[Law] Welsh Law Experiment

[Pegleg]

Can anyone think of ways to make more penalties into tap and go?

Perhaps require anyone who wasn't back 10m to go back that far before tackling/approaching ball carrier, even after ball carrier has run 5m? Or making penalised team go back 20m/wait until ball carrier has run 10m?

Line out will still be preferable if the penalty is close to the goal line, but perhaps an infringement within 15m resulting in a maul and a likely try (and tough conversion, if the defenders let it be scored rather than collapse) is a fair punishment.

Are you not effectively saying any penalty that close is effectively a penalty try? I can't possibly agree with that.

 

[Pegleg]

Danny Care taps and goes a lot. It's an under used tactic in my opinion...

Even this tactic is used more to illicit a penalty than to open the game up. Matt Dawson was famous for "seeking out" the defender to get a further Penalty (PT?) and a card for the defender. I don't watch a lot of Care, is he any different?

 

[crossref]

Danny Care taps and goes a lot. It's an under used tactic in my opinion...

Even this tactic is used more to illicit a penalty than to open the game up. Matt Dawson was famous for "seeking out" the defender to get a further Penalty (PT?) and a card for the defender. I don't watch a lot of Care, is he any different?

He is, yes, he does it to gain territory (and occasionally to score a try!) his team mates expect it (this is crucial) and go with him.

As much as anything opponents are also aware and they defend a possibly quick tap at every PK, creating a fraction more space out wide.

 

[pedr]

Are you not effectively saying any penalty that close is effectively a penalty try? I can't possibly agree with that.

Yeah, I don't agree with that either - but if the current experiment is leading to line-outs and driving mauls, resulting in circumstances which are likely to lead to penalty tries from anywhere in the opponent's half, this could be mitigated by reducing the number of penalties kicked to touch.

I take the point that a longer-than-10m run up to the line of defenders is too dangerous to be seriously considered, though.

 

[Pegleg]

I've watched a few more games under the experiment and the trend is that:

1: Any PK (not close to the posts) in the oppo half is kicked to the corner for the Driving / rolling maul.
2: Any PK close to the posts in the oppo half is "Tap and Go" usually looking for contact - Can't think why? :holysheep:

3: PKs for goal are only attempted when the sides are 8 points apart or closer. The effect being to mae it a "Two score game" and deny the losers their BP. Bonus points are 8 or within to reflect the value of the try & conversion rather than the conventional 7.

The game in time stats DO show more ball in play but the figures are false and watching a mud wrestle for half the game where you can go and get a cup of tea or a pint and a bite to eat only to come back to find the two teams still "competing" in the same place is deadly dull.

Thinking on OB's point (I think it was OB) about allowing the Kick at goal and then coming back for the scrum perhaps I could suggest any PK from the 10 mtr line toward the goal line becomes a straight 3 points and the side also gets a free kick that cannot be kicked to touch "with gain" nor the throw in to the Line-out. So the defenders are penalised and the attackers get a useful attacking platform. If they want the driving line-out option they need to bounce it into touch to get the territory but they lose possession.

There are a handful of sides that are bucking the trend but the majority take the "up the jumper" route. Even some of the traditionally "running" sides are going towards 9-man rugby.

 

[Camquin]

So if we think this experiment has failed, what wouldyou change toget the result we want- which I presume is more running rugby.
I was wondering about returning points bck to 5+2,3,3 but banning place kicks - as is already the case in 7s. So the option after a penalty would be to punt for touch/position, drop kick for goal,tap and go or scrum /lineout if applicable.

I take it as read we want to see proper scrums, real binds in the maul. But that is enforcement not law changes.

Camquin

 

[Pegleg]

Increase the penalty kick so the deterrent increases. Repeated devaluing of the PK has seen more offences and more penalties kicked.

But you have hit the nail on the head when you refer to "enforcement not law changes". Here's a thought. Why not see if the laws actually work before changing them for new laws that are also going to be ignored?

 

[didds]

I would expect that anything that devalues the value of a PK versus a try, or makes a PK harder to kick for points would merely see more PKs given away ... use of YCs notwithstanding to mitigate that maybe.

Equally anything that makes PKs worth more points, or be easier to score/points awarded would potentially see teams playing for PKs.

TBH I don't see the current points system being that "broken". DGs could be changed to 1 point as a game breaker, but I'm not that fussed over it, and that isn't within the remit of this debate anyway.

Perhaps the point of this experiment is to show that fiddling with the points system doesn't actually work, to strengthen the current systems.

didds

 

[Pegleg]

Perhaps the point of this experiment is to show that fiddling with the points system doesn't actually work, to strengthen the current systems.

didds

Do you belive that?

 

[SimonSmith]

Option C: no-one's got a clue, so they're adopting a suck it and see approach.

 

[ddjamo]

Option C: no-one's got a clue, so they're adopting a suck it and see approach.

reminds me of a sorority girl joke.....

 

[Pegleg]

I guess no one knows what happened when we went:

T 3
C 2
P 3
D 3

to

T 4
C 2
P 3
D 3

and to

T 5
C 2
P 3
D 3

Did those changes bring a flood of tries in to the game and a reduction in Penalty kicks at goal?

Surely WR has the statistics at hand. Do they really need to Suck it and see?

 

[menace]

I would expect that anything that devalues the value of a PK versus a try, or makes a PK harder to kick for points would merely see more PKs given away ... use of YCs notwithstanding to mitigate that maybe.

Equally anything that makes PKs worth more points, or be easier to score/points awarded would potentially see teams playing for PKs.

TBH I don't see the current points system being that "broken". DGs could be changed to 1 point as a game breaker, but I'm not that fussed over it, and that isn't within the remit of this debate anyway.

Perhaps the point of this experiment is to show that fiddling with the points system doesn't actually work, to strengthen the current systems.

didds

They've been trial the devalued PK goal down here at the National Rugby Champs.
Here is some stats analysis of the 2014 season by a punter.
http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/10/28/stats-observations-nrc/

I don't proclaim they are correct and one season is not a good measure of overall or sustaining success. But I've seen a few games this season past and teams were more likely to keep ball in hand and not go for PK goals as the reward is for a possible 8 pt try with conversion (Conv =3 pts). Refs were tough on cynical with use of YC. So it seems it can work.
I hope those that run NRC put out formal stats of the 2 years.

 

[Camquin]

It is a pity we do not have a previous season to compare - but the stat that interestsme is the number of yellow cards.
Aviva premiership and the Championshipare run at just over one YC per game. National 2 closer to 1.8.
Oddly National 2 achieves almost as many tries as the NRC - while the upper echelons don't. I am not sure I can remember a Premiership match where both sides scored 4 tries.

I cannot help but wonder whether if upper echelon refs gave more cards and hence cut out the cynical offending and made more space - it would lead to more tries in those competitions.

 

[Pegleg]

It is a pity we do not have a previous season to compare.

But surely the unions and WR do have the stats to show the effect of the two previous try value changes (3-4-5). Now if I was proposing a change and had supporting data to show that those changes have produces a glut of tries and running rugby. I'd be putting that data out there to convince others.

Alternatively,

If I had evidence that the changes have not "improved" things in the past I'd be using the stats to support my argument, rather that trying the experiment to prove it does not work.

 

[OB..]

I guess no one knows what happened when we went:

T 3
C 2
P 3
D 3

to

T 4
C 2
P 3
D 3

and to

T 5
C 2
P 3
D 3

Did those changes bring a flood of tries in to the game and a reduction in Penalty kicks at goal?

Surely WR has the statistics at hand. Do they really need to Suck it and see?

The 5 point try came in shortly before the professional era, so there is probably little value in the comparisons.

 

[Pegleg]

What about the other?