• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Drop-goal 'should be one point'

Drop Goals

  • 1 Point is plenty, lets follow the minority code

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Keep it at 3 Points

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
why not? as we all should know by now, a game is won on kicks, so if we take down penalties, or drop goals arnt we robbing the kicker of much of the credit due to him? [/b]

Same could be said if they decide to go ahead with the new rules next year (less penalties). The idea behind the new rules is to benefit the game and placing more emphasis on scoring tries is also in the interest of the game. Almost everyone wants to see good attacking rugby, not half the points coming from a goalkicker. I doubt anyone wants to see goalkicking become unimportant, just for teams to have more motivation to "go for it" rather than take the easy 3.

Penalty goals should just be to keep the score ticking over if it's a tight game and field goals should really be to break a tie or expand a lead beyond a single score.
 
Yes, I think you're still confusing the origin of an idea with its merit (remember that a few kiwis have also agreed with the priciple here, what's their agenda?)... fine that you tell us off for complaining about losing to a team through a drop goal, but you still haven't really addressed the central argument: That is, that drop goals are the only way in the game you can score point without having to break the defence. If you have a good enough kicker you can be 50 meters out and still score one, and it's worth over half an unconverted try! [/b]

Why should I have to address the central argument when it is nothing but hysterical moaning? If the situation with drop goals really was that bad then every team would have guys sitting back at about 50 meters out and belt over drop goal after drop goal. Every game would be simple drop goal duels! I am saying that because the aforementioned scenario patently doesn't happen, it isn't a major issue. Thus, the "central argument" (if you can call it that) is really just a load of hot air, ejected after one team received a dent in their pride.

You think I'm confusing things, I think you Southern Hemisphere types are confusing what should be a debate over a basic tactic which isn't used that much with something which is causing a crisis in world rugby (like, for example, spear tackling or dangerous scrummaging) that can only be resolved with a major rule change.

Drop goals are a part of life, yes they can be annoying but they here to stay, period. Next we'll be putting speed limits on wingers because they keep rushing past our second rowers at maximum speed.

(I'll reply to Mr Truth's reply later which seemed to be nothing other than a bunch of angry moaning and hysterical whining combined with some pretty weak insults which barely covers his sheer rage that someone should have the sheer bottle to disagree with him. ;) )
 
I think droppies should be 2 points. they should be a means of getting points when it is hard to break the line or to win a tight game but imo they should not be woth the same amount as a penalty which is punishment for illegal play. penalties at 3 points are good because they provide a consquence for infringing on the rules of the game and denying a team a chance to get a try. the drop goal is a valid tactic but imo I don't think it should have the same reward as a breakage of the rules of the game does. going to 1 point is a bit too far I think and would basically remove them from the game when they do have a purpose just not quite the same as a penalty does.
 
I usually have little time for Prestwicks views, just seem to disagree about a few things. I have to say though, I agree with him on this.

There's no reason for the Truth saying things in the manner which he has, though at the end of the day thats between him and Prestwick.
 
Unless you agree with the Truth, this being a forum and all... therefore... it's still open to discussion
 
<div class='quotemain'>
Yes, I think you're still confusing the origin of an idea with its merit (remember that a few kiwis have also agreed with the priciple here, what's their agenda?)... fine that you tell us off for complaining about losing to a team through a drop goal, but you still haven't really addressed the central argument: That is, that drop goals are the only way in the game you can score point without having to break the defence. If you have a good enough kicker you can be 50 meters out and still score one, and it's worth over half an unconverted try! [/b]

Why should I have to address the central argument when it is nothing but hysterical moaning? If the situation with drop goals really was that bad then every team would have guys sitting back at about 50 meters out and belt over drop goal after drop goal. Every game would be simple drop goal duels! I am saying that because the aforementioned scenario patently doesn't happen, it isn't a major issue. Thus, the "central argument" (if you can call it that) is really just a load of hot air, ejected after one team received a dent in their pride.

You think I'm confusing things, I think you Southern Hemisphere types are confusing what should be a debate over a basic tactic which isn't used that much with something which is causing a crisis in world rugby (like, for example, spear tackling or dangerous scrummaging) that can only be resolved with a major rule change.

Drop goals are a part of life, yes they can be annoying but they here to stay, period. Next we'll be putting speed limits on wingers because they keep rushing past our second rowers at maximum speed.
[/b][/quote]



Prestwik, again you've not actually answered anything I've put forwar... all you've tried to do is divert the argument by claiming it isn't important and then said all you we're only doing this cause we've lost a couple big games to drop goals - which is precisely what I meant about confusing origin with merit.

The fact is that the IRB are currently experimenting with a number of new laws to make the game more appealing, few of which were born out a major 'crisis' in safety in world rugby. Would you for example demmand that they immediately scrap the idea (which they are trialing) to no longer allow players to kick out on the full if the ball has been passed from outside of it simply because it's not a crisis despite the fact that this may positively impact on the appealability of the game?

My argument on reducing the drop goal to 2 points is along the same lines, but your response shows you've failed to see past your own prejudices about SH rugby fans to see it.
 
Prestwick, again you've not actually answered anything I've put forwar... all you've tried to do is divert the argument by claiming it isn't important and then said all you we're only doing this cause we've lost a couple big games to drop goals - which is precisely what I meant about confusing origin with merit.

The fact is that the IRB are currently experimenting with a number of new laws to make the game more appealing, few of which were born out a major 'crisis' in safety in world rugby. Would you for example damand that they immediately scrap the idea (which they are trialing) to no longer allow players to kick out on the full if the ball has been passed from outside of it simply because it's not a crisis despite the fact that this may positively impact on the appealability of the game?

My argument on reducing the drop goal to 2 points is along the same lines, but your response shows you've failed to see past your own prejudices about SH rugby fans to see it. [/b]

No, I've always claimed that it isn't important, isn't important as you have (quite) rightly pointed out with the Stellenboch experiments in the past 18 months.

That specific proposed law is a bit of a double edged sword as it might take away that age old tactic of many a dopey NH kicker who simply hoofs the ball miles back into the oppositions half in the hope of finding touch. If you have seen allot of NH kickers, (be they full backs or fly halves) recently you'll notice that nine times out of ten, any ball that they kick usually ends up going down the throat of a very peeved All Black who then runs off and scores a try (usually).

Forcing the team with possession to attack rather than passing back into the 22 to kick out, or force the team to make sure the ball bounces inside of play before rolling out is a good idea as it will foster better practice in both kicking and attacking play, it would also probably subtly take the pressure off of hapless NH teams whose kicking accuracy is worse than Admiral Beatty's battle cruisers at the Battle of Jutland (i.e. not very good). The current way things are run fosters bad practice and laziness as well as negativity.

Drop goals are different however as, yes, while they can bypass the defensive team to score points, they are usually attempted sparingly (either to win a game at the last gasp in the final minutes or to try and make a game safe at the end of the first half or a way into the 2nd half) and they are simply not used enough to kill any excitement in a game. Modern defenses and player awareness these days can slow play down and even effect turnover ball to frustrate attempts to set up a drop goal. In these cases, this kind of contest can be just as thrilling and fascinating to watch as wide open and disjointed play. In any case, a penalty kick is much more likely in some cases and can kill the game to an even greater extent than repeated drop goal attempts.

In fact, reducing the points awarded to a drop goal to two, rather than acting to dissuade teams from taking drop goals, might actually encourage teams to attempt more drop goals as they feel that if a drop goal is the only avenue of action left open to them, they must then attempt more than usual because of the fact that they'd only get 2 points instead of 3. In other sports where kicking brings smaller rewards (such as International Rules football), Ireland prefer to keep up by kicking as many overs and behinds as possible while Australia go for the jugular to score direct goals. This attempt at social engineering on a grand scale might result in a serious own goal (excuse the pun) of making drop goals an even more attractive way of keeping up with the opposition team.

At the end of the day, you have used sophisticated language and politeness (which, I appreciate) to disguise the fact that your only argument for dropping the points value of a drop goal to one point is "because they're boring." I would dispute the "origin with merit" argument with the gradual move of Australian teams away from emphasis on the scrum over the last decade or so with increased reliance on other areas to make up for the lack of dynamic in their pack. This was something which was cruely exposed by various teams North & South (the Ospreys for example) in 2005. The most glaring example I think when Wales simply overran the Australian pack at a 5m scrum to swarm over the Australian line like the unlimited hordes of Chinese infantry over the Imjim River and score a try. Absolutely shocking.

Finally, I have predujuces about how some SH teams operate or how they operated in the past, not their fans. Although I make a humorous exception for Mr Truth, who never fails to raise a laugh. He was, after all, the inspiration for my dipiction of the "Australian" in my facial expressions guide. I wonder what paper he reads?
 
<div class='quotemain'> Prestwick, again you've not actually answered anything I've put forwar... all you've tried to do is divert the argument by claiming it isn't important and then said all you we're only doing this cause we've lost a couple big games to drop goals - which is precisely what I meant about confusing origin with merit.

The fact is that the IRB are currently experimenting with a number of new laws to make the game more appealing, few of which were born out a major 'crisis' in safety in world rugby. Would you for example damand that they immediately scrap the idea (which they are trialing) to no longer allow players to kick out on the full if the ball has been passed from outside of it simply because it's not a crisis despite the fact that this may positively impact on the appealability of the game?

My argument on reducing the drop goal to 2 points is along the same lines, but your response shows you've failed to see past your own prejudices about SH rugby fans to see it. [/b]

Drop goals are different however as, yes, while they can bypass the defensive team to score points, they are usually attempted sparingly (either to win a game at the last gasp in the final minutes or to try and make a game safe at the end of the first half or a way into the 2nd half) and they are simply not used enough to kill any excitement in a game. Modern defenses and player awareness these days can slow play down and even effect turnover ball to frustrate attempts to set up a drop goal. In these cases, this kind of contest can be just as thrilling and fascinating to watch as wide open and disjointed play. In any case, a pentalty kick is much more likely in some cases and can kill the game to an even greater extent than repeated drop goal attempts.
[/b][/quote]



It is true that they don't come out in every game, but I maintain that examples such as South Africa's match V England in the 1999 RWC justify my position. It may not happen a lot, but that it could happen in a game as important as a World Cup knock out round is reason enough to try limit its value and effectiveness in my opinion.



In fact, reducing the points awarded to a drop goal to two, rather than acting to dissuade teams from taking drop goals, might actually encourage teams to attempt more drop goals as they feel that if a drop goal is the only avenue of action left open to them, they must then attempt more than usual because of the fact that they'd only get 2 points instead of 3. In other sports where kicking brings smaller rewards (such as International Rules football), Ireland prefer to keep up by kicking as many overs and behinds as possible while Australia go for the jugular to score direct goals.
[/b]



But not in rugby league, which is probably more to the point as it has far more in common with union than International Rules.




At the end of the day, you have used sophisticated language and politeness (which, I appreciate) to disguise the fact that your only argument for dropping the points value of a drop goal to one point is "because they're boring." I would dispute the "origin with merit" argument with the gradual move of Australian teams away from emphasis on the scrum over the last decade or so with increased reliance on other areas to make up for the lack of dynamic in their pack. This was something which was cruely exposed by various teams North & South (the Ospreys for example) in 2005. The most glaring example I think when Wales simply overran the Australian pack at a 5m scrum to swarm over the Australian line like the unlimited hordes of Chinese infantry over the Imjim River and score a try. Absolutely shocking.[/b]



The Australian forward pack performances over the last few years have been deplorable, it's something we drastically need to work on because forward play is such an important part of the game and needs to remain that way... we just need to change our focus again.

But you're right, ultimately I do think that drop goals are far less entertaining to watch (remember we have AFL here), but I do also honestly think that the fact they are worth more than half a converted try is not a fair reflection on the amount of effort required to score them.



Thank you for addressing this comprehensively.
 
The Australian forward pack performances over the last few years have been deplorable, it's something we drastically need to work on because forward play is such an important part of the game and needs to remain that way... we just need to change our focus again.

Thank you for addressing this comprehensively.[/b]

I do concede that since 2005, great strides have been made to shore up and develop Australia's forward pack with investment in future up and coming forwards.

Thank you for addressing this comprehensively.[/b]

And I thank you for the opportunity to do so!
 
I think it should stay as it is.
Drop goals aren't easy to do so they should be the same as a penalty at least.
 
Only reason why they called for points to be reduced on drop goal is because the Wallabies lost due to the 2 Drop kicks. If they won with a drop goal themselves like in the 99 Semi's it wasn't even mentioned.
 
Only reason why they called for points to be reduced on drop goal is because the Wallabies lost due to the 2 Drop kicks. If they won with a drop goal themselves like in the 99 Semi's it wasn't even mentioned.
[/b]


Factually incorrect. Australian's in particular have been calling for it to be reduced ever since they did it here in Rugby League (which was before Rugby went professional), a move that was considered to improve the spectical of the game.
 
If a team's whole game revolved around drop kicks then it'd make sense to reduce their effectiveness but since 2003 that hasn't really been a problem :)
 
Seriously just get rid of drop goals altogether. Sure the South Africans would be stuffed but who gives a ****? If you want to see endless kicking for goal go to a soccer or AFL match
 
Seriously just get rid of drop goals altogether. Sure the South Africans would be stuffed but who gives a ****? If you want to see endless kicking for goal go to a soccer or AFL match [/b]



keir, i at least would have thought you would call it football.. come on.. but seriously.. crap post, you can do better than that.. i know you got years worth of idiotic opinions to spurt forth for us all to avoid, and you could at least fill more than 2 or 3 lines about why you dont like drop goals.. i could write more than that on why i dont like you! :bleh!: hahaha...
 
<div class='quotemain'> Seriously just get rid of drop goals altogether. Sure the South Africans would be stuffed but who gives a ****? If you want to see endless kicking for goal go to a soccer or AFL match [/b]



keir, i at least would have thought you would call it football.. come on.. but seriously.. crap post, you can do better than that.. i know you got years worth of idiotic opinions to spurt forth for us all to avoid, and you could at least fill more than 2 or 3 lines about why you dont like drop goals.. i could write more than that on why i dont like you! :bleh!: hahaha...
[/b][/quote]

Why would I call it football? I object too being told what to call a sport by a bunch of liberal media elites.

I was brought up to believe that rugby was about passing the ball out wide and playing running rugby. There's simply no need for drop goals anymore. In an age when rugby was played in the UK and it was always wet and harder to score a try maybe there was a reason for drop goals but this is simply not the case anymore
 
<div class='quotemain'>
<div class='quotemain'> Seriously just get rid of drop goals altogether. Sure the South Africans would be stuffed but who gives a ****? If you want to see endless kicking for goal go to a soccer or AFL match [/b]



keir, i at least would have thought you would call it football.. come on.. but seriously.. crap post, you can do better than that.. i know you got years worth of idiotic opinions to spurt forth for us all to avoid, and you could at least fill more than 2 or 3 lines about why you dont like drop goals.. i could write more than that on why i dont like you! :bleh!: hahaha...
[/b][/quote]

Why would I call it football? I object too being told what to call a sport by a bunch of liberal media elites.

I was brought up to believe that rugby was about passing the ball out wide and playing running rugby. There's simply no need for drop goals anymore. In an age when rugby was played in the UK and it was always wet and harder to score a try maybe there was a reason for drop goals but this is simply not the case anymore
[/b][/quote]

Great, another person with lobsided memory who believes dropgoals are only used by SA and ENG. So you were taught to believe that rugby was about passing the ball wide and playing running rugby, those are the only ways in your opinion that points should be awarded then is it? Sounds to me like Bourkey wasn't taking the mick when he said he hit the pan on your head way too many times.....
 
yeah, he neg repped me too the little f***er... just laugh at him that his beloved galloping greens (randwick) didnt get thru to the shute shield final but my beloved beasties (eastern suburbs) are there... its a sore point..

i just thought i'd get him onto the forums so there would be more people than me telling him his footy opinions are STUPIDO!! ;) guess that comes with the territory with knowing a bloke since you were kneehigh...
 
I can't speak for your football opinions Keir because I know sweet f-all about the round ball sport you call soccer, I might even be impressed by your ideas but maybe it's wise to stick to football ;)

Welcome to the forum
 
Top