Rule Change

[formerlyfastwing]

Should the DG points be 3?
In Rugby League, DG point is only 1.
England's Wilkinson proved that DG is a very effective strategy. It is quite possible to see many games decided by DGs.
I think that the DG points should be reduced from 3 to 2.

no, no it shouldn't.....drop goals are a skill and a skill that is very difficult to execute during a game. I would argue that hitting penalties is easier that hitting a drop goal during the flow of play.

just leave well enough alone.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Nah, its fine as it is, imo

 

[big ginger 8]

I think that scrum should be replaced by FK (or PK, in the case of goal the point is 1). Rugby game would be faster and clearer.

A lot of props would be angry. And you won't like them when they're angry!

 

[formerlyfastwing]

A lot of props would be angry. And you won't like them when they're angry!

you may have to be specific on why he would not like them when they are angry.....I sense he does not watch/participate in much rugby....

 

[best_fullback]

Should the DG points be 3?
In Rugby League, DG point is only 1.
England's Wilkinson proved that DG is a very effective strategy. It is quite possible to see many games decided by DGs.
I think that the DG points should be reduced from 3 to 2.

There has been plenty of criticism on this exact point for years. If you google it you can find plenty of articles on it. Here are two I just found:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_union/6234178.stm
http://www.theroar.com.au/2007/09/28/limit-the-drop-goal/

But the issue is, if you reduce the drop goal points system as it is to either 1 or 2 points, it is entirely possible that teams will never bother doing them because the potential risk vs reward of field position and chance of missing wouldn't, in my opinion, be equal. Also if you argue the case for reducing drop goal points I think you also equally have to say that penalty kicks should be reduced to equal value.

I think the criticism of drop goals is also sometimes basically a case of sour grapes. Rugby, by its nature, is a great sport that we all love. One of the reasons I love it so much is because of the huge amount of variation that you can choose to attack your opponent. If a team can get in range and choose to have a shot, then so be it. I can't remember the last time in ages when one team has literally kept kicking drop goals to win a match; there is obviously England vs France in 2003, and I remember England vs South Africa 2006 when Andre Pretorious kicked 4 and Steyn kicked the same amount about a year ago in SupeRugby. Apart from that I can't remember many occasions when a match has literally been won by kicking drop goals. Personally, if a team kicks one against my team then I think "fair play, that was good".

Drop goals have also given us some fantastically memorable ends to games: Joel Stransky - South Africa vs New Zealand 1995, Jonny Wilkinson - England vs Australia 2003, Nick Evans - Harlequins vs Stade Francais 2008, Ronan O'Gara - Wales vs Ireland 2009, Jason Strange - Bristol vs Gloucester 2006 . If we lessen drop goal points then they may as well not really exist, such is the extent they are used in Rugby League. In my opinion, I don't want Union to become only attack vs defence because there is no point kicking. It'll just become far too like league. I get as much pleasure seeing a player like Ronan O'Gara come on, as he did against England this 6 nations, and play some wonderful tactical kicking over the heads of the England back three as I do watching almost 50% of tries. Equally, there is a great spectacle in a drop goal as they are by no means a certainty.

Union is a dynamic sport, and rules like the drop goal keep it being the dynamic sport we love.

 

[big ginger 8]

you may have to be specific on why he would not like them when they are angry.....I sense he does not watch/participate in much rugby....

Good point They're big (mostly) hairy guys who over the past few years have become considerably more mobile. Lets just say you wouldn't want any of the modern so called "super props" i.e. over 6 3 and 20 stone sitting on you.

 

[big ginger 8]

Ronan O'Gara - Wales vs Ireland 2009,

Best **** drop goal ever!

 

[best_fullback]

Best **** drop goal ever!

If it hadn't wobbled through the air like a half a pound of haggis, it just wouldn't have been the same!

 

[big ginger 8]

If it hadn't wobbled through the air like a half a pound of haggis, it just wouldn't have been the same!

And the amazing shake the arms celebration. Still remember RTE's commetary

"Drop at goal,
Grand Slam at stake,
IT'S THERE"

 

[best_fullback]

Just found this on Youtube about it. Really well shot! I was welling up a bit at the end!

 

[Dougydeluxe]

^^ So good.

 

[ZeFrenchy]

Larkham's in 99 is even shittier.

 

[staph.glorious]

Should the DG points be 3?
In Rugby League, DG point is only 1.
England's Wilkinson proved that DG is a very effective strategy. It is quite possible to see many games decided by DGs.
I think that the DG points should be reduced from 3 to 2.

When internationals were trialing the full compliment of ELVs put forward, there was some concern over their use in the game, as the tactic reaped great dividends, especially at long range - either a relatively easy 3 points, or considerable territory, which was huge in that environment.

With the current set of laws, however, possession has become more significant. As such, the rate of drop goal attempts has eased off. Their effect on the game at the moment is not damaging, i.e. it does not negate from a match's try-tally.

Were it ever to reach a point again that the drop goal was a favourable option over territory-with-possession, then perhaps the scrum-back 'penalty' could be implemented, as it is for kicks made off-the-boot that go dead.

This is all hypothetical, though; drop goals don't plague the game.

 

[sigesige00]

As for PG points, different points (from 1 to 4) should be given by the nature of fouls, I think.

 

[staph.glorious]

As for PG points, different points (from 1 to 4) should be given by the nature of fouls, I think.

Why?

"The nature of fouls"?

What's the difference, for example, between a cynical offside and a technical offside, if only for how the referee perceives it. User 'smartcooky' explained to you the distinction between rules and laws. Now you're further upsetting the game by placing more significance at the feet of the officials.

I tell you what - go to the IRB website, get reports on the previous international competitions (Six Nations, Tri-Nations), and use those statistics to argue your points. Because you're going to get no one's attention 'til you do. In fact, you'll sooner be brandished a 'troll' if you continue with your current style.

 

[Groundhog]

As for the restarts in the Sevens, I had known what you said. My question is why restarts in the 15-Player Rugby is done in the different way.

As for substitutions, 15-Player Rugby should have 11 substitutes, and 7-Player Rugby should have 5 substitutes (in all games), and injury reserves should be allowed unlimitedly.

its different in 15 a side because territory is more important than posession

 

[Dougydeluxe]

No Disrespect sigesige00, but maybe instead of tweaking Rugby Union, you should just create a new game.

 

[sigesige00]

Why?

"The nature of fouls"?

For example, knock-on is 1 point, early-tackle is 4 points.

 

[staph.glorious]

For example, knock-on is 1 point, early-tackle is 4 points.

Finger up the crack, 6 points?

 

[big ginger 8]

For example, knock-on is 1 point, early-tackle is 4 points.

You want a penalty for a knock on? Or you doing this for a laugh?