[Law] Welsh Law Experiment

[crossref]

Experimental Laws in top level Welsh Rugby http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/full-details-radical-rule-changes-9975552

 

[Guyseep]

There have been a few suggestions to change the value of scoring, be it penalties, conversions or tries.

It seems overall they want to reduce the number of penalties kicked for goal, encourage teams to play ball in hand and score tries. I think the easiest way to do this is to change all place kicks (penalties and conversions) to drop kicks. This would still give teams the opportunity to go for a goal, but would also discourage teams from playing for a penalty in the hopes of getting an easy 3 points.

The draw back may be cynical teams will commit more penalties knowing they won't be giving away an easy penalty goal.

 

[OB..]

I still think a better approach is to restart after a kick at goal which goes dead without being played, with a scrum to the non-offending side at the mark for the penalty. It does not change the points balance, but makes the penalty bite harder because giving away a penalty does not relieve the attacking pressure.

 

[Rich_NL]

The draw back may be cynical teams will commit more penalties knowing they won't be giving away an easy penalty goal.

A penalty is dropping from 60% of a try to 33% (or 42% to 25% with conversions)... I can't see how that's not going to encourage defenders to risk the penalty to prevent the try.

 

[Guyseep]

A penalty is dropping from 60% of a try to 33% (or 42% to 25% with conversions)... I can't see how that's not going to encourage defenders to risk the penalty to prevent the try.

My comment was related to the change from a place kick to a drop kick, not to the change in scoring value of kicks.

ie If all kicks at goal are drop kicks and a defending team is under pressure they may give away a penalty knowing that a drop kick is not a guaranteed 3 points compared to a place kick at goal.

 

[didds]

The draw back may be cynical teams will commit more penalties knowing they won't be giving away an easy penalty goal.

That's it in a nutshell. And it WILL happen. Particularly wider out.


didds

- - - Updated - - -

I still think a better approach is to restart after a kick at goal which goes dead without being played, with a scrum to the non-offending side at the mark for the penalty. It does not change the points balance, but makes the penalty bite harder because giving away a penalty does not relieve the attacking pressure.

Hear hear.

OB and I have been banging this drum for some years now!

didds

 

[Guyseep]

I still think a better approach is to restart after a kick at goal which goes dead without being played, with a scrum to the non-offending side at the mark for the penalty. It does not change the points balance, but makes the penalty bite harder because giving away a penalty does not relieve the attacking pressure.

This might discourage a team from giving away cynical penalties, but it doesn't help encourage ball in hand rugby, which I thought was the point of the experiment? If anything it might encourage more teams to go for a penalty goal knowing they get another shot at attacking if they miss.

ie Should we go for 3 points or kick to the corner for a lineout?
We'll kick for goal and if we miss we still get a scrum and another shot at scoring.

Seems like it is almost a double penalty against the infringing side and a bit of a safety net for the non-infringing side.

 

[didds]

This might discourage a team from giving away cynical penalties, but it doesn't help encourage ball in hand rugby, which I thought was the point of the experiment? If anything it might encourage more teams to go for a penalty goal knowing they get another shot at attacking if they miss..

I think WADR you are missing the point at who is being penalised here. Measures that do not reduce pressure by cheating (in effect) means the initial cheating may not occur, allowing ball in hand to be used than prevented.

I can see that in some extreme circumstances an attacking side could milk a scenario of continual 3 point PKs in a stream - but it would have to be pretty extreme.

That said I'm not convinced by arguments "to make the game more ball in hand etc etc etc" [sic] - most efforts I've seen over the years to promote this have created unintended consequences which are then papered over rather than dealt with at source, creating bigger messes. Wide Field Trench Defense is a direct consequence of a 1992 law change wrt rucks.

didds

 

[crossref]

I think what OB.. is proposing is a *trial* to see if this quite clever idea works in practice. Not an immediate change to the Law.

I quite like the idea.

 

[Guyseep]

I think WADR you are missing the point at who is being penalised here. Measures that do not reduce pressure by cheating (in effect) means the initial cheating may not occur, allowing ball in hand to be used than prevented.

I can see that in some extreme circumstances an attacking side could milk a scenario of continual 3 point PKs in a stream - but it would have to be pretty extreme.

That said I'm not convinced by arguments "to make the game more ball in hand etc etc etc" [sic] - most efforts I've seen over the years to promote this have created unintended consequences which are then papered over rather than dealt with at source, creating bigger messes. Wide Field Trench Defense is a direct consequence of a 1992 law change wrt rucks.

didds

It just seems like a case of double jeopardy. How many times should a team be punished for one offense?

And if we are going to argue that teams will work out how to milk penalties, it's almost a certainty that they will. Professional teams are out to win, and will find the weakness in both their opponents and law to do it.

Example:
Blue team is a strong scrummaging team, while the Red team isn't. Red leads by 2 points and concedes a penalty within their half. Blue opts for the penalty goal and misses- they get a scrum. Blue is dominant in the scrum and get another penalty. Repeat until someone is yellow carded.

Is that rugby spectators want to watch?

 

[ChrisR]

I prefer Guyseep's suggestion of removing place kicks and keep the scoring as is. I would not expect to see a spike in penalties. I would expect more occasions of kick to touch.

Benefits? Not having to search for the tee that someone left of the practice pitch last Thursday. Not having to watch the idiosyncratic machinations of goal kickers.

Downside? Not having enough time to get a fresh beer while the aforementioned goal kicker does his thing.

 

[Pegleg]

IF we see refs being stricter with cards then the cynical conceding of PKs may drop but that is ulikely in my experience. Also we will see more kicks to the corner and exciting lineouts followed by driving / rolling mauls. In fact one coach has already said that is the preparation they have been making.

Can anyone say how the try scoring stats blossomed when the try went from 3 to 4 to 5 points?

 

[Pegleg]

Can a mod merge this and the original thread please.

 

[OB..]

I think what OB.. is proposing is a *trial* to see if this quite clever idea works in practice. Not an immediate change to the Law.

I quite like the idea.

I first proposed the idea back in 1997, but these days a trial of such a change is indeed the obvious approach.

 

[OB..]

IF we see refs being stricter with cards then the cynical conceding of PKs may drop [...]

I don't much like the idea of relying on referees to give cards because that puts the responsibility on them and gives the losing team a basis for blaming the referee. Yellow cards are a useful tool but they do distort the game, so we should not be looking to expand their use. Put the responsibility firmly on the players if at all possible.

 

[Pegleg]

So it will be cheat's chater.

 

[Dickie E]

A penalty is dropping from 60% of a try to 33% (or 42% to 25% with conversions)... I can't see how that's not going to encourage defenders to risk the penalty to prevent the try.

We've been using something similar in our NRC competition for the last 2 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rugby_Championship

There are a number of trial laws being used including 5 points for a try, 3 for a conversion and 2 for a PK.

Of the 10 or so games I have watched I have not seen one attempted penalty shot at goal!

There does not appear to be any increase in cynical penalties. You may be looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[Dickie E]

I still think a better approach is to restart after a kick at goal which goes dead without being played, with a scrum to the non-offending side at the mark for the penalty. It does not change the points balance, but makes the penalty bite harder because giving away a penalty does not relieve the attacking pressure.

Misses the prime intent of speeding up the game with ball in hand.

 

[OB..]

Misses the prime intent of speeding up the game with ball in hand.

If defences are being careful not to infringe, how does that fail to improve attacking opportunities

 

[menace]

I think WADR you are missing the point at who is being penalised here. Measures that do not reduce pressure by cheating (in effect) means the initial cheating may not occur, allowing ball in hand to be used than prevented.

I can see that in some extreme circumstances an attacking side could milk a scenario of continual 3 point PKs in a stream - but it would have to be pretty extreme.

That said I'm not convinced by arguments "to make the game more ball in hand etc etc etc" [sic] - most efforts I've seen over the years to promote this have created unintended consequences which are then papered over rather than dealt with at source, creating bigger messes. Wide Field Trench Defense is a direct consequence of a 1992 law change wrt rucks.

didds

It just seems like a case of double jeopardy. How many times should a team be punished for one offense?

And if we are going to argue that teams will work out how to milk penalties, it's almost a certainty that they will. Professional teams are out to win, and will find the weakness in both their opponents and law to do it.

Example:
Blue team is a strong scrummaging team, while the Red team isn't. Red leads by 2 points and concedes a penalty within their half. Blue opts for the penalty goal and misses- they get a scrum. Blue is dominant in the scrum and get another penalty. Repeat until someone is yellow carded.

Is that rugby spectators want to watch?

So this thread shouldn't be titled Welsh's Law, but 'Newton's Law in rugby'.
[LAWS]For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.[/LAWS]:biggrin: