An NFL coach looks at the state of world rugby

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

Here's a snippet:


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

ME: Keep going.
COACH: Some rugby officials claim they're in the sports business, not the entertainment business, but any pro sport, if it's televised â€" and you'll be pauperized if it isn't - is in the entertainment biz. Therefore, you have to entice the folks into watching, and keep them from switching channels. We're not talking about rugby diehards here, but the average sports fan in a world in which rugby is an esoteric sport. The IRB will spend big bucks promoting the RWC, and millions will take a look at the opening rounds, and if there were 16 teams instead of 20 you'd guarantee some quality players on the screen from the getgo. 40 pool games is too many, and there will be some blowouts later on, and that's going to leave the viewers shrugging and switching away.

ME: Okay, I'll buy that. But I get the impression you mean more than that when you talk about entertainment.
COACH. Damn right. The game has to change because rugby has always been designed for perfection. You're supposed to be perfect or you're penalized. And that results in player and crowd frustration at the stop/go nature of the game.

ME: What do you mean by perfection?
COACH: Like when a rugby half, with a couple of flankers breathing down his neck, nudges the ball forward an inch at the base of the scrum, and the ref blows it up for a knock-on. That's absurd. The half should be allowed to get a grip on the ball. I'd also allow any runner to fumble the ball without it being called a knock on. If the other side recovers the ball, fine. But if the runner or one of his team mates recovers it, keep going.[/b]

http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/01/18/an-nf...looks-at-rugby/

The above quote is complete B.S. but there are some interesting quotes in it with regards how rugby is selling itself short.

I quite like is thoughts on point scoring:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

ME: Would you keep the present scoring system?
COACH: I'd go for six points for a try, eight for a converted try. That would lessen the attraction of penalty goals and drop goals which I think would be a good thing.[/b]

I'd be in favor of something along those lines. Personally, I think rugby league has it's point scoring system that's far superior to Union whereby a try is worth twice that of a penalty (4 points v 2 points) and a converted try is thre times as valuable as a penalty (6 points v 2 points).

I'd like to see the possibility of either increasing a try to 7 with a converted try being worth nine points (and keeping penalties and drop goals at the current 3 points) or devaluing a penalty and drop goal to a value of 2 points and not changing the value of ties/converted tries. Either change would have the effect of encouraging attacking rugby over kicking for goal. It's not as though Union is wedded to the present points scoring system since it has been changed numerous times in the past:

Date Try Conversion Penalty Dropped-goal Goal from mark 1890â€"1898 1 point 2 points 3 points 3 points - 1899â€"1904 6 points 2 points 3 points 4 points 4 points 1905â€"1947 3 points 2 points 3 points 4 points 3 points 1948â€"1970 3 points 2 points 3 points 3 points 3 points 1971â€"1977 4 points 2 points 3 points 3 points 3 points 1977â€"1991 4 points 2 points 3 points 3 points - 1992â€"present 5 points 2 points 3 points 3 points -


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rugby_union#Scoring


Any thoughts? Is it worthwhile exploring the possibility of changing the point scoring structure again and if so, what would you like to see changed?

 

[Nidhogg]

The "no more knock-on" bit seems a bit silly. It's not the same as in American Football, being allowed to throw knock balls forward would completely change the game, in a really bad way. Like American Football without pads and blocking.

 

[gingergenius]

I think the game's just fine as it is.

Penalties are a big part of the game, but they exist to punish rulebreakers, and 3 points is doing that just right. Many penalties result from infringements in order to prevent a try, or at least to slow the ball down and make it more difficult to score. If tries were worth more, then that makes it more profitable for a defender to prevent them being scored.

It looked in the past (de Beer, Wilkinson etc.) as if the drop-goal was going to become a major factor in rugby, but in fact it is very hard to execute and thus 3 points is in fact a fair result for this.

As for his other suggestions, that's just silly.

We've had more than enough time for the players to get used to other significant rulechanges, the ELVs, and they have (excepting the quick throw rule) certainly not improved the game as a viewing spectacle, nor have they made it easier to understand for newcomers. People really ought to look at rugby as a major success as it is, with sellout crowds in the Heineken Cup, millions of viewers for the 2007 world cup and huge attendances even for minnow games; I notice most of the calls for change seem to be coming from Australia which is the one place in the world where union seems to be going backwards in popularity.

 

[shtove]

Interesting.

High value penalty kicks add a bit of chess to the game, which league doesn't have.

And an NFL coach criticising the stop-start nature of the game?

Look at soccer. Loads of mismatches in early rounds of world cup. Low scoring. And so on. But dwarfs NFL for viewing figures.

I guess soccer has its "mesmerising" flow. And more chance of shock results because of the low scoring.

 

[Hall]

Don't like his idea of breaking the halves into quarters one bit.

 

[Prestwick]

I don't like any of his ideas one bit.

The fact that he ignored CHABAL too is unforgivable...

 

[Steve-o]

Thanks but No thanks. I believe americans are onto something with franchises because they're controlled and regulated, with a single goal in mind. In rugby's case the S14 franchises have shown that this increases the quality of players to be used for the national team. National teams being the top tier of rugby, as it should be.

I'm open to new ideas of scoring but I think the proposed system would make teams cynical. A try would become high risk because the other team would take advantage of the low point penalty to infringe. Teams would rely on defending and counter attacking more than creativity.
This is all in theory of course but like another people said, the current scoring adds that chess/tactical aspect to the game. Much like NFL needs alot of stops so tactics can be used, which is the ethos of the game.
Again, thanks but no thanks.

 

[cyRil]

1 point drop goals would be an improvement methinks.... Just 6 years too late.

 

[Jer1cho]

I would just change the rules to the ELV's used in the Super14 last year. Simple, effective, done.

 

[Bullitt]

Ah, last years Super 14 with the A(NRL)LVs...

Kick.

Kick.


Kick.


Kick.


Kick.


Kicked directly into touch.


20 minutes later

Try scored by running the length.


Restart.


Kick.


Kick...

 

[QLD]

Bring in the ELVS and make penalties and drop goals 2 points, or even 1 point. I dont agree with most of his points though.

 

[Nidhogg]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Jan 21 2009, 11:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Ah, last years Super 14 with the A(NRL)LVs...

Kick.

Kick.


Kick.


Kick.


Kick.


Kicked directly into touch.


20 minutes later

Try scored by running the length.


Restart.


Kick.


Kick...[/b]

Indeed. The S14 sometimes resembled a mixture between Aussie Rules and a game of ping-pong.

 

[Charles]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dale @ Jan 21 2009, 11:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Bring in the ELVS and make penalties and drop goals 2 points, or even 1 point. I dont agree with most of his points though.[/b]

You make penalties 2 points you'll have teams infringing all day long... <_<

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Jan 21 2009, 05:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

I'm open to new ideas of scoring but I think the proposed system would make teams cynical.[/b]

This seems to be the main concern with changing the point scoring system. I suppose it's a case of whether you view it as allowing defences become more cynical or promoting attacking play by making tries more valuable. Either theory is valid and it would be hard to argue against either theory unless such a point scoring system was trialled.

How about another less radical proposal rather that changing the value of tries, penalties and drop goals. At present, if a team kicks the ball over the dead ball line from open play, the defending team have the option of a scrum or a 22 drop out. This punishes wayward kicking and has been good for the sport. Would adding a scrum/22 drop out option for the defending team to missed goal kicks be worth exploring? Placekicking would still have the same value and would retain their importance in the game but long speculative kicks which rarely have more than a 50/50 chance of going over would become less frequent if teams knew the consequences of missing. It could (again I can't say this with certainty unless it was trialled) lead to teams attacking the corner more often from long distance penalties (once the maul is rightfully restored) while it doesn't decrease the value of having a highly accurate place kicker in your team.

Would that be barking up the wrong tree?

 

[Nidhogg]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (snoopy snoopy dog dog @ Jan 21 2009, 08:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Jan 21 2009, 05:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm open to new ideas of scoring but I think the proposed system would make teams cynical.[/b]

This seems to be the main concern with changing the point scoring system. I suppose it's a case of whether you view it as allowing defences become more cynical or promoting attacking play by making tries more valuable. Either theory is valid and it would be hard to argue against either theory unless such a point scoring system was trialled.

How about another less radical proposal rather that changing the value of tries, penalties and drop goals. At present, if a team kicks the ball over the dead ball line from open play, the defending team have the option of a scrum or a 22 drop out. This punishes wayward kicking and has been good for the sport. Would adding a scrum/22 drop out option for the defending team to missed goal kicks be worth exploring? Placekicking would still have the same value and would retain their importance in the game but long speculative kicks which rarely have more than a 50/50 chance of going over would become less frequent if teams knew the consequences of missing. It could (again I can't say this with certainty unless it was trialled) lead to teams attacking the corner more often from long distance penalties (once the maul is rightfully restored) while it doesn't decrease the value of having a highly accurate place kicker in your team.

Would that be barking up the wrong tree?[/b][/quote]

I think you might be on to something here. If the defending team could take a scrum where the kick was taken, it would certainly prevent long kicks, and would probably mean more kicking for the corner. It would be better than changing the point system I think.

 

[Steve-o]

I agree, ol Snoopy is onto something. Wayward drop kicks should be cut down, and this would be the way. It'll increase the quality rather than take it out the game. Good idea.
Gonna play devils advocate here and say, would this add to the complexity of the game and possibly driver away potential fans? Or should we stop worrying about "dumbing" down the game and just get on what is actually gonna increase the quality?
I'm for the latter personally..

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Steve-o @ Jan 21 2009, 08:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Gonna play devils advocate here and say, would this add to the complexity of the game and possibly driver away potential fans? Or should we stop worrying about "dumbing" down the game and just get on what is actually gonna increase the quality?
I'm for the latter personally..[/b]

I'm also in favor of the latter. The sport doesn't need a radical overhaul or dumbing down of the laws, what it needs are a few small tweaks in the laws to increase the quality. Dumbing down the game won't necessarily make it more exciting whereas tinkering with certain aspects of the sport could easily achieve this feat.

 

[feicarsinn]

its a interesting though but in many ways its giving the advantage back to the team thats just committed an offence if the kick is miss which is a tad bit daft

 

[Nidhogg]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (feicarsinn @ Jan 21 2009, 11:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

its a interesting though but in many ways its giving the advantage back to the team thats just committed an offence if the kick is miss which is a tad bit daft[/b]

The idea is that teams won't actually kick unless they a. have a very good kicker b. are in good range. It's meant to force teams to kick to touch, BECAUSE otherwise the defending team who committed the offence get's the ball again.

 

[steynboi]

i wouldnt say NFL dwarfs english football viewing figures.

my team the pitt steelers since 1973 they have sold out every home game without fail continuing into the 2009 season. alot of rugby/soccer games there are always seats empty and heinz field is 65,500 seats.