Drop-goal 'should be one point'

[Rugby News]

Australia coach John Connolly calls for drop-goals to be reduced in value to one point. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/sport1/hi/r...ion/6234178.stm

 

[getofmeland]

Aussie Sour Grapes or something to consider?

I dunno but the Aussies have been on about Drop Goals being only worth a point since the lost the world cup in the final minutes to England. Although if it was one point it would of still been England's World Cup...

So what do you think??

 

[Bullitt]

It's natural instinct to whinge about drop goals when your team looses because of them (hell, I've done it enough). On the other side of the coin, people think they're wonderful when when their team wins by 2 after being a point down after the game ticks over the 80 (again, I've done that enough times).

Another thing to consider, would we have had the electric atmosphere such as the end of the Bristol v Gloucester game if they were only woth one? I think not.

If the shoe was on the other foot, Connolly wouldn't be saying a word.

Bloody whining convicts.

 

[DC]

i dont see why they **** and moan so much remember the larkham miracle a few years back?

 

[mimic]

I prefer drop goals to be one point. They should only be used if the scores are level, or if you want to increase your lead by more than a converted try, like they do in league.

 

[Prestwick]

The only people who whinge about drop goals are those who have been stung by them...like John Connolly.

He can stress whatever he wants about not having "sour grapes", the fact is that he is trying to make up excuses for his team not making the game against South Africa safe. If his Australia had actually bothered to pull the finger out of their arse then they wouldn't have been in that situation.

England suffered greatly under De Beer's onslaught in 1995 and we didn't complain, because a) nobody would listen to us anyway and B ) that is how the game goes. Period.

 

[O'Rothlain]

Drop Goals, like the ones that won the South African v Australia Match, are skilled scores...they should be rewarded by 3 points. Why screw with the system?

 

[TRUE LEGND]

Drop goals shouldn't determine weather a team wins or not, the quicker we stamp it out the better.

1 point for me GET RID OF IT!

 

[PeeJay]

I'm gonna be controversial here and say they should be worth 2 points. I don't think a DG should be worth as much as a penalty goal, but they shouldn't be as low as just one point.

 

[QKXV]

How about that..... the games rules don't suit our style of play and capabilties so let's get the rules changed.

I can't compete in Formula one becuase I don't have enouh money for a F1 car.....mmmm... I know, let's dissalow all formual one cars and instead compete with Nissans 1600's....great.


John forgets that Larkams drop goals is what got Aus past the Boks in RWC 99...I don't remembe any Aussies or even SAffa's complaining about the 3 points then.

 

[DC]

drop goals i think are a lot harder to hit than penalties..

 

[kbourke88]

Knuckles can get f**ked.. hes a loser, and i am so glad we will be rid of him after the world cup.

haha.. yes there is a lot of resentment and anger towards that stupid stupid man from me! so glad his tenure has been so short, or else he could have made as much damage as eddie jones did.

anways, back on topic, drop goals should definately be worth 3 points. they are an important part of the game, put pressure on a team with a slim lead at the end of the game to keep the ball out of their own territory, and not giving away a penalty is not enough..

plus, why would be change the rules just cuz we lost a couple of games over it. then it wouldnt be the same game. and its a GREAT GAME. THE GREAT GAME.

 

[sanzar]

Drop Goals, like the ones that won the South African v Australia Match, are skilled scores...they should be rewarded by 3 points. Why screw with the system? [/b]

Well the argument is a valid one if you think about it... Basically it's the only way to score points in the game (outside of penalties which is different) that doesn't require you to break the defence. All you have to do is be within their half and have if you have a really good kicker then you have 3 points! SA did it all through the '99 RWC and it made their games generally more booring as a spectacle (thus it was considered poetic justice that we knocked them out with one). And while you can claim that it's simply sour grapes on our part, you have to remember that Aussies generally watch league, a game that where we never had fears of losing, so the appeal for that rule change has been there for a while.

Also, saying "why screw with the system" is a little silly when you consider how much the game has changed in the last 20 years, let alone the last 100... Drop goals used to be the primary method of scoring points, but they slowly made tries worth more (they used to be worth nothing) because people enjoyed watching them more.

Personally I think that ones like that sideline kick are worth 3, but in general they're overvalued. I reckon they should be 2 points. A conversion is 2 points and it's MUCH harder to get a try than a drop goal, so why should the conversion be less than a droppy?

 

[The TRUTH]

i dont see why they **** and moan so much remember the larkham miracle a few years back? [/b]

Yes and do you remember the final score?.... even if drop goals were worth 1 point back then, the Wallabies still would have won the game by 6.

England suffered greatly under De Beer's onslaught in 199<strike>59</strike> and we didn't complain, because...

[/b]

You didn't score a single try in that match and even without De Beer's 5 drop goals you still would have lost the match? :lol: ..... or maybe because it took drop goals for you guys to beat Argentina,Western Samoa and Australia in the previous world cup?

I do ,however, vividly remember a number of the pommie posters on this forum whinging about the Yarpies excessive use of the drop goal in the second test of last years November tour.

Drop Goals, like the ones that won the South African v Australia Match, are skilled [/b]

drop goals i think are a lot harder to hit than penalties[/b]

So because it takes skill, it should be awarded 3 points?

So does a 20m cut-out pass. So does a sidestep. So does a perfectly timed grubber kick. You don't get points for any of those.

The fact is that drop goals are worth 60-70% of a try, and can be near impossible to defend against.

The main aim of rugby is to run with the ball over the tryline. That's what makes rugby rugby and not soccer. I'm pretty sure that if they weren't seen to be against the spirit of the game in some way, we'd see a lot more of them because they are awarded quite a few points in the overall context of a game.

Penalties are worth what they are, because the threat of conceding 3 points is a good deterrent to prevent teams consistently conceding penalties.

I just dont see the merit in rewarding a team 3 points for their inability to breakdown the oppositions defense.



Now, can one of the smart cookies that voted to keep them at 3, please give us a good reason for your decision?... i mean, besides the sour grape crap.


yours in anticipation...

 

[QKXV]

<div class='quotemain'> i dont see why they **** and moan so much remember the larkham miracle a few years back? [/b]

Yes and do you remember the final score?.... even if drop goals were worth 1 point back then, the Wallabies still would have won the game by 6.

England suffered greatly under De Beer's onslaught in 199<strike>59</strike> and we didn't complain, because...

[/b]

You didn't score a single try in that match and even without De Beer's 5 drop goals you still would have lost the match? :lol: ..... or maybe because it took drop goals for you guys to beat Argentina,Western Samoa and Australia in the previous world cup?

I do ,however, vividly remember a number of the pommie posters on this forum whinging about the Yarpies excessive use of the drop goal in the second test of last years November tour.

Drop Goals, like the ones that won the South African v Australia Match, are skilled [/b]

drop goals i think are a lot harder to hit than penalties[/b]

So because it takes skill, it should be awarded 3 points?

So does a 20m cut-out pass. So does a sidestep. So does a perfectly timed grubber kick. You don't get points for any of those.

The fact is that drop goals are worth 60-70% of a try, and can be near impossible to defend against.

The main aim of rugby is to run with the ball over the tryline. That's what makes rugby rugby and not soccer. I'm pretty sure that if they weren't seen to be against the spirit of the game in some way, we'd see a lot more of them because they are awarded quite a few points in the overall context of a game.

Penalties are worth what they are, because the threat of conceding 3 points is a good deterrent to prevent teams consistently conceding penalties.

I just dont see the merit in rewarding a team 3 points for their inability to breakdown the oppositions defense.



Now, can one of the smart cookies that voted to keep them at 3, please give us a good reason for your decision?... i mean, besides the sour grape crap.


yours in anticipation... [/b][/quote]

It is the game. Those are the rules. League is the game you want if you simply want the running, football is the one you want if you simply want a kicking game. Rugby union... well it is rugby .

 

[Dumbo]

One for mine.
And for mine droppies are a lot easier than a conversion.
I just prefer to see people have a crack at the line. Also where SANZAR was heading with comments... the game is based on contesting... shitful game if they just bang away trying to get drop kicks... negative play in my books.

 

[The TRUTH]

It is the game. Those are the rules. League is the game you want if you simply want the running, football is the one you want if you simply want a kicking game. Rugby union... well it is rugby .

[/b]

Maybe i'm missing something, but i don't see one good reason why the droppie should be worth 3 and not 1 in all that.

League is the game you want if you simply want the running [/b]

HUH? kicking is just as important in league as it is in Rugby

The game has 4 different ways of scoring points Try, conversion, penalty and dropgoal and many other variables and techniques that means those can be scored in any way or form.[/b]

and League doesn't?


Seriously, the more i think about it, there isn't any reason why it should be worth 3

 

[Bullitt]

Bloody whining convicts. [/b]

 

[thomas]

First the DGs will worth 1pt,
next step will be Penalty kicks worth 1pt
Then you'll probably find someone to complain about conversion kick awarding 2 pts instead of 1

All this with the unstoppable (as well unexplainable) will to make the scrums less of a contest, year after year... and the rolling mauls that some people find dangerous (???)...

....

..... I can hear some Rugby Leagues executives rubbing their hands... "hmmm... soon... Union... you are going down... AH AH AH (horrible sarcastic laugh)"





ps : sorry for the spelling

 

[Cymro]

I think any drop goal within the 22 say is worth either 1/2 points and say between the 10 and 22 line it should be say 3?