23 replies to this topic

[Marlow]

I just had a quick question, and was hoping some hold heads here on the fern could explain something for me...

I have heard debate about drop-goal point value...it's mostly been banter about how it's obvious that they should only be worth 1 point, and that the current 3 point value should be one of the first things to go in any rule revisions.  Why is this?  Particularly in the modern game, I have seen VERY few drop goals attempted, and even fewer successfully through the posts.  Further, I vaguely remember hearing the announcers on S14 games, or AB test matches make comments like "...Mauger converts the drop goal, that's his 2nd in Test rugby...".  For a scoring attempt that happens so rarely, and has such a low % of success, I don't understand why there is a feeling that their value should be decreased.  Can anybody give me some insight?

[Crucial]

Don't necessarily agree with you Scorz. A droppie can be much harder to achieve than a penalty.

I would think that opposition to the value comes about when evry now and then a team gets a good exponent of the drop goal and use that as a tactic over other options. If a team drills itself for drop kicks and they have a very good kicker all they have to do is work the ball into range and it's three points. If you believe that the aim of the game is to score tries then it is viewed as a cop out. If you believe that the aim is to score more points than the other team by all options available then it is a legit tactic.

[Dodge]

why?  Penalties are far more common and DGs are much harder to set up and take than you appear to think.  As others point out, if it was that easy people would do it far more often.  I think they should stay at 3pts - the Leicester vs Gloucester game was a prime example of when they work brilliantly

[Godder]

Crucial said:

Don't necessarily agree with you Scorz. A droppie can be much harder to achieve than a penalty.

I would think that opposition to the value comes about when evry now and then a team gets a good exponent of the drop goal and use that as a tactic over other options. If a team drills itself for drop kicks and they have a very good kicker all they have to do is work the ball into range and it's three points. If you believe that the aim of the game is to score tries then it is viewed as a cop out. If you believe that the aim is to score more points than the other team by all options available then it is a legit tactic.

Definitely. That said, if the ABs decided to switch to a forward-based, DG/penalty style, with a tremendous exponent of the DG, and we won everything with it all the time, I guarantee that either tries would increase in value or the kicks would drop.

[Corkscrew]

Dodge said:

why?  Penalties are far more common and DGs are much harder to set up and take than you appear to think.  As others point out, if it was that easy people would do it far more often.  I think they should stay at 3pts - the Leicester vs Gloucester game was a prime example of when they work brilliantly

They won't be once the Elv's come into play, penalties in kickable positions dried up dramatically.  Would this shift the balance on the relative value of the drp goal?

[Marlow]

They won't be once the Elv's come into play, penalties in kickable positions dried up dramatically.  Would this shift the balance on the relative value of the drp goal?
[/quote]

Did the relative number of drop goals increase during this last S14 season?  I don't recall DGs being noticeably more frequent...except maybe Fans Steyn taking shots at the moon from half way...but that was very different than using the DG as a serious point scoring tactic when kickable penalties w/in kicking range are rare due to ELVs.  I'm still not sold on why they should be worth less than 3 pts.  If the fear is that rugby would turn into a boring game of both teams going back and forth working w/in range, and dropping a goal, it seems a little unfounded, as it would take 3 DGs to score more points than a converted try.  Even at three pts a piece, it seems to favor a more expansive try scoring game...

[Miller V Jackson]

Godder said:

Definitely. That said, if the ABs decided to switch to a forward-based, DG/penalty style, with a tremendous exponent of the DG, and we won everything with it all the time, I guarantee that either tries would increase in value or the kicks would drop.

Well we've had ample opportunity to do it, if we were good enough, in some very big games that we've lost. That seems to suggest it's harder than it looks or, put another way, it's a skill in which we are sorely lacking.

[bFORCe]

Drop goal attempts are a dime a dozen in the NH and to an extent the Republic,NZ and OZ dont go gun-ho on drop goals.

I agree with "guest"...a DG and a penalty offence should not be of the same value.Either increase the value of the penalty or drop the value of the DG.I'd make the DG 2,same as the conversion.

[Bay boy Tim]

1 for a drop goal.
2 for penalty and conversion.
5 for a try.

Try's are a big part of why we watch/play. Keep it simple, and maybe the game will get its shit sorted. The game is over complicated these days.

Or keep points how they are, but make it if you miss a penalty or drop goal, the other team gets a free kick from that spot. Eg: miss a 50m penalty shot, free kick from there.

More complicated??

[Godder]

Dropping penalties to 2 incentivises cheating to prevent tries too much, which would either increase yellow cards (not a good thing) or slow the game down.

[ACT Crusader]

Godder said:

Dropping penalties to 2 incentivises cheating to prevent tries too much, which would either increase yellow cards (not a good thing) or slow the game down.

Agree. The gulf between try and penalty can not be too big. I quite like the points system now as opposed to when tries were 4 points.

Just on DG's, and an earlier comment about it being a NH "thing" mostly. It was interesting watching Bowden play last night - a kid that has grown up playing in NZ and predominantly a runner (decent) and playmaker (okay), yet he atttempted a DG whilst his team was in the "red zone" on attack. I guess the point is, if the ABs wanted to do some thing in this area it wouldn't take a huge mental shift as has been noted by some previously, just maybe a bit more practice and then just going out there and trying it.

What I don't get is the whole booing thing that goes on when someone attempts a DG?

[bFORCe]

ACT Crusader said:

The gulf between try and penalty can not be too big.

Agree,thats why I'd go with a try 5 points,penalty-3 points and DG 2 or 1.

ACT Crusader said:

Just on DG's, and an earlier comment about it being a NH "thing" mostly. It was interesting watching Bowden play last night - a kid that has grown up playing in NZ and predominantly a runner (decent) and playmaker (okay), yet he atttempted a DG whilst his team was in the "red zone" on attack. I guess the point is, if the ABs wanted to do some thing in this area it wouldn't take a huge mental shift as has been noted by some previously, just maybe a bit more practice and then just going out there and trying it.

Dam,that didnt take long,hope they havent turned Bowden into a typical NH drop-kick-a-thon flyhalf.

ACT Crusader said:

What I don't get is the whole booing thing that goes on when someone attempts a DG?

People boo cos they find numerous drop goal attempts boring unless its done in the last minute before half/full time or to decide the winner of the match.

Edited by bFORCe, 24 January 2011 - 09:19 PM.

[Bullrush]

here's how ridiculous DGs are.

Take someone like Dan Carter or F Steyn and have them practice nothing but DGs from 40m out for 2 months before the Super season starts.

1st game in, do nothing but take a DG attempt everytime you're in range unless a try is begging to be scored. Let's say you took 15 attempts and hit 6-7. That's 18-21 points. Throw in maybe a try or two and you're looking at 25 - 35points. Not a bad score, especially if it was in a Test.

I'm surprised that some cynical coach hasn't already taken this approach. I mean, why not take a heap of DG attempts? You either end up with 3 points on the board or the opposition kicking it baack to you anyway.

[ACT Crusader]

bFORCe said:

People boo cos they find numerous drop goal attempts boring unless its done in the last minute before half/full time or to decide the winner of the match.

What's "numerous"? I've seen crowds boo after one missed attempt. And it tends to be missed attempts that are booed. Just doesn't make sense.

In your eyes how many attempts is too many?

[Midge]

I would like to see the drop goal decreased to 1 point. All the other scoring options are fine as they are in my opinion

[Bones]

I don't mind the scoring as it is, but certainly wouldn't say no to the laws being altered so that a missed drop-goal that goes dead has the same result as any other kick from the same point.

[sparky]

Like it or not, drop goals remain a crucial part of the game especially in matches were defence is dominant. Ireland today gave a textbook demonstration of how to set up and execute the late drop goal.

[bFORCe]

ACT Crusader said:

What's "numerous"? I've seen crowds boo after one missed attempt. And it tends to be missed attempts that are booed. Just doesn't make sense.

In your eyes how many attempts is too many?

Running rugby is interesting rugby-drop kick rugby isnt unless they are attempts to win a game in the final stages of the match and/or half.This is where rugby league has it right,drop kicks in league are only attempted to win matches or force the opposition to score more than once.To me,drop kicks in union are a cheap way of scoring alot of points for teams who lack the ability to get past the opposition.

[bFORCe]

sparky said:

Like it or not, drop goals remain a crucial part of the game especially in matches were defence is dominant. Ireland today gave a textbook demonstration of how to set up and execute the late drop goal.

Nobody is saying get rid of the drop kick,just lessen the value of it.

sparky said:

drop goals remain a crucial part of the game especially in matches were defence is dominant

..or their attack is shite!

[Knock On Wood]

You only have to watch the surge in drop goal attempts when everything is on the line in RWC knockout matches to see that they are overvalued. If every match was a knock out match in the Super 14 (ie. if it was played like the FA cup) we'd see a surge in drop goals.

I personally don't think they should be worth 1 point, 2 or 3 is fine. But I think because there is no scrum back after a missed droppie that they're a free option when you have a lead in a crucial match - you can drop away and win back possession after every attempt.

[matata_massive]

Knock On Wood said:

You only have to watch the surge in drop goal attempts when everything is on the line in RWC knockout matches to see that they are overvalued. If every match was a knock out match in the Super 14 (ie. if it was played like the FA cup) we'd see a surge in drop goals.

I personally don't think they should be worth 1 point, 2 or 3 is fine. But I think because there is no scrum back after a missed droppie that they're a free option when you have a lead in a crucial match - you can drop away and win back possession after every attempt.

thats ingenious, im surprised no1 has done that yet either....hmm might have to try it in club rugby this year hehehe

[Bay boy Tim]

Surely a free kick would be better than a scrum! The less need for scrums the better off rugby is (to a point).