0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Time to dock points from drop goals
Spiro Zavos
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
On Monday of last week, I was walking up to the shops when a neighbour called out to me: "I thought you'd be in South Africa for the Wallabies Test?" "I don't do funerals," I replied.
There was no real thought behind the response, except the premonition, shared by any number of rugby people I talked to in the days before the first Tri Nations Test, that the Wallabies were in for a hiding.
Later in the week, though, another acquaintance surprised me by suggesting the Wallabies would beat the Springboks. When I asked him how he could be so optimistic, he told me: "A friend close to the Springboks camp says that South African rugby is in turmoil, and he's predicting the Springboks will be beaten."
As it happened, the predictions didn't quite work out the way we thought they might. The Springboks got their victory, in a close-run affair, by the typical South African method of drop-kicking goals. In the 1999 World Cup, a South African victory over England in the quarter-finals was achieved with five drop goals.
The three points for a drop goal is the last remaining anachronism of the original point-scoring system that rugby adopted in the 1860s. Those of us of a certain age remember playing rugby in the days when the drop goal, a fossil of the original point-scoring system, was worth four points. The drop goal is now worth three points, and there is a strong case for it to be reduced significantly in value. The thing about the drop goal, as Frans Steyn showed on Saturday night, is that if it is executed properly, it is impossible to defend against.
I wrote in my notebook after about 20 minutes of the Test: "The Wallabies are hanging on by their fingernails." The fingernail grip held, however. And the Springboks were forced to drop kick their way to victory. The key to the tenacious, furious and accurate Wallabies defence was the tackling of George Smith in the forwards and Stephen Larkham in the backs.
It's sometimes forgotten that Larkham is a great defensive player. In the 1999 World Cup, where the victorious Wallabies conceded only one try, Larkham had the highest tackle count of any back. And on Saturday night there he was throwing himself into the fray with the enthusiasm of a youngster and the hard shoulders of a veteran.
Smith was similarly impressive and courageous with his tackling. So it was a surprise when he was replaced by Phil Waugh, who missed a couple of tackles, and the Springboks were able to get back into the Wallabies' half for Steyn to unleash his mighty boot.
You presume that the game plan drawn up by the selectors called for Smith, the "fetcher" (as the South Africans call the openside breakaway), to be replaced with fresh legs in the form of Waugh. But this was a clear case of the game plan needing to be changed. George Gregan, rightly, was not replaced. Nor was Matt Dunning, who played his best Test. Smith should have stayed on with them.
The other outstanding forward for Australia was Dan Vickerman, who won the duel with Victor Matfield in the lineout and around the field, until Adam Freier came on for Stephen Moore.
When Chris Latham returns from his injury he should give the Wallabies more attack from fullback than Julian Huxley. However, John Connolly has always preferred kicking five-eighths and fullbacks, and he may try to turn Latham into this type of player. Let's hope not.
Yesterday, I ran into my neighbour again. "They should reduce the drop goal to one point," he told me. If only…
spiro@theroar.com.au
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.
He must have been checking out our site again, we've been talking about that since sunday...Actually, everything he has said...
Proudly bought to you by a brewery somewhere....
And there is the problem the majority of people have with it .. I fear that teams will soon recruit star kickers, change their game plan and if he kicks correctly - you could win a game by 20 or 30 points with drop goals because you just can't defend against it when you're in your 22. It possibly will do the same to Rugby that flooding has done to AFL, make a boring game!The thing about the drop goal, as Frans Steyn showed on Saturday night, is that if it is executed properly, it is impossible to defend against.
Chuck Norris has the greatest Poker-Face of all time. He won the 1983 World Series of Poker, despite holding only a Joker, a Get out of Jail Free Monopoly card, a 2 of clubs, 7 of spades and a green #4 card from the game Uno.
Not being funny - isn't this how England have being doing things for the last 10 years ! i.e. the only reason people want to see Jonny Wilkinson play is for the drop goal
61 years between Grand SlamsWas the wait worth it - Ya betta baby
As somebody pointed out on another thread the risk of more drop goals is likely with the new defensive offside line rule that is being trialed. I hope that the impact of this is considered.
Just happy to be here
It is the point of trialling the rules before codifying them - to see what tactics develop as a result. Hard to see whether increased kicking might come though, as it would take time to find an adequate talent. If you kick field position away every time you are in attack without getting the points...
As a stray thought, I am surprised the Irish don't kick more what with Gaelic football.
What you are all forgetting is that a drop goal basically won the Wallabies their 2nd RWC. Remember the Semis in 99'...well I do![]()
Anyways I like a good drop goal, you take the risk and if you get it right you are rewarded. Most of those who have posted on this thread have been forwards who lets say most likley never had the coordination to hit a droppy.![]()
Every forwards dream is to become a back...
It won it because it was in the rules of the day, doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed Shaun.
You don't need to remind us about Drop Goals winning (or more to the point losing) World Cups.
To take your point about Forwards and Drop Goals, I used to take the Conversions for Scotch and regularly used a Drop instead of a Place Kick so.....there!
I think almost everyone who is against the current Drop Goal isn't saying take it out of the game.
They are saying it is worth too much for too little and should be the last option in winning a tied match, not used to accumulate six points in seven minutes.
For mine a Drop Goal should be worth one point to break a tied match in the 83rd minute. Now that is a high risk skill.
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.
With such wisdom already in print there is no need for me to add anything......your on the money Burgs!Originally Posted by Burgs
80 Minutes, 15 Positions, No Protection, Wanna Ruck?
Ruck Me, Maul Me, Make Me Scrum!
Education is Important, but Rugby is Importanter!
I'll second that TIF.![]()
I made Happy sad...
motion carried.......one point it is!
80 Minutes, 15 Positions, No Protection, Wanna Ruck?
Ruck Me, Maul Me, Make Me Scrum!
Education is Important, but Rugby is Importanter!
for every drop the opposition kicks against us - their cheeleaders must remove one peice of clothing!
Chuck Norris has the greatest Poker-Face of all time. He won the 1983 World Series of Poker, despite holding only a Joker, a Get out of Jail Free Monopoly card, a 2 of clubs, 7 of spades and a green #4 card from the game Uno.
now we are talking Happy
80 Minutes, 15 Positions, No Protection, Wanna Ruck?
Ruck Me, Maul Me, Make Me Scrum!
Education is Important, but Rugby is Importanter!
and it would take them soooooooo long to get naked wouldn't it...
Seeing as they were like 2 very tiny articles of clothing.
But I guess that would be the plan right.
I made Happy sad...
Yep that's the plan, wish this one was on duty with those rules last week, would have just been down to a H
80 Minutes, 15 Positions, No Protection, Wanna Ruck?
Ruck Me, Maul Me, Make Me Scrum!
Education is Important, but Rugby is Importanter!