Should we reduce the score for field goals penalty goals to make a more entertaining game?

Question

Maybe 1 for drop goals and 2 for penalty goals? I mean most professional teams can slot goals through from 60m out! What interest is it to fans to see teams play between the respective 22m lines just pushing for penalties so they can take the easy three points. Seeing someone line up and kick a ball is nowhere near as exciting as a well worked back-line try.

Answer 1

Mate, . . . I'm pretty sure most pro teams can't slot goals from 60m out ! There are a couple of brothers who could, but never do.

I think 3 points is about right. Drop kicks are a bloody art form. There is and should remain a place for the droppy in rugby.

Hitting a drop kick sweetly is a great feeling - one of the coolest things about turning up to rugby practice. ( I'm too c**p to actually try it in a game)

If you miss - you give up possession and field position for nothing and look like a totally doad - enough reasons not to try it.

It's only when teams lack the skill to score tries or even achieve a line break and rely on kicking to score all their points that the field goal gets a bad rap. Reducing the points from 3 to 1 may push c**p teams to think about running the ball but it also diminishes the fine art of drop kicking.

Personally, I think my ability to drop kick a variety of objects at, between and over a vast array of targets, some how defines me as a person. It is certainly a skill that belongs in New Zealand and other countries. I look forward to passing this art form on to my children and grandchildren.

Answer 2

Reducing the score for a Drop Goal to 1 and a Penalty to 2 will drive the priority to scoring tries and goals (a successfully converted try). The historic winning of tests with penalties by teams with little ability to score tries is detrimental to the game.

Remember, the whole aim of the game is to score goals, being converted tries.

Answer 3

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!  1 for Drop Goals is absolutely right, 2 for Penalties is perfect!  I would go a step further and take on the American Football scoring in 6 for a try and one for the conversion.  If we did go to 6 for a try, then maybe 3 for a penalty is ok but I would love for it to be all about the tries!

On the down side.... we'd probably see a ton more of that ridiculous NH thing of getting the last five metres to the goal line, 1 inch at a time with those stupid forward dives.... that is the absolute most brutally boring thing in rugby today.

Answer 4

We should also look at the collapse of rucks rule where an opposing team could well be too weak to hold up a rolling maul or scrum-set and are penalised seemingly because they have collapsed it on purpose. There should not be a penalty awarded but rather, give the attacking team the option of one scrum only or a penalty kick provided the score would only be 1 point. This would then get them to think about attacking with their backs as well instead of boring spectators with their forward power and the tedious scrum setting if they can't advance any futher.

Answer 5

yeah definetly! 1 for drop goals. droppies are so easy to land and it's so easy to protect your 1st five they don't deserve 3 points.  Teams who are rather avg. and are levels below the AB's (like england) can't depend on them to win, when they really don't deserve too.

Answer 6

Totally agree the one point for field goals is a given.  It is such an easy way for teams to win games.  Two of the last world cups have effectively been won by field goals.  Which I feel discounts the abilities of the defence.  Drop goals are near impossible to stop if you take it right.  Than does not then provide a level playing field.  Reducing it 1 point then places the pressure on the team to score tries drop goals should be last resort not an option.  As for penalties I think with the rule change going to more free kicks than penalties will be a good initiative and could possibly reduce the amount of penalties taken.  I do agree however they should be two exactly the same as a try conversion.  It takes more of an effort to score a try so the conversion should be rewarded with 3 point conversion and penalties which is just negative play should only be 2 points.

Answer 7

sounds ok but what of the professional fouls & the unlimited warnings teams and players continually get --especially it appears the top teams (canterbury/auckland) get more warnings than the team who is 'expected' to lose. Perhaps an automatic sinbinning????

Answer 8

Yes!!! Especially drop goals. It's sad that something like Jonny Wilkinsons kicks can win you a world cup. We need tries, tries, tries. If a team can't do it, they shouldn't be given a chance to score too many points otherwise.

Answer 9

Yep, it seems like union is always behind league. Why will a team sweat and break bones to get a try which is only 5points if lucky will convert and get 7 when they can just do three drop goals and win the game?

Answer 10

Definately, Rugby League has it right with the weighting of points. 4 for tries, 2 for penalty goals & conversions & 1 for a field (drop) goal. Field goals are used to break a dead lock and reduce the Johnny Wilkinson factor with forwards boringly pushing and holding ground for the kicker to slot a 3 pointer ?

Answer 11

drop goals should definately be taken down to one point. They should be solely used to seperate teams who have the same score.

Not sure about reducing penalty goals down to two points. Sometimes a penalty is a reward for good play. A team will make a break, be looking likely to score and the other team will infringe to prevent a try. If a penalty was reduced in points then teams might be encouraged to play negatively on defence. Of course they could become more strict with yellow/red cards to combat this.

If the new laws that have been proposed come into effect (you will be allowed to play the ball on the ground) I think we will see alot less penalties.

I disagree with witchhazel - the try scorer should not be made to take a kick. Using a specialist kicker is a big part of the game. Teams have to select a good goal kicker and sometimes they might have to take the field over a better player. They say the first two players you should select are the captain, then your goal kicker.

Answer 12

I think it's about time the scores for tries, conversions, penalties and drop goals were changed for the sole reason that it will make the game more entertaining and put the emphasis back on scoring tries.  Rugby league I think has it right with 4 points being awarded for a try, 2 for the conversion, 2 for a penalty and 1 for a drop goal.  When I see teams taking dropped goals because they can't break the defence and being awarded 3 points for it, it pisses me off to no end.  To me it's a cop out and a part of the game that needs to be overhauled.  Penalties also need to be devalued as too often we see games being won from the boot which is just boring.  It's tries that we love to see and it's tries that should be the deciding factor in each and every game.

Answer 13

Absolutely. The game should be about scoring tries. I also think conversions should be taken by the try scorer, specialist kickers should be reserved for penalty infringements.

Answer 14

h**l Yeah,

Drop goals should be reduced to 1 point like in League, then bring in golden point for drawn games.

The penaty should stay at 3 points, because it is to PENALIZE the infringing team.

I have to disagree with the try scorer kicking the conversion.

Answer 15

I totally agree with 1 point for drop goals and 2 for penalty goals. Also why do northern hemisphere teams kick the ball all the time as it is so boring to watch - what every happened to running the ball up and a well worked back line play??

Answer 16

There's been enough s******g around with the point scoring over the years. If you reduce the value of a penalty goal, then you are reducing the punishment meted out to infringing teams, which is the last thing you want to do in my view. And 1 point for a drop goal is far too little. No, leave things as they are please!

Answer 17

If dropgoals and penalties are reduced how will England ever hit double figures in a game again????

Answer 18

I disagree. If the penalties were reduced then the defending team would cheat more readily in their own 22. All attacking teams want the well worked backline move but when this has been illegally shut down then a shot at 3 points is small compensation. I would be looking more closely at the validity of the penalties being dished out every time a ruck forms within sight of the goal and the mind numbing complexities of the law in this area instead of altering the points to suit the dumbing down of the game

Answer 19

Yeah, definitely 1 point for a drop goal. leave penalty at 3 to prevent even more professional fouls.