• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

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

I've heard this extremely simplistic argument before.

I do watch League on occasions. Thanks for the invite, but i'm already way ahead of you chief.

I just prefer Rugby.

Trying to improve Rugby doesn't turn it into League.
League has no real forward play. Heaven forbid rugby ever turns into that game; where a guy can play stand off one game, then prop the next (ala Feleti Mateo).

But to dismiss that Rugby can be improved is just "head in the sand" type mentality.

Rugby is a business now, and like any business; you are either growing or you're dying.
If the game wants to seriously become a global sport then it needs to look at ways to improve.

Promoting the pursuit of tries above penalty kicks is the first place to start if you want to improve the game for the average spectator.

Do you really think other teams actively pursue the penalty kick above a try? If so then there is little point in discussion. I think in order for rugby to grow and I agree you can't stand still and that there is always room for improvement but like other businesses it is pointless to make knee-jerk reactions and change here, change there all the way to bankruptcy.

Firstly, look at your strengths and seek to develop those. Half of the time the weak spots sort themselves out or become less relevant whereas focusing on the weak points and making sweeping changes often leads a business to lose track of what made it successful in the first place. I speak from a place of experience in this regard because I've had 2 businesses go under before I had success. The job market in SA is a tough place right now especially for whites so I was forced to try start-ups on my own.

There is MUCH much more to creating a spectacle (which is what rugby needs to be to sell if you look at it purely as a business in the sports-entertainment sector) than sweeping tries and there are enough games to prove that point. It is more about the quality of the product and the biggest threat to that at the moment is in my opinion a lack of consistency. Consistency from the governing body and more importantly consistency in how laws are interpreted and implemented consistently on the field. I'd argue that if we sort that out first, we'll see;

-the game become easier to start following for the beginner ,
-get matches with greater integrity which currently puts a lot of 50/50 viewers off the game
-and we'll see teams knowing what exactly is expected of them and thus better continuity in play
-and if the refs actually implemented the breakdown laws correctly we'll see more tries in any case.

Lets be realistic here, tries come from how teams manage the point of contact more so than back play. This is the area that needs the most focus. Teams don't actively go for penalty kicks but take the points on offer more often than not because they are being stifled at the breakdown ilegally more often than not. This is also why many teams opt to kick returns rather than have a go at running it back because of the great risk of losing the turn-over. If teams were more confident that they'd keep posession if they played well enough rather than if the ref did his job well enough we'll see rugby develop into something both 'rugby purists' and the newer market can enjoy. A business shouldn't alienate its core market to potentially lure new clients is all I'm saying and there is enough to work with as is and lets get what we have workng first before making sweeping changes.
 
one thing I love about the Wallabies not being 2nd in the world, kiwi rugby fans aren't threatened by us any more, they almost feel sorry for us now and show us more of a "chin up bro" attitude instead of the "where going to smash yous all day bro" attitude which has now been thrust upon bok rugby fans.

Yeah I think that's pretty funny, but after ten years of domination I think weve had enough. But know that NZ fans like myself actually want OZ to be competitive again so we can say "where going to smash yous all day bro".
 
Do you really think other teams actively pursue the penalty kick above a try? If so then there is little point in discussion. I think in order for rugby to grow and I agree you can't stand still and that there is always room for improvement but like other businesses it is pointless to make knee-jerk reactions and change here, change there all the way to bankruptcy.

Firstly, look at your strengths and seek to develop those. Half of the time the weak spots sort themselves out or become less relevant whereas focusing on the weak points and making sweeping changes often leads a business to lose track of what made it successful in the first place. I speak from a place of experience in this regard because I've had 2 businesses go under before I had success. The job market in SA is a tough place right now especially for whites so I was forced to try start-ups on my own.

There is MUCH much more to creating a spectacle (which is what rugby needs to be to sell if you look at it purely as a business in the sports-entertainment sector) than sweeping tries and there are enough games to prove that point. It is more about the quality of the product and the biggest threat to that at the moment is in my opinion a lack of consistency. Consistency from the governing body and more importantly consistency in how laws are interpreted and implemented consistently on the field. I'd argue that if we sort that out first, we'll see;

-the game become easier to start following for the beginner ,
-get matches with greater integrity which currently puts a lot of 50/50 viewers off the game
-and we'll see teams knowing what exactly is expected of them and thus better continuity in play
-and if the refs actually implemented the breakdown laws correctly we'll see more tries in any case.

Lets be realistic here, tries come from how teams manage the point of contact more so than back play. This is the area that needs the most focus. Teams don't actively go for penalty kicks but take the points on offer more often than not because they are being stifled at the breakdown ilegally more often than not. This is also why many teams opt to kick returns rather than have a go at running it back because of the great risk of losing the turn-over. If teams were more confident that they'd keep posession if they played well enough rather than if the ref did his job well enough we'll see rugby develop into something both 'rugby purists' and the newer market can enjoy. A business shouldn't alienate its core market to potentially lure new clients is all I'm saying and there is enough to work with as is and lets get what we have workng first before making sweeping changes.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I think a try-fest type game where one team dominates another team, does more harm than good to the global game. Scores like 110-5 etc. will be demoralising for the spectators of the losing team and their spectators. The attitude of Why Bother comes to mind.

Having the game as a spectacle is what fans want. While it's clear that the fans like Fluke wants a try-fest, rugby league like spectacle, fans from South Africa would want kicking to be part of the game too... This probably has something to do with the grassroots level in the country and how kids are being taught of the game.

But what about the neutral-fans? or Fans not from Rugby-dominated areas like the USA?? The videos of classic matches they watch, which were gripping and a tight affair, where the winner was usually the victor through a long range penalty kick or a drop goal. Games like the 1995 World Cup final, B&I Lions 2009 2nd test (which has been nominated by many Saffa and NH fans as one of the greatest tests) are just a few examples. And while many Saffas will remember the 16-52 Smashing we recieved by the All Blacks at Loftus during a tri-nations tournament, it's not a topic of discussion by many fans. And that was a try-fest, rugby league type of match.
 
I couldn't have said it better myself.

I think a try-fest type game where one team dominates another team, does more harm than good to the global game. Scores like 110-5 etc. will be demoralising for the spectators of the losing team and their spectators. The attitude of Why Bother comes to mind.

Having the game as a spectacle is what fans want. While it's clear that the fans like Fluke wants a try-fest, rugby league like spectacle (1), fans from South Africa would want kicking to be part of the game too... This probably has something to do with the grassroots level in the country and how kids are being taught of the game.

But what about the neutral-fans? or Fans not from Rugby-dominated areas like the USA?? The videos of classic matches they watch, which were gripping and a tight affair, where the winner was usually the victor through a long range penalty kick or a drop goal. Games like the 1995 World Cup final, B&I Lions 2009 2nd test (2)(which has been nominated by many Saffa and NH fans as one of the greatest tests) are just a few examples. And while many Saffas will remember the 16-52 Smashing we recieved by the All Blacks at Loftus during a tri-nations tournament, it's not a topic of discussion by many fans. And that was a try-fest, rugby league type of match.

(1) Steady on there champ - don't try to put words in my mouth. Just because you encourage tries over kicks doesn't automatically mean you are going to get a try-fest. Nor does it mean you are going to get one-sided scores. How do you actually make that leap??? You can just as easily end up with one-sided affairs with kicking penalties too. If the ball is in play more you might see more great defensive efforts stopping tries.

(2) How on earth do you even begin to try and speak for the neutral fans by claiming that the SA style of game is what they want to watch?? If anything I would say that the reverse is true. Neutral fans prefer tries. I have seen the ABs on ESPN's top 10 plays of the week (for all sport)... their highlight wasn't someone slotting a drop goal or kicking a penalty mate.

Do you really think other teams actively pursue the penalty kick above a try? If so then there is little point in discussion (1). I think in order for rugby to grow and I agree you can't stand still and that there is always room for improvement but like other businesses it is pointless to make knee-jerk reactions and change here, change there all the way to bankruptcy.

Firstly, look at your strengths and seek to develop those. Half of the time the weak spots sort themselves out or become less relevant whereas focusing on the weak points and making sweeping changes often leads a business to lose track of what made it successful in the first place. I speak from a place of experience in this regard because I've had 2 businesses go under before I had success. The job market in SA is a tough place right now especially for whites so I was forced to try start-ups on my own.

There is MUCH much more to creating a spectacle (which is what rugby needs to be to sell if you look at it purely as a business in the sports-entertainment sector) than sweeping tries and there are enough games to prove that point. It is more about the quality of the product and the biggest threat to that at the moment is in my opinion a lack of consistency. Consistency from the governing body and more importantly consistency in how laws are interpreted and implemented consistently on the field. I'd argue that if we sort that out first, we'll see;

-the game become easier to start following for the beginner ,
-get matches with greater integrity which currently puts a lot of 50/50 viewers off the game
-and we'll see teams knowing what exactly is expected of them and thus better continuity in play
-and if the refs actually implemented the breakdown laws correctly we'll see more tries in any case.

Lets be realistic here, tries come from how teams manage the point of contact more so than back play. This is the area that needs the most focus. Teams don't actively go for penalty kicks but take the points on offer more often than not because they are being stifled at the breakdown ilegally more often than not. This is also why many teams opt to kick returns rather than have a go at running it back because of the great risk of losing the turn-over. If teams were more confident that they'd keep posession if they played well enough rather than if the ref did his job well enough we'll see rugby develop into something both 'rugby purists' and the newer market can enjoy. A business shouldn't alienate its core market to potentially lure new clients is all I'm saying and there is enough to work with as is and lets get what we have workng first before making sweeping changes.

(1) You miss my point mate. What I am saying is that if the penalty wasn't worth so much, then teams would be more inclined to kick for the corner, set the lineout, and go for the try. Or take a tap and run it.
I just don't think 2 penalties should be worth more than an unconverted try. And that's the way it is at the moment.
Again, you guys will probably disagree as SA's strength lies mainly in the kicking game, and you guys love your droppies where as us antipodeans down this way, like the ball in hand. I just think that 2 penalties being equal to an unconverted try is probably more fair. (ie: adopting the league points system)
Please don't be ignorant and come back saying "just watch league then!" I'm not saying turn the game into league, because as long as we have scrums and lineouts and the need for ball retention; rugby will NEVER turn into that sport. I'm just saying their points system is far more equitable with the skills required for each point scoring method (a point you and Heineken will probably vehemently deny ;) )

As for the rest of your post, I agree regarding the referees. Rugby seems hell bent on changing SOMETHING about the laws every year.
I think back to the mid 90's and the dawn of the Super Rugby competition- the game was great then. It was opena nd free running. But the IRB just HAD to stuff with the rules...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(1) Steady on there champ - don't try to put words in my mouth. Just because you encourage tries over kicks doesn't automatically mean you are going to get a try-fest. Nor does it mean you are going to get one-sided scores. How do you actually make that leap??? You can just as easily end up with one-sided affairs with kicking penalties too. If the ball is in play more you might see more great defensive efforts stopping tries.

(2) How on earth do you even begin to try and speak for the neutral fans by claiming that the SA style of game is what they want to watch?? If anything I would say that the reverse is true. Neutral fans prefer tries. I have seen the ABs on ESPN's top 10 plays of the week (for all sport)... their highlight wasn't someone slotting a drop goal or kicking a penalty mate.



(1) You miss my point mate. What I am saying is that if the penalty wasn't worth so much, then teams would be more inclined to kick for the corner, set the lineout, and go for the try. Or take a tap and run it.
I just don't think 2 penalties should be worth more than an unconverted try. And that's the way it is at the moment.
Again, you guys will probably disagree as SA's strength lies mainly in the kicking game, and you guys love your droppies where as us antipodeans down this way, like the ball in hand. I just think that 2 penalties being equal to an unconverted try is probably more fair. (ie: adopting the league points system)
Please don't be ignorant and come back saying "just watch league then!" I'm not saying turn the game into league, because as long as we have scrums and lineouts and the need for ball retention; rugby will NEVER turn into that sport. I'm just saying their points system is far more equitable with the skills required for each point scoring method (a point you and Heineken will probably vehemently deny ;) )

As for the rest of your post, I agree regarding the referees. Rugby seems hell bent on changing SOMETHING about the laws every year.
I think back to the mid 90's and the dawn of the Super Rugby competition- the game was great then. It was opena nd free running. But the IRB just HAD to stuff with the rules...

I am not speaking on behalf of the Neutrals... I'm merely raising an opinion based on observation. In SA we have an ESPN channel, and they frequently show classic rugby matches on that channel. Based on the games I've seen on that channel, I made the observation that games where penalties and drop goals are part of the outcome, are seen as more of a "total" game other than a try-fest.

As far as the points scroing method, I think you are looking at it from a risk/reward angle, which is just one angle to look at it.

By scoring a try you get the maximum amount of points, if converted. By attempting to score a try, and not getting a try, get a penalty, and then either try again to score a try, or to take the 3 points. The thing is, as in any sport, is the time factor. For a team to get 6 points from 2 penalties or a penalty and a drop goal, they have to get in the striking area 2 times. And be in such a position, that they can attack and score the penalty. The mindset won't be to get another penalty or drop goal the second time, the mindset will still be the same as the first attempt - to score a try. You are looking at it the wrong way. 2 penalties will give you 6 points, yes. But the plan will always be to go for the maximum, which is a try, and 2 tries will give you a minimum of 10 points. The more attempts there are, and the more a team fails to score a try, the more the difference in rewards between tries and penalties/drop goals increases.

So I'll stick with my original Point-of-View: The points system must remain as it is, and it's every team's own choice as to how to get the points to win.
 
I tend to think penalties are too heavily rewarded in rugby to be honest. Most people who aren't rugby fans I speak to generally cite them as the worst part. More than that teams simply rely on other teams breaking a complex and subjective set of rules in order to grind out a win. Basically I'd like to see a penalty and drop kick become two points. I think it would be a much more exciting game if a team like the Springboks were given further incentive to kick for touch and get their awsome rolling maul going - because the attitude from pretty much every team is 'take the points when they're on offer' - which considering you get three of them per penalty is pretty much a given.

That said many teams are successful scoring most of their points via tries - I just think looking at it logically an unconverted try will always be more of a spectacle than two penalties - and is usually considerably less subjective.
 
(1) Steady on there champ - don't try to put words in my mouth. Just because you encourage tries over kicks doesn't automatically mean you are going to get a try-fest. Nor does it mean you are going to get one-sided scores. How do you actually make that leap??? You can just as easily end up with one-sided affairs with kicking penalties too. If the ball is in play more you might see more great defensive efforts stopping tries.

(2) How on earth do you even begin to try and speak for the neutral fans by claiming that the SA style of game is what they want to watch?? If anything I would say that the reverse is true. Neutral fans prefer tries. I have seen the ABs on ESPN's top 10 plays of the week (for all sport)... their highlight wasn't someone slotting a drop goal or kicking a penalty mate.



(1) You miss my point mate. What I am saying is that if the penalty wasn't worth so much, then teams would be more inclined to kick for the corner, set the lineout, and go for the try. Or take a tap and run it.
I just don't think 2 penalties should be worth more than an unconverted try. And that's the way it is at the moment.
Again, you guys will probably disagree as SA's strength lies mainly in the kicking game, and you guys love your droppies where as us antipodeans down this way, like the ball in hand. I just think that 2 penalties being equal to an unconverted try is probably more fair. (ie: adopting the league points system)
Please don't be ignorant and come back saying "just watch league then!" I'm not saying turn the game into league, because as long as we have scrums and lineouts and the need for ball retention; rugby will NEVER turn into that sport. I'm just saying their points system is far more equitable with the skills required for each point scoring method (a point you and Heineken will probably vehemently deny ;) )

As for the rest of your post, I agree regarding the referees. Rugby seems hell bent on changing SOMETHING about the laws every year.
I think back to the mid 90's and the dawn of the Super Rugby competition- the game was great then. It was opena nd free running. But the IRB just HAD to stuff with the rules...
Good post. I thin a lot depends on perspective. I would put forward an argument based on a simple set of circumstances to try and illustrate why I think it is good as is;

Lets say team A attacks relentlessly but team B intercepts and scores a try under the posts and converts for 7 points. Team A continues to attack relentlessly but team B keeps on infringing at the breakdown making in next to impossible for team A to score a try. They do however get awarded a penalty kick for 2 points. This continues to be the trend and after only four times do team A pass team B on the scoreboard.

Very simplistic but it shows how less value to a penalty kick can ruin a game or at least make for what I would personally deem an unfair result. At least in my eyes. I doubt NZers would see it this way though as they tend towards scoring the tries and rather giving away the penalties :p
 
Would you introduce bonus points for penalty goals kicked due to teams infringing inside their own 22?
 
Would you introduce bonus points for penalty goals kicked due to teams infringing inside their own 22?

Would that be necessary? If a team is being continuously penalised in their own 22, they are bound to eventually lose a player to the bin... Or lead to a penalty try...

I think that is more than enough compensation...
 
Would that be necessary? If a team is being continuously penalised in their own 22, they are bound to eventually lose a player to the bin... Or lead to a penalty try...

I think that is more than enough compensation...

I think you'll find that was Insane Asylum's daily dig at the All Blacks and New Zealand. I think he feels New Zealander's are trying to change the game to benefit us - and so he's suggesting something which he feels would disadvantage us.
 
Good post. I thin a lot depends on perspective. I would put forward an argument based on a simple set of circumstances to try and illustrate why I think it is good as is;

Lets say team A attacks relentlessly but team B intercepts and scores a try under the posts and converts for 7 points. Team A continues to attack relentlessly but team B keeps on infringing at the breakdown making in next to impossible for team A to score a try. They do however get awarded a penalty kick for 2 points. This continues to be the trend and after only four times do team A pass team B on the scoreboard.

Very simplistic but it shows how less value to a penalty kick can ruin a game or at least make for what I would personally deem an unfair result. At least in my eyes. I doubt NZers would see it this way though as they tend towards scoring the tries and rather giving away the penalties :p

I see what you are saying, but given De Villiers (and SA players in general) high strike rate with interecetions, I wouldn't think you'd find this a problem? ;)

Back on point; this is why I say adopt the league points scoring method, in that the converted try is only worth 6 points, therefore 3 penalties = 1 converted try (as opposed to 9 points for 3 penalties versus 7 points for the try, as it is now)

In so far as repeat infringements - that's what the yellow cards are for.
If a team keeps infringing; then someone walks.
 
I tend to think penalties are too heavily rewarded in rugby to be honest. Most people who aren't rugby fans I speak to generally cite them as the worst part. More than that teams simply rely on other teams breaking a complex and subjective set of rules in order to grind out a win. Basically I'd like to see a penalty and drop kick become two points. I think it would be a much more exciting game if a team like the Springboks were given further incentive to kick for touch and get their awsome rolling maul going - because the attitude from pretty much every team is 'take the points when they're on offer' - which considering you get three of them per penalty is pretty much a given.

That said many teams are successful scoring most of their points via tries - I just think looking at it logically an unconverted try will always be more of a spectacle than two penalties - and is usually considerably less subjective.

Thanks Nick - this is exactly what I was meaning.
And you are right "teams simply rely on other teams breaking a complex and subjective set of rules in order to grind out a win" is spot on.
Whilst teams may not "play for penalties" as such, given the heavy weighting penalties currently have, it would be stupid to pass up an easy 3 points.
Disagree re the drop goal though - should be worth 1 point
 
I think you'll find that was Insane Asylum's daily dig at the All Blacks and New Zealand. I think he feels New Zealander's are trying to change the game to benefit us - and so he's suggesting something which he feels would disadvantage us.

nah I was actually not meaning to single out NZ or anyone for that matter. And I see your point Heineken, trouble is that if a team (not specifically NZ) infringe inside their own 22, they will do it until they are warned and then cease doing it. they take their chances and hopefully after a few penalties, force a turnover before the cards come out of the pocket.

if any penalty inside the 22 was worth say 5 points (new topic for sigesige00) then there would be an instant and consistent punishment for this type of play.

and hey if I wanted to hate on the ABs i'd just move the ban them because they are too good... not going to pick on little things :)
 
nah I was actually not meaning to single out NZ or anyone for that matter. And I see your point Heineken, trouble is that if a team (not specifically NZ) infringe inside their own 22, they will do it until they are warned and then cease doing it. they take their chances and hopefully after a few penalties, force a turnover before the cards come out of the pocket.

if any penalty inside the 22 was worth say 5 points (new topic for sigesige00) then there would be an instant and consistent punishment for this type of play.

and hey if I wanted to hate on the ABs i'd just move the ban them because they are too good... not going to pick on little things :)

You've got to be taking the p!$$.
 
no, I'm putting it out there for discussion. keen to hear your response for/against.

Just saw this...

And I think my last post pretty much sums up my opinion on your suggestion.

5 points is far too much to open up plain referees interpretation.
Lets not forget that refs already have the ability to award penalty tries.
 

Latest posts

Top