Change of scoring system

[Big Ewis]

I know his name, but I have not listened to his music much, because most of his music is TV/film music.
His name is Chinese letters is 横山 菁児, and I never spell "Seiji" (Hepburn system), because "Seizi" (Nipponsiki system) is correct.

But I am simple. I only write like I hear. Audrey Hepburn was very beautiful. Even if his music is only TV, it's the best.

 

[sigesige00]

But I am simple. I only write like I hear. Audrey Hepburn was very beautiful. Even if his music is only TV, it's the best.

The Hepburn system of Romanisation of Japanese was established by Dr James Curtis Hepburn, an American missionary who edited the 1st Japanese-English dictionary and established a Protestant university in Tokyo. I appreciate his contribution to the modernisation of Japan, but his system is wrong.
The Nipponsiki system was established by Prof Dr TANAKADATE Aikitu, who was a professor in physics and internationally renowned advocate of the metric system.

 

[smartcooky]

I thought that a great idea until I thought a bit more.
It would require 100% impartiality from the referees.
Whilst there are a few who are top class, there are also 'occasions' where the ref's are obviously biased, and could result in non-local teams losing by 100 points.

Why would it take this law change to bring out a biased referee? You cannot do ANYTHING in the laws to account for a cheating referee.

 

[tenpm]

Like everyone else, I like smartcooky's idea of having a scrum where the penalty was conceded. My only question is, what will happen after a team slots in a successful kick after the final siren has gone? If this results in the end of the game, it will still encourage teams defending a slim lead to concede penalties during the last few minutes of the game. (Though it's not much different to the current situation, it's just that it will be applicable for teams leading by 2 points as well as those leading by 3-7 points.) On the other hand, if the scrum is to take place even after a siren, we get a strange situation where a team trailing by more than 7 points will try not to score a try, so that they can close the gap with penalty kicks!

The Hepburn system of Romanisation of Japanese was established by Dr James Curtis Hepburn, an American missionary who edited the 1st Japanese-English dictionary and established a Protestant university in Tokyo. I appreciate his contribution to the modernisation of Japan, but his system is wrong.
The Nipponsiki system was established by Prof Dr TANAKADATE Aikitu, who was a professor in physics and internationally renowned advocate of the metric system.

Nipponshiki (see what I did there? ) Romanisation sacrifices a fair reflection of the pronunciation for a rigid formula. I know which one I'd prefer if my name was affected by the differences. If you dislike Hepburn system, that's fine, but it does have advantages. There's no "right" or "wrong".

 

[sigesige00]

Nipponshiki (see what I did there? ) Romanisation sacrifices a fair reflection of the pronunciation for a rigid formula. I know which one I'd prefer if my name was affected by the differences. If you dislike Hepburn system, that's fine, but it does have advantages. There's no "right" or "wrong".

No, Nipponsiki not Nipponshiki. The spelling "si" is right because there is no phonemic distinction between si and shi in Japanese.
And you are wrong when you say: Nipponshiki Romanisation sacrifices a fair reflection of the pronunciation for a rigid formula.

By "fair reflection of the pronunciation" you mean English pronunciation not Japanese pronunciation. The Romanisation system of Japanese must be based on the phonemic structure of Japanese.

 

[tenpm]

No, Nipponsiki not Nipponshiki. The spelling "si" is right because there is no phonemic distinction between si and shi in Japanese.
And you are wrong when you say: Nipponshiki Romanisation sacrifices a fair reflection of the pronunciation for a rigid formula.

By "fair reflection of the pronunciation" you mean English pronunciation not Japanese pronunciation. The Romanisation system of Japanese must be based on the phonemic structure of Japanese.

I was pointing out that I used the Hepburn system by spelling it with an H.

And I disagree; "zu", for example, is a far more accurate reflection of the Japanese pronunciation than "du". But this is so far off topic it's not funny, so I won't say any more on this.

 

[Rich Taff]

Why would it take this law change to bring out a biased referee? You cannot do ANYTHING in the laws to account for a cheating referee.

I just feel it would allow a 'biased' (aka cheating ****) ref to influence the result of a game even more. Not saying it's not a great idea.

 

[Thingimubob]

This is a damn weird thread...Lots of little tangents

 

[Big Ewis]

This is a damn weird thread...Lots of little tangents

yes it's....it's just right.

 

[welshglory]

How about increasing tries to 6 and making conversions 1 like NFL.
Copying from the NFL again bring in the 2 point conversion play.

From wikipedia changing it to rugby:-
In rugby union, a two-point conversion is a play a team attempts instead of kicking a one-point conversion immediately after it scores a try. In a two-point conversion attempt, the team that just scored must run a scrum or lineout from close to the opponent's goal line (5metre line) and advance the ball across the try line in the same manner as if they were scoring a try. If the team succeeds, it earns two additional points on top of the six points for the try. If the team fails, no additional points are scored. In either case, the team proceeds to a kick off.

Here's another idea. How about removing the current 2 yellow=1 red situation. Only make the red card applicable for very serious offences. Two professional foul's shouldn't be a red imo.
I think that it it would lead to players not being as afraid to infringe but it would also mean refs wouldn't be afraid to yellow card as often. Meaning an increase in yellow cards and more space on the field.

Maybe we should even have third different card. One for dangerous play that isn't punishable by red card. Two of these would lead to a red card.

 

[TRF_heineken]

How about increasing tries to 6 and making conversions 1 like NFL.
Copying from the NFL again bring in the 2 point conversion play.

From wikipedia changing it to rugby:-
In rugby union, a two-point conversion is a play a team attempts instead of kicking a one-point conversion immediately after it scores a try. In a two-point conversion attempt, the team that just scored must run a scrum or lineout from close to the opponent's goal line (5metre line) and advance the ball across the try line in the same manner as if they were scoring a try. If the team succeeds, it earns two additional points on top of the six points for the try. If the team fails, no additional points are scored. In either case, the team proceeds to a kick off.

Here's another idea. How about removing the current 2 yellow=1 red situation. Only make the red card applicable for very serious offences. Two professional foul's shouldn't be a red imo.
I think that it it would lead to players not being as afraid to infringe but it would also mean refs wouldn't be afraid to yellow card as often. Meaning an increase in yellow cards and more space on the field.

Maybe we should even have third different card. One for dangerous play that isn't punishable by red card. Two of these would lead to a red card.

How about a black card = Death Penalty

or is that racist?

 

[gaston le gaff]

Death Penalty is not at all racist !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Thingimubob]

Of course if you were to add in my suggestion, then your "cheat's charter" issue could be dealt with immediately

► drop the scoring for a penalty goal from 3 points to 2 points
► if the kick is successful, play restarts with a scrum at the point where the kick was taken from, with the kicking team to feed the scrum.
► if the kick is unsuccessful, play begins with a drop out 22m

conceding a PK on defence will no longer gain an advantage because you will concede two points and be right back where you started, in the same place on defence and the opposition likely to have possession.

Additionally, a more liberal use of yellow cards will help minimise the cynical penalties!

Just thought about a bit of a flaw in this idea... Let's say you have a match where a team has a very consistent goal kicker plus a massively dominant scrum. They then win a penalty 30m out in front of the posts, slot it for the 2 points, and play is re-set by a scrum where the kick was taken. They then win another penalty via the scrum as it is dominanting, slot it again, and once again they re-set with a scrum from where the kick is taken. Reasonably all that team then needs to do is concentrate on winning scrum penalties and they'd build up a substantial lead. Hell, if they're consistent enough and don't make any mistakes, it's feasible that it could go on for quite some time without the opposition even touching the ball!

I like the idea, but seems to me like that's a loophole that teams could (and most likely would) take advantage of!

 

[jonny24]

Maybe it could be so that you can only take a shot on the first penalty, and the second has to be a kick for touch or a run. It would be similar to how you can only go quick off a penalty once.

Or, the second shot at goal has to be a drop goal?

 

[Basco]

The scoring system is just fine IMO. The problem is players breaking the laws.