Should the draw be eliminated from rugby ?

[Rugga-lad]

What do you guys think ?
Nobody likes a draw in rugby.

I like the american approach to their sport. Never a draw. Either win or loss.

I'd like to see a similar scenario in rugby. But going about it would be a bit tricky. Or maybe not.
NFL has sudden death (overtime).

15 mins a side. Rugby is very intense, so maybe a bit shorter.

Thoughts ?

 

[goodNumber10]

Nope. Only in cup/knock out stages.

 

[Big Ewis]

I agree. For club Rugby, keep it. It adds a strategic dimension of its own because of the points system. But for Test match Rugby, what's the concept ? None, there isn't one. It's just a lazy solution to not add more time and organization etc...80min later, tied score, so be it. Draw. Nothing more to it, nothing to it at all. What's the value in "France ties with NZ" ? Everybody wants a winner and a loser, and it's a fundamental principle of competition, not just a mass-driven haste. Draws don't even exist in themselves in sense, you're only tied 80min later, eventually a team would win if the timer goes on a bit longer. There's no realistic meaning to the concept of "a draw"; provided again it isn't incorporated into a system.
What's the point in having "on the all-time record, Team A defeated Team B 16 times, lost to Team B 12 times, and drew 4 times" ?

 

[Shaggy]

Nope. Only in cup/knock out stages.

I agree - most test matches are played in a series or competition anyway, so sides have the opportunity to "win" by winning the other games.

Even if the test match is a one off match, such as the November internationals, what does it matter if it's a draw - it's a testament to how closely fought the match was, and that neither team managed to dominate on the scoreboard.

Close matches are the most worthwhile ones to watch IMO, and just because the match ends in a draw, it doesn't mean it wasn't entertaining, or lacked excitement or skillful play.

TV coverage probably would't allow extended play anyway, as it would disrupt it's scheduling too much - I would rather watch a full game, that ends in a draw, than watch 80 minutes , only to miss the deciding minutes, due to scheduling issues

 

[jonny24]

That's why you make it easier to score, so that it ends quickly. Hockey uses five minutes of 4 on 4. If it isn't decided by then it goes to a shootout. Rugby could be played with fewer players, down to sevens even. It would be up to teams to strategize which players they keep. Start with a centre scrum, with the put in by the ref. This would eliminate the problem of one team having the advantage of receiving the first ball. Then play five or ten minutes, and only a two minute break before they start. The extra time just gets cut out of the post game coverage.

There isn't a good equivalent to the shootout, because everyone on the team shoots but rugby only has one or two kickers. Maybe have it so that five different people have to kick for each team, from a certain point, most kicks made out of five wins.

 

[LittleGuy]

That's why you make it easier to score, so that it ends quickly. Hockey uses five minutes of 4 on 4. If it isn't decided by then it goes to a shootout. Rugby could be played with fewer players, down to sevens even. It would be up to teams to strategize which players they keep. Start with a centre scrum, with the put in by the ref. This would eliminate the problem of one team having the advantage of receiving the first ball. Then play five or ten minutes, and only a two minute break before they start. The extra time just gets cut out of the post game coverage.

There isn't a good equivalent to the shootout, because everyone on the team shoots but rugby only has one or two kickers. Maybe have it so that five different people have to kick for each team, from a certain point, most kicks made out of five wins.

The shootout in Hockey is awful, I'd prefer they go back to having ties. So many teams floating into the playoffs based on the fact they are good at a gimmick at the end of the game. Not that the NHL helps matters with it's brain dead points system which helps reinforce it as the worst run league in North America.

@ The OP. The NFL does not have sudden death overtime in the case of a field goal being scored first, the rules were changed a few years ago, the rule now is "If the team that receives the kickoff scores a touchdown; or if the defense scores a touchdown or safety on its first possession, it is declared the winner. If it scores a field goal on its first possession, however, it then kicks off to the opposing team with an opportunity to score"

Just have ties/draws, they aren't even that common in Rugby really anyway with a few in each competition per season. I've seen tons of games where neither team deserves to lose, or more importantly no team deserves to win.

 

[Big Ewis]

it's funny, just today there was a triple overtime thriller between my two NBA teams, Portland and San Antonio, and just a regular season game too, i.e. one of 82. So that's the full regulation time, plus 3 extra periods.
Obviously Rugby is too taxing physically to allow for such a rule during the domestic regular season games, but I reiterate my agreeing with the OP for the reasons stated above regarding all Test matches. What's a draw ? if not that two teams are tied after specifically eighty minutes of play...two teams can be just as good, but you need a winner at the end. Imagine if they'd just called both England and Australia World Cup winners in 2003 "yep that's it guys, great run both of you, you're uh...you're both champs, congrats !! What's that ?? Play an extra period to determine a winner ??.....how..how incredibly bizaaarre !...how do you even think of such notions ?!.."

 

[LittleGuy]

it's funny, just today there was a triple overtime thriller between my two NBA teams, Portland and San Antonio, and just a regular season game too, i.e. one of 82. So that's the full regulation time, plus 3 extra periods.
Obviously Rugby is too taxing physically to allow for such a rule during the domestic regular season games, but I reiterate my agreeing with the OP for the reasons stated above regarding all Test matches. What's a draw ? if not that two teams are tied after specifically eighty minutes of play...two teams can be just as good, but you need a winner at the end. Imagine if they'd just called both England and Australia World Cup winners in 2003 "yep that's it guys, great run both of you, you're uh...you're both champs, congrats !! What's that ?? Play an extra period to determine a winner ??.....how..how incredibly bizaaarre !...how do you even think of such notions ?!.."

A RWC final is not even closely comparable to (for example) Treviso vs. Zebre round 16 of the general league competition being a draw. No one is suggesting that knockout games end in draws or are replayed, just general regular season games.

I don't even buy this American sports needs winners argument. The NHL had ties for 90 years and it didnt' kill the league, gridiron has them occasionally and the MLS is growing and has draws. In Japan baseball has ties if after three extra innings the game is still even it's not like they riot because of that.

 

[NamWarrior]

i don't think there are enough draws in rugby to merit changing anything

 

[Tony Manx]

So the answer to too much rugby and tired players is to make them play extra time in leagues where full time sees them tied......................really?

 

[ajwffc]

I don't see what is wrong with a match finishing a draw. Not seen to many in the rugby games that I have watched but some of the football games that end up as score draw can be some of the most exciting games out there.

 

[dasNdanger]

America screwed up regular season hockey by doing away with draws. The win came more as the result of luck than skill. I stopped watching the sport after they made the change.

I understand the necessity to have draw-breakers in playoffs and finals, but not in the ordinary club matches. And let's face it, the only ones who really don't like draws are the folks who have money on the game.


das

 

[iINDOMINUSxx]

I do agree that it's not that good a game if it's ends as a draw, but I think that there is nothing too wrong with a draw in a rugby match

 

[Hulk Hogan]

In the case of a draw the Coaches should have a 3 round boxing match.

 

[Tony Manx]

I do agree that it's not that good a game if it's ends as a draw, but I think that there is nothing too wrong with a draw in a rugby match

One of the best matches I ever saw live was the England AB match that ended 22 all......

 

[Peat]

 

[Big Ewis]

In the case of a draw the Coaches should have a 3 round boxing match.

now there's the kind of common sense this thread needed !! And, like, still not even to determine a winner or anything. Just for the heck of having the coaches box.

- - - Updated - - -

god.......DAYMMMM that show was so miraculously awful.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Silly idea, in leagues and European pools a draw away from home is generally seen as a good thing for the away side. It's usually a bitter ending because it's so rare but there is a necessity for it outside knockout rugby due to the game being so attritional. The disadvantage of drawing and having to play 20 more minutes of rugby against a side like the boks, for example, in the first game of an EOYT could cost a team a lot.
Not to forget, there has been some seriously entertaining draws in the last few years, Ireland v Aus '09 and Ireland v France '12 come to mind for me.

god.......DAYMMMM that show was so miraculously awful.

cmac doesn't do neg rep but if he did...

 

[Mikel92]

Pluses and minuses I spose.

As someone said, I don't think draws are common enough to warrant it. However, if you had a golden point rule or something then you might get more attacking rugby in extra time when the whistle has gone. I'm not sure how that translates to viewership or a monetary perspective, but surely it promotes a bit more excitement. Even if a drop kick was on the cards, you still have to attack enough to get into the 22. And even then you have to set yourself up properly as a team. Having a draw is a bit like kissing your sister. It's weird and uncomfortable, not that I'd know!

Downside is that people seem to be discontent with how in other sports teams survive by riding a bit of luck. If you were in the extra minute and a single point could decide, potentially a penalty could win the contest. And I'm never a fan of that (Super 14 final this year anyone?). But then again, that's just the abiding by the referee's interpretation of the match, which isn't any different to that other 80 minutes of the match.

I'd say no, because I don't think it's a pressing issue and World Rugby probably has other crap to worry about. But if draws were more commonplace and we didn't have a World Cup right around the corner, then there might be a case for it.

 

[smartcooky]

I agree - most test matches are played in a series or competition anyway, so sides have the opportunity to "win" by winning the other games.

Even if the test match is a one off match, such as the November internationals, what does it matter if it's a draw - it's a testament to how closely fought the match was, and that neither team managed to dominate on the scoreboard.

Close matches are the most worthwhile ones to watch IMO, and just because the match ends in a draw, it doesn't mean it wasn't entertaining, or lacked excitement or skillful play.

TV coverage probably would't allow extended play anyway, as it would disrupt it's scheduling too much - I would rather watch a full game, that ends in a draw, than watch 80 minutes , only to miss the deciding minutes, due to scheduling issues

Agree. Those who don't want matches to be drawn are proceding from the false assumption that there is something wrong with a draw; there isn't. A draw shows that neither side was able to beat the other on that day, and that in itself is a result. Things like "golden point" extra time are a travesty; a means of manufacturing a win where none was deserved.

I say keep tie-breakers like extra time/golden point for occasions like knock-out matches where winners must be found.