Test Rugby Wallabies Rugby World Cup discussion

[Topkent]

The argument there is that it is a PENALTY - ie, a sanction against the defending side, who have infringed (either deliberately or accidentally) and prevented the attackers from scoring a try.
If penalties were only one point, defenders would just give away the penalty when the opposition got close to the try line. Score one point - back to the middle - no real harm done.

They've had a few changes over the years. Penalties have always been worth 3 points. Originally tries were worth nothing - zero. What you got for scoring a try was a shot at goal (like the conversion) - a try was 'a try at goal'. You missed it - you scored 0.

Then for a very long time (probably 1900 to sometime in then 70s), a try was worth 3 points, plus the conversion. In the 70s they made it worth 4 points, and in the 90s, 5 points. All to encourage more try-scoring rather than just 'shove it forward and hope for a penalty' as many games had become.

The penalty has to remain some form of deterrent. 3 points seems about right for today's game.

All fair points, but maybe you should only be able to shoot for goal if the referee deams it a deliberate ploy to stop the game

I dont like for instance that the Pumas could just break down our scrum and bank 3 points
Hell they only looked like making the line once for the game and yet still could have won it
Doesnt seem right

 

[Bomberboyokay]

I enjoy Union but they need to change penalty conversions to 2 points
******* stupid that its 4 tries to 0 and yet the argentines were still a chance up until the end

What sort of sport rewards you for getting close to scoring as much as that

It would be like a point in AFL being worth 3 points basically

The ARU probably would change the scoring system if they could (due to their ongoing difficulties getting new fans compared to the AFL and NRL) http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-13/national-rugby-championship-to-trial-points-changes/5668436

But the countries where rugby union is already popular or run by rich people who don't care aren't interested.

 

[Maester]

All fair points, but maybe you should only be able to shoot for goal if the referee deams it a deliberate ploy to stop the game

I dont like for instance that the Pumas could just break down our scrum and bank 3 points
Hell they only looked like making the line once for the game and yet still could have won it
Doesnt seem right

Mate, they made a lot more clean breaks in the game than we did. 18-8 in the official stats now. They were a pass or two away from scoring a few times. We infringed a lot due to that pressure and they accumulated the points.

I am actually for a change in the points structure - and next year world rugby will be trialling a 6 points (try) 2 points (any type of goal) system in a few competitions. As long as refs are willing to use the yellow card for repeated or cynical infringements then it works. That's already been shown in the NRC which uses a similar points system (though in that comp tries are 5 points and conversions 3, with penalties 2).

But take nothing away from Argentina. They were well in the game and creating plenty of opportunities. We defended brilliantly to stop them, but sometimes we also infringed to stop them. It wasn't like the South Africa vs New Zealand game where South Africa offered absolutely nothing in attack and stayed in the game due to poor discipline from New Zealand when they weren't under that much pressure.

Argentina did also get some points through scrum dominance, but the scrum is an important facet of rugby. Without it you wouldn't have the front rower body shape in the game, and having 6 slower, bigger guys on the field creates mismatches and space in general play.

 

[smasha]

Argies have always been great at scrums. Any side that plays in Buenos Aires gets smashed in the scrums. Including the All Blacks and the Boks.

During the 80s and 90s when Argentina didn't get a lot of internationals, and the players weren't paid enough, many Argie front row forwards were recruited by the bigger nations (just as the Fijians, Samoans and Tongans get cherry-picked now). We had a couple, so did England, so did everybody.

Argentinian scrums are legendary.

Shows my knowledge of the sport.

 

[Topkent]

Mate, they made a lot more clean breaks in the game than we did. 18-8 in the official stats now. They were a pass or two away from scoring a few times. We infringed a lot due to that pressure and they accumulated the points.

I am actually for a change in the points structure - and next year world rugby will be trialling a 6 points (try) 2 points (any type of goal) system in a few competitions. As long as refs are willing to use the yellow card for repeated or cynical infringements then it works. That's already been shown in the NRC which uses a similar points system (though in that comp tries are 5 points and conversions 3, with penalties 2).

But take nothing away from Argentina. They were well in the game and creating plenty of opportunities. We defended brilliantly to stop them, but sometimes we also infringed to stop them. It wasn't like the South Africa vs New Zealand game where South Africa offered absolutely nothing in attack and stayed in the game due to poor discipline from New Zealand when they weren't under that much pressure.

Argentina did also get some points through scrum dominance, but the scrum is an important facet of rugby. Without it you wouldn't have the front rower body shape in the game, and having 6 slower, bigger guys on the field creates mismatches and space in general play.

Argentina broke the lines , and then chose the points instead of kicking for the corner an having a line out 5 metres out

I'm not arguing to get rid of the scrum they owned us , but it should be an opportunity to advance the ball upfield not cleverly collapse it an take 3 points

 

[showdownhero]

Argentina broke the lines , and then chose the points instead of kicking for the corner an having a line out 5 metres out

I'm not arguing to get rid of the scrum they owned us , but it should be an opportunity to advance the ball upfield not cleverly collapse it an take 3 points

Considering we conceded (albeit with questionable refereeing) 3 scrum penalties against the Scottish, it's quite likely the kiwis will be pulling the same stunts against us in the final.

 

[Topkent]

Considering we conceded (albeit with questionable refereeing) 3 scrum penalties against the Scottish, it's quite likely the kiwis will be pulling the same stunts against us in the final.

And quickly they could find them selves up 9-0 against us without trying to score a try

 

[Maester]

Argentina broke the lines , and then chose the points instead of kicking for the corner an having a line out 5 metres out

I'm not arguing to get rid of the scrum they owned us , but it should be an opportunity to advance the ball upfield not cleverly collapse it an take 3 points

Well they were just taking advantage of the current scoring system and the fact they have an excellent kicker. Nothing wrong with that, their good play and pressure was being rewarded with points. If the scoring system changes in future they'd take a different option.

And you don't advance the ball upfield very much just through the scrum, even if dominant. You advance the ball upfield because of the penalty. If a team can't take the pressure and collapses or disintegrates then I think a penalty is fair. But as I said, I would like to see a reduction in the value of a penalty goal so that it didn't result directly in points. Can't blame a team for taking advantage of the rules as they are though. And it adds different layers to the contest.

 

[Maester]

And quickly they could find them selves up 9-0 against us without trying to score a try

The Wallabies scrum has improved out of sight this year and was a key part of our victory over England in particular. The Scottish prop Nel got one over Sio in the quarter final through the dark arts of scrummaging, while Argentina were a little bit stronger than us for most of the match and Slipper couldn't handle it. Once the opposition has the shove on you just have to be able to stay square and upright, if you can't you get penalised. The dominant scrum tends to be rewarded. We saw in this game that after the replacements came on our scrum actually had a bit of dominance, but we didn't win penalties because despite the pressure, the Argies were able to stay up.

Against the All Blacks I think our scrum will hold up reasonably well, especially if Sio is back. Their scrum is not their strength and the All Blacks don't tend to play for penalties from scrums as much as other teams.

 

[Topkent]

Well they were just taking advantage of the current scoring system and the fact they have an excellent kicker. Nothing wrong with that, their good play and pressure was being rewarded with points. If the scoring system changes in future they'd take a different option.

And you don't advance the ball upfield very much just through the scrum, even if dominant. You advance the ball upfield because of the penalty. If a team can't take the pressure and collapses or disintegrates then I think a penalty is fair. But as I said, I would like to see a reduction in the value of a penalty goal so that it didn't result directly in points. Can't blame a team for taking advantage of the rules as they are though. And it adds different layers to the contest.

The scrum is a huge opportunity though
You basically take half the blokes off the field meaning you can play as if it was 7's for a minute

Anyway from purely an entertainment spectacle you wont to see tries from plays like Drew Mitchells late in the game, not kicker vs kicker

 

[Maester]

If you devalue the scrum teams will look for more athletic props - guys who are better around the field than they are in the scrum. That would reduce the amount of space and opportunity for backs.

Agree with your last sentence, and I think the points system is going to change pretty soon. But for this match, if the Wallabies get a penalty in front of the posts I'll be hoping they take the kick!! Another thing they could do is substantially reduce the amount of time kickers have to take their shot. And/or make them drop kicks only.

 

[Matchu]

Is Quade Cooper no longer eligible to play for the Wallabies? The rule change put in place earlier this year for overseas players stated that a player must have held a professional contract with an Aussie Super Rugby team for 7 years and played 60 tests for the Wallabies. Cooper played with the Reds for 9 years so that's not an issue but he's only played 58 tests for the Wallabies. It also stated an overseas player not eligible under those circumstances must spend 2 seasons with an Aussie Super Rugby team before becoming eligible to play for the Wallabies again. So, Cooper can't play for the Wallabies again until at least 2018?

 

[King Elvis]

They'll change that to 50 Tests soon, I suspect.