WHY the Boks vs ABs game at Ellis Park was one of the best ever

[FlukeArtist]

I was reading the comments section on the Daily Telegraph article about this game.

There were a few Bok posters on there saying that the ABs beat SA because SA went away from type and didn't kick penalties etc because they needed the 4 tries.
A load of ******** if you ask me. The Boks were beaten by a better team.

But it raised an issue regarding the quality of the game.

Namely - once teams stopped looking for 3 point opportunites and going for tries, the game becomes a far better spectacle.

Who can honestly say they would rather watch a kick fest that is divisible by 3 than an entertaining running rugby game?


I'm going to use this game as an example for changing rugby's point scoring system. Once the penalties were taken out of the solution for winning the campionship, the game flourished.

3 points is far too much for scrum penalty.
it's time to reward enterprise and not just kickers.

2 points for Conversion & penalties
1 points for drop goals.

The result will be far more entertaining game and far more interest in the sport.

You want further proof?
Look at the Bledisloe Cup games from the late '90s and early '00s. Classic examples of what makes rugby great: running and tries.

 

[ABs2011]

Yup - I think you could be on to something. The only way it works though is if refs come down hard (a bit harder than they do now) on repeat infringements and don't hesitate to hand out Yellow cards!

By far the best game I have seen for a while and certainly up there with All Blacks Australia in Sydney 2000.

 

[ABs2011]

Vs.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I was reading the comments section on the Daily Telegraph article about this game.

There were a few Bok posters on there saying that the ABs beat SA because SA went away from type and didn't kick penalties etc because they needed the 4 tries.
A load of ******** if you ask me. The Boks were beaten by a better team.

But it raised an issue regarding the quality of the game.

Namely - once teams stopped looking for 3 point opportunites and going for tries, the game becomes a far better spectacle.

Who can honestly say they would rather watch a kick fest that is divisible by 3 than an entertaining running rugby game?


I'm going to use this game as an example for changing rugby's point scoring system. Once the penalties were taken out of the solution for winning the campionship, the game flourished.

3 points is far too much for scrum penalty.
it's time to reward enterprise and not just kickers.

2 points for Conversion & penalties
1 points for drop goals.

The result will be far more entertaining game and far more interest in the sport.

You want further proof?
Look at the Bledisloe Cup games from the late '90s and early '00s. Classic examples of what makes rugby great: running and tries.

Typical!

Nothing to contribute before the game, or nearly the entire tournament, and now after everything is done and dusted, you write topics like this, and try to bask in the glory.

Well, I'm going to disagree with you on this thread. And also, because this topic, has been a discussion topic ad nauseam.

Here is my disagreement. This isn't how the Boks play. Our strategy changed for this game, because we had to take the gamble of winning with 4 tries.

If HM didn't have such a good winning record this year, he also wouldn't have taken this tremendous gamble. No coach would have, as it would have put their career in jeopardy. This is the first time I've seen a bok team trying to run from their own 22 nearly every 2nd time they were in their own 22. It's a risky strategy, and it doesn't always pay off. We had nothing to lose from this match, and everything to gain from winning with scoring 4 tries.

Comparing this game to other games won't help, as this was a once-off type of performance.

 

[SelimNiai]

I was reading the comments section on the Daily Telegraph article about this game.

There were a few Bok posters on there saying that the ABs beat SA because SA went away from type and didn't kick penalties etc because they needed the 4 tries.
A load of ******** if you ask me. The Boks were beaten by a better team.

But it raised an issue regarding the quality of the game.

Namely - once teams stopped looking for 3 point opportunites and going for tries, the game becomes a far better spectacle.

Who can honestly say they would rather watch a kick fest that is divisible by 3 than an entertaining running rugby game?


I'm going to use this game as an example for changing rugby's point scoring system. Once the penalties were taken out of the solution for winning the campionship, the game flourished.

3 points is far too much for scrum penalty.
it's time to reward enterprise and not just kickers.

2 points for Conversion & penalties
1 points for drop goals.

The result will be far more entertaining game and far more interest in the sport.

You want further proof?
Look at the Bledisloe Cup games from the late '90s and early '00s. Classic examples of what makes rugby great: running and tries.

Are you sigesige in disguise?

 

[smartcooky]

Typical!

Nothing to contribute before the game, or nearly the entire tournament, and now after everything is done and dusted, you write topics like this, and try to bask in the glory.

Well, I'm going to disagree with you on this thread. And also, because this topic, has been a discussion topic ad nauseam.

Here is my disagreement. This isn't how the Boks play. Our strategy changed for this game, because we had to take the gamble of winning with 4 tries.

If HM didn't have such a good winning record this year, he also wouldn't have taken this tremendous gamble. No coach would have, as it would have put their career in jeopardy. This is the first time I've seen a bok team trying to run from their own 22 nearly every 2nd time they were in their own 22. It's a risky strategy, and it doesn't always pay off. We had nothing to lose from this match, and everything to gain from winning with scoring 4 tries.

Comparing this game to other games won't help, as this was a once-off type of performance.

I agree in part Heineken.

This was a one-off situation that made for a great test match, although I will say, that by the opposite token, all the All Blacks had to do was close the game down, focus on defence to prevent SA from getting four tries. While it would have been quite funny to see the two teams adopting each other's usual game plan, that is not what happened. The All Blacks went out to win it, the way they know best.

However, I also agree in part with Fluke Artist's opinion that there are too many three point penalties in rugby for pedantic technical infringements. If I had my way, I would introduce a third class of sanction, call it an indirect penalty kick. It would be like a free kick, in that a kick at goal is not allowed, but it could be kicked directly into touch for a gain in ground and the line-out throw is given to the non-infringing team, so

Free Kick: As per current Law
► All infringements that are currently Free Kicks remain Free Kicks
► A Free Kick cannot be kicked at at goal.
► If a kick is to touch, it can only be directly to touch for a gain in ground from inside the kicking team's 22m and the throw in to the line-out isn't taken by the opposing team.

Penalty Kick:
► Only Dangerous play under Law 10 and offside under Laws 11, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are penalty kicks
► A Penalty Kick may be kicked at goal
► A Penalty Kick can be kicked be directly to touch from anywhere on the field and the throw in to the line-out is taken by the kicking team

Indirect Penalty Kick:
► Sanction for all other current Penalty Kicks, such as hands in the ruck, not releasing, not rolling away, early unbinding from the scrum, crooked feed etc
► An Indirect Penalty Kick cannot be kicked at at goal.
► An Indirect Penalty Kick can be kicked be directly to touch from anywhere on the field for a gain in ground and the throw in to the line-out is taken by the kicking team.

Referees would upgrade an Indirect Penalty Kick to a Penalty Kick for persistent infringing from the third offence onwards

 

[Big Ewis]

well besides the All-Black tinged aspect of this thread, we've had this done before. I agree the scoring system should be reviewed and focused more on encouraging the offensive/attacking side of the game.
DG worth 1 point is exaggerated, but it would be better to see more attacking - not because it's just 'prettier', but as I've said before it is the fundamental principle in team sports: for a team to SCORE over its opponent.
If Rugby matches are won by one team collecting points from the opponent's errors, then obviously we've lost track of the essence of team sports.
Penalties are there to simply punish the faulting team, merely and nothing else. And we've seen a bunch of matches with the losing team scoring like 3 tries to none and still in a losing effort.

Tries should be worth more, or penalties less, or both a tad.
I think I agreed on the following in siegesiege's thread:
* penalties worth 2
* a try 6 and conversion 2, total: 8
* drop goals remain at 3: because it's still a form of attack; you have to get close enough, and it takes standard attacking effort to get in deep position on the field, and then good strategy to get one off adequately. 2 DG= 1 try.

To me this would be perfect.

 

[FlukeArtist]

Typical!

Nothing to contribute before the game, or nearly the entire tournament, and now after everything is done and dusted, you write topics like this, and try to bask in the glory.

Well, I'm going to disagree with you on this thread. And also, because this topic, has been a discussion topic ad nauseam.

Here is my disagreement. This isn't how the Boks play. Our strategy changed for this game, because we had to take the gamble of winning with 4 tries.

If HM didn't have such a good winning record this year, he also wouldn't have taken this tremendous gamble. No coach would have, as it would have put their career in jeopardy. This is the first time I've seen a bok team trying to run from their own 22 nearly every 2nd time they were in their own 22. It's a risky strategy, and it doesn't always pay off. We had nothing to lose from this match, and everything to gain from winning with scoring 4 tries.

Comparing this game to other games won't help, as this was a once-off type of performance.

HAHAHAHA some of us have jobs that keep us away from the keyboard for some time Heineken!
I don't see how you can claim i'm basking in victory by wanting the game of rugby in general to be better, and grow the audience for the game.
Clutching at straws there champ.

Never said that the Boks didn't change tactic either.
In fact what I said was the game as a spectacle was better to watch for this exact reason.

 

[FlukeArtist]

Heineken,

Would you rather watch a game where the points are divisable by 3 or games where teams actually go for tries because the points system encourages this?

Simple question.

 

[Peat]

Heineken,

Would you rather watch a game where the points are divisable by 3 or games where teams actually go for tries because the points system encourages this?

Simple question.

Depends entirely how they go about it, doesn't it? I'd rather watch a game of running rugby where infringements lead to penalties, than a side that simply kicks the corners until they get close, maul to the line, then pick and drive to the tryline.

Meddling with the game has led to plenty of unintended consequences already. The prospect of a penalty keeps teams attacking from about 40 yards out. How many tries are scored from that position over multiple phases? Not many. Not a great deal more than the amount scored from a turnover 60m out. So why wouldn't a team kick for the corners, waiting for a turnover or duff kick that gives them a real attacking position a great deal closer?

 

[The_Wol]

Reds v Crusaders 2011 was far more exciting.

 

[FlukeArtist]

Depends entirely how they go about it, doesn't it? I'd rather watch a game of running rugby where infringements lead to penalties, than a side that simply kicks the corners until they get close, maul to the line, then pick and drive to the tryline.

Meddling with the game has led to plenty of unintended consequences already. The prospect of a penalty keeps teams attacking from about 40 yards out. How many tries are scored from that position over multiple phases? Not many. Not a great deal more than the amount scored from a turnover 60m out. So why wouldn't a team kick for the corners, waiting for a turnover or duff kick that gives them a real attacking position a great deal closer?

I would say that the team mauling towards the line is STILL better than watching someone line up a kick or a drop goal regardless of what led them there.
If in your scenario the team has played running rugby to get to the point where they were penalised, why can they not just continue playing running rugby and score a try?
As I stated previously; the heavy weighting of penalty points prompts teams to avoid running the ball, and take the easy 3 points.

Also; the "prospect of a penalty" does not keep teams attacking from 40m out.
The whole purpose of the game is to move away from your own line and toward the opposition's.
When you have the ball, if you;re not attacking and moving foward you are eitehr on defense, or you about to be on defense because you have no go-forward

 

[Peat]

I don't think the heavy weighting of penalty points prompts teams to avoid running the ball. I think the fear of getting turned over and conceding scores stops teams from running the ball.

The nature of modern rugby and modern defence makes scoring a try from open play really difficult. Certain things make it easier. Set-plays are the obvious one. So is being 10-15 metres out, as it doesn't take much of a break to get into a scoring position. And the final big one is the turnover of possession. The opposition is not in their defensive pattern and real damage can be done.

If you're 60-40 metres out with the ball going into your third or so phase, you have none of these advantages. None. But your opponent might have the last one at any moment.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Heineken,

Would you rather watch a game where the points are divisable by 3 or games where teams actually go for tries because the points system encourages this?

Simple question.

As I said, topic ad nauseam

This has been discussed so many times before that it's really becoming irritating. And this is perhaps why I went on such a rant when I read your post. And why other members mentioned sigesige00.

The purpose of the game, is to win. That is the purpose of any professional sport. How you get to the win, depends on the options available to score points to outscore your opponent and eventually win. In rugby, those options are scoring a try, a conversion, a penalty and a drop goal. Teams use their strengths to their advantage and build a gameplan around those strengths. If it weren't for kicking at goal, Players like Dan Carter wouldn't have records of most points scored...

some games that are divisable by 3, have been fantastic to watch. the 1995 World Cup Final is one of them, and has been etched into many South African fans' memory.

PS. if you score 3 converted tries, it is also divisable by 3...

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Every one is looking at this the wrong way.

Penalties help the attacking running rugby teams. If you lower the penalty value then the defending team will disrupt the running game of the attacking team more as there is less risk of giving away higher points.

What you would do by lowering the penalty value is actually encourage teams to give away more penalties.

Your taught at a young level to take the points that are on offer. The game is fine how it is we don't need any low attention span Southern Hemisphere changes to our game. Everyone remember the highly waste of time ELV's?

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Every one is looking at this the wrong way.

Penalties help the attacking running rugby teams. If you lower the penalty value then the defending team will disrupt the running game of the attacking team more as there is less risk of giving away higher points.

What you would do by lowering the penalty value is actually encourage teams to give away more penalties.

Your taught at a young level to take the points that are on offer. The game is fine how it is we don't need any low attention span Southern Hemisphere changes to our game. Everyone remember the highly waste of time ELV's?

Which is why yellow cards would be utilised more. Basically any penalty in the 22 would be an instant yellow card. If it's outside the 22 then it gives the attacking team a 5 metre lineout.

 

[Peat]

Given the current indifferent standard of top level reffing, I think encouraging them to hand out yellow cards like confetti is a horrible idea.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Given the current indifferent standard of top level reffing, I think encouraging them to hand out yellow cards like confetti is a horrible idea.

that's a discussion all on its own!

My concern is that, (and this is just my opinion), most All Black supporters and a few guys from elsewhere have this idea, that whatever the All Blacks do, the rest must conform to... WHY?? this is not the USSR...

Just because they are winning and playing the way they are, doesn't mean that a) it will work for other teams/nations and b) that they would want to play that way.

a team that doesn't have the counter-attacking skills, won't adopt the high intensity approach the All Blacks are using. If a team has a good goal kicker, then they will focus on building play around him, and use his lethal boot to get them a victory. The different identities every team has, is what grabs more and more viewers. it's not this monotone of play. it gives more character to the sport.

 

[nickdnz]

As I said, topic ad nauseam

Dude, no offence but your use of 'ad nauseam' like 5 or so times a month since smartcookie said it (before which I never noticed you using it) - has ironically become ad nauseam. If you like I can give you a list of latin phrases, words and expressions so you can vary it up.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Dude, no offence but your use of 'ad nauseam' like 5 or so times a month since smartcookie said it (before which I never noticed you using it) - has ironically become ad nauseam. If you like I can give you a list of latin phrases, words and expressions so you can vary it up.

haha, okay, I'll stop...