out with penalties!

clevermike

Status: Hall Of Fame
Posts: 24338 RE: New rugby points system.....concerning
October 26, 2016, 13:09:17

For me penalty kicks and conversions should count 1 point - same with drop goals.   

Do you have any idea how much interest in the game, both at the ground, and on TV, would be lost if this rule applied.

For a side that is battling to score tries against a well defending team, scoring 2 current penalties in the last 10 minutes for 6 points, to gain a 1 point lead like 21-20 is very possible.

However, if your team is trailing by 6 points in your proposed scoring system, and tries are almost impossible to come by due to a great defensive opponent, waiting to see if your team get awarded 6 consecutive 1 point penalties in the space of 10 minutes before full time would be ludicrous.  People would lose interest and leave the stadium early.

 

I do however like your proposition for the 22 penalties, as quacky96 says, it could prevent teams from cheating their way out of a try by conceding a penalty over and over, but that would change if they knew the 3rd one in their 22 would automatically become a penalty try.

 It does not happen that people leave grounds because of the reason you give.  It does not happen at the Varsity Cup Games - which are normally well-attended - so why would it happen in other games?
It will also mean that teams are forced to play a much better game than otherwise.    The kicking away of balls aimlessly - so evident in the case of some teams would stop.   That system of handover of ball possession will be severely restricted to making of strategic kicks only.  
Rugby is basically a game aimed at scoring of tries and inability of that deficiency is necessary.   A game plan based on defense only loses more matches than they win.  
I hate to watch games where teams do not play comprehensive games and will never attend a game where it is not played or walk out early if the objective of scoring of tries is not in evidence .      

Its so bloody obvious.....lower the value of a penalty, and you will get more transgressions. Soccer has become totally cynical, players accept the chance of a yellow to bring down a player in a dangerous position outside the box. Now imagine your opponent is about to score a try for 6 points....the absolutely rational decision is to infringe, go offside, make an early tackle, play the ball on the deck.......and if you get caught you give up 1 point vs 6 points. It's incredible that posters are so thick as to think playing with a barmy 6/1/1 scheme will result in better rugby. Absolutely clueless.

 Mozart
As per normal  the village idiot  does not read what I wrote about rooting out transgressions - so what do you expect from an idiot who believes try-scoring is not a means to win tests, but penalty conversions is what should be striven for.   
In a recent thread on the serious deficiencies of the Springboks in not scoring ties he also put up crazy suggestions in line with the issue of scoring of tries and tried to justify his stance.    That is when it was pointed out in the last three RC tests the Springboks managed to score just one try and  that stemmed froma line break by Goosen - another player he savaged.  

I read that utter rot.....more rules....more references to the TMO. Imagine 2 penalties and we have 14 playing 15.....another one and we dont have an earned triy, we have a penalty try. What great pulsating fun. If we want better rugby, we need to create more space...the scoring system is fine as it is.

 Mozart
The creating of space must be an utterly new concept to you since you support players constantly incapable of creating space and more notorious for ball handovers to the opposition.   You are a great Jake-ball enthusiast - are you not? 
By the way the issue raised by you about penalties is already in existence and you have discovered nothing new,    The claim that a lowering of the points attached to goal kicks would enhance that level of transgressions has been thoroughly discredited already in the Varsity Cup competition.     .  

So if a player can give away one point versus 3 points it wont change his propensity to do so.....give me a break. The current scoring system balances discipline and scoring quite well, making your yellow cards, unequal contests, penalty tries, multiple reffing interventions, and cyncal fouls completely unnecessary.

 The present system has exactly  the same deficiencies you suddenly discovered as deficiencies if the count value of penalties is to be reduced.   The penalties for the present deficiencies are really problematic and should be made sterner - only a fool will disagree with that as well - especially when professional fouls occur.    
Admit it - you favour a system where points are scored through penalties and that tries are only a secondary consideration.    That is the main idea in your case - hence your stated observation that 90% of the requirements of a flyhalf is to kick balls. 

Here's one of the few times you agree with me Tokkie, enjoy your crow: RE: Hougaard and Chilli Boy benched October 18, 2012, 04:45:35 Mozart You hit the nail on the head here. In profesional sport - like in any other profession - there is really a list of duties attached to each position on the field and a set of guidelines for players in that position. That does not mean that players should not be able to recognixe and take advantage of opportunities on the field of play - but rather what their basic functions on the field of play are. There are two key positions in rugby - namely those of scrummie and flyhalf. As you pointed out - in both cases it in fact 90$ passing and kicking. That is where both Morne Steyn and Hougaard does not make the grade - albeit for different reasons.

I'm sure you recognize the ponderous turn of phrase, the unique spelling and the deadly argumentation. Yep it was you agreeing with me that 90% of a 9 or 10's duty is passing and kicking. LMAOFY!

 What a total fool you are to go back 4 years to find a posting of mine that appears to agree with your silly point of view.   However, that is not really the point in this thread and you still are being a fool in this regard.   In four years I have had ample time to change my mind on issues - you never have - that is the difference.  
Incidentally Morne changed my viewpoint with his BS kicking as so clearly identified by the commentators in the Dunedin test in 2012 - does that not help you understand what is happening?

Now Poof, I could have exposed you with a headline covering your agreement with me on flyhalf play. I was nice and low keyed it......only to be met with another lie. When you say Morne changed your viewpoint with his kicking at Dunedin.....that test was on September 15 2012. Your post was on October 18 2012 still agreeing with me. So he never changed your mind unless it takes your mind more than 5 weeks to change. Stop lying man.

 Mozart
You missed the critical part of my comments - where I said "As you pointed out - in both cases it in fact 90% passing and kicking.    That differs totally from your view that 90% applies to kicking only.  
I have defined my ideas subsequently where I said that kicking is to be strategic and that it should only be a variant as part of a comprehensive game plan that results from the situation on the field of play.  
You have never done anything of the sort and kept your arguments to 90% kicking only.  Y ou have complained about players not following up kicks - but then did not even realize that the kicks were so aimless and ineffective that follow-up was not possible.   
Anyway I realize that you are a rugby ignorant fool and that your statement about kicking by a flyhalf and other equally stupid comments by you is par for the course and that to comment on them is to argue with an absolute fool.      


  

Wrong again Tokkie.....this is what you responded to. RE: Hougaard and Chilli Boy benched October 18, 2012, 03:21:30 What does a scrum half do? Well lots of things, but 90 per cent of the time, he is kicking or passing. Hougaard does neither well. He is a superb runner and tackler, but that's not the main event. Ergo...he is no scrummie.

 The NZ Herald posited a what if giving opposition double points for a try and conversion against the ABs over the last 18 tests .The ABs would still have won 17 with Wales squeaking in a win  41-37 and the ABs scoring 751 to 371 even with double points for the opposition .If they made penalties double for the opposition as well as double points for tries and conversions they still would have lost only 3 games ,2 for Wales  one vs SA and a draw for Australia.Apart from screwing up scoring records I doubt if 3 point tries and 1 point penalties would achieve anything at all .And tries used to be 3 points in any case .

 Yep.

Now suddenly Mozart is talking about kicking and passing - when he referred to 90% being kicking only in his constant posting on the issue.    That was the constant reason for his support of donkey-kicking flyhalfs like the Steyns. 
Mozart's whole approach to backline play centers on two issues - kicking and players  being there to defend only.   His constant squirming about defense and his support for NOT scoring tries as part of the rugby scenario are what makes him the biggest rugby fool in the world.     

 Moz and Rooie have both made valid points RE: changing  the scoring .A try at 3 -1 is worth well, 3X a penalty or dg as opposed to less than 2X as it is .Going to fewer points for tries and pen/dgs skews things too far one way or the other with less room to fine tune things ,like when we went from 4 point tries to 5 .

Nope clearly I was talking about kicking and passing in 2012. How can 90% of flyhalf play be kicking when 50% is defence? If I ever said that I misspoke.Ninety percent of the total points contribution of a flyhalf may be kicking....perhaps more. Ninety per cent of the difference between flyhalves in a tight test may be kicking. For the Boks I favour flyhalves who can dominate 10 channel physically....like Butch James or Frans Steyn. But if we are going to choose a kicking flyhalf I prefer one that can make his kicks under pressure like Morne. If I had the AB backline talent to choose from I would pick Barrett to execute a totally different game plan....just as I always rated Larkham the best of his time. What I dont want are sprinters like Goosen and Swiel another great talent according to you. Guys who cant tackle and are only effective running in space, space they wont get in tests. But this Goosen thing wont go away until we literally prove that his pathetic tackling and ball retention performance at fullback will not improve by simply moving him to flyhalf Just as the Jantjies thing wont go away even though he was atrocious against the Bargies and Oz ....a major factor in our narrow loss to Oz away. Succesful test flyhalves come in lots of guises varying from a kicker like Wilkinson to an out and out attacker like Barrett. But what all the succesful ones have in common is an approach to the position that reduces the pressure of decision making.....and the real leadership which fills the team with confidence. Your Goosens, Swiels and Jantjies types simply dont have that mental strength. And Lambie doesn't have a go to flyhalf model, so he is always in two minds.