Penalty Repositioning (a further evolution)

 Laws  No Responses »
Mar 012012
 
Using Scoring Dynamics To Encourage a More Attacking Game

This paper deals with the idea and practical application of the use of the dynamics of scoring to influence player behaviour in a desired manner in Rugby Union. In particular, it is concerned with enhancing the style of attack and progression (A&P) as opposed to defence and encampment (D&E). It is an update of previous proposals.

Alternative areas for making such changes, as in the laws that directly govern the mode of play, tend to have a high degree of unintended consequence. The well considered manipulation of scoring dynamics is likely to be a less problematical way of achieving change, as it directly targets player motivation. It also has advantages in ease of implementation, consisting of primarily dead ball alterations.

Other problems and anomalies are attacked simultaneously:

  • The most significant offending tends to occur nearer the defender’s goal line. The current largely flat rate penalty fails to address this.
  • Attack out of defence is often stymied by the increasing ease of an opponent to kick long range penalty goals.
  • Lateral penalty values are biased towards teams that play up and down the middle of the ground.
  • The penalty goal’s intrinsic value is lessening as its frequency and predictability of outcome increases.

D&E results in a higher proportion of scoring through penalty goals as opposed to A&P where try scoring is above average. Changes that make the penalty goal less attractive and the try more, while maintaining the overall penalty value, will advantage A&P. The position of the penalty, in all senses, is at the heart of these ideas.

Proposals

In brief, scale down the value of the penalty goal as its range increases, improve the kick to touch and other penalty options, have strong mandatory sanctions in the 22, flatten the lateral value of the penalty.

1/ Penalty goal kicks may be taken not at the penalty location, given they can not be:

  • More than 15m from the nearest touch line if less than 40m from the offender’s goal line.
  • More than 5m from the nearest touch line if 40m or more from the offender’s goal line.
  • Moved away from the nearest touch line.
  • In front of the penalty location.

(see diagram below)

2/ Restart following a successful penalty goal from an offence inside the offender’s 22 is a non offender free kick from the penalty location.

3/ Touch kicks from penalties may be taken not at the penalty location, given they can not be:

  • Moved to the other side of the field
  • In front of the penalty location.

Additional proposals

4/ Lineouts resulting from penalty kicks to touch:

  • Can not be within 10m of the offender’s goal line.
  • Must be played regardless of time.

5/ Quickly taken penalties may be taken up to two metres either side of the penalty location.

6/ Scrums taken in lieu of penalties and non quickly taken tap kicks may be taken up to 10m in advance of the penalty location.

7/ Restart after penalty tries and tries scored under penalty advantage is a non offender free kick from the penalty location.

1 & 2 above represent the idea of “penalty goal scaling” (PGS). 3 above is referred to as “touch kick optimization” (TKO).

Relative mean effective values of new penalty (value out of 10, all current taken as 5)

From offender’s goal line

Penalty

Penalty goal

Intrinsic penalty goal
0 – 22m 7 (stronger) 6 (slightly stronger) 7.5 (much greater)
22m – 40m 5 (no change) 4 (slightly weaker) 6 (slightly greater)
40m – 60m 4 (slightly weaker) 2 (much weaker) 6.5 (greater)
>60m 6 (slightly stronger) - -
average 5.5 (slightly stronger) 4 (weaker) 6.7 (greater)

 

Notes on PGS

 The new mean penalty goal values as indicated above demonstrate penalty goal scaling. This allows for a significant reduction of penalty goals at the longer ranges that D&E teams rely on. By contrast the strong penalty at close range provides more ample disincentive for defenders at the time that they are most likely to cynically offend, thus easing the act of try scoring and favouring A&P teams. The result should be a reduction in penalties awarded at close range and less reliance on reluctant officials handing out yellow cards.

Problems and anomalies addressed

  • Intrinsic value of the penalty goal attempt is improved. No goals from more than 15m from touch and greater value of attempts from within the 22 due to the free kick chaser, thus, ends “taken for granted” goal kicks and drama is increased. The overall relative drop in penalty goal value will see less of them. The problem of the boring penalty goal is addressed.

  • TKO increases the value of wide angled penalties, thus reducing the present anomaly whereby both main options (goal kick and touch kick) have limited appeal from this position.

  • Narrower lateral range of goal kicking positions allied with TKO, thus, more consistent values for penalty goals on the basis of location across the field.

  • The requirement for penalty goals more than 5m from touch and 40m from the goal line to be moved towards the touch line, increases the range of shots, thus, a reduction of field in range. This reduces the anomaly caused through the greater length of kick attainable mainly due to technological changes.

  • The anomaly of the rapid drop in value of the penalty once out of goal kicking range is addressed, particularly by TKO.
  • The purpose of proposals 2 & 7, in particular, is to address the problem of negative attitudes by defenders on hard defence, caused by current insufficient sanctions. The most significant offending tends to occur nearer the defender’s goal line. The culture of “it is better to concede a penalty than to concede a try”, must be replaced by “it is better to concede a try than to concede a penalty in order to prevent a try”.

Advantages of this approach

  • Mode of play is left largely unaffected. Dead ball field repositioning of penalties and restarts represent an uncomplicated approach for player and official alike.

  • Encourages attack out of defence. The lessened risk of penalty goal concession in the 40m – 60m range makes the territorial game less urgent.

  • Direct appeal to players’ motivation.

Area of field (in green) where proposed penalty goals can be taken from.

 

 

Getting the penalty gradually right

 Laws, Proposals  No Responses »
Jan 302010
 

The Graduated Penalty

These proposals represent a development and rationalization of:  Scoring System, Drama Promotion and the penalty section of Scoring Structure, Try Promotion.

Background

The very significant increase in average goal kicking percentages in Rugby over the last 60 years combined with the corresponding increase in try value has led to several distinct trends. Shorter range average penalty goal values have gone up less than longer range average penalty goal values. This is due to the lesser opportunity for improvement. Easy kicks, already being converted at high rates, do not allow so  much room for improvement.

Compared to average unconverted try value improvement which is constant, goalable penalties closer to the goal line are thus undervalued and those further from the goal line are over valued. Compounding this is the significant increase of kicking range, due largely to technological innovation.

This manifests itself firstly through non offending teams often being reluctant to settle for a penalty goal when in strong attacking positions (and offenders relief). Secondly, a territorial or encampment game is more attractive, with an increase in the field from which readily goalable penalties can be made and increased difficulty in try scoring from strong attacking positions due to the lesser deterrence on defenders. Thirdly, attacking out of defence is discouraged with the overvalued long range penalty placing teams at greater risk for longer periods.

Goal kicking’s intrinsic attractiveness has been reduced by its predictability. In short… it has become boring.

The following proposals address these specific problems. They also look to strengthen alternative options to goal kicking and introduce a new one.

Part one

Brief: Create a strong penalty structure that acts as a means to an end, rather than being the end. Introduce graduated territorial penalty values, thus restoring historical penalty worth and reducing disincentive to attack out of defence. Encourage more diverse penalty option taking.

Proposal

The following free kick restarts are from the allowable penalty offence location, with scrum option disallowed.

1. Restart following successful penalty goals from:

  • offences inside offender’s 22
  • no more than 5m from touch outside offender’s 22

with non offender free kick.

2. Immediately after unsuccessful penalty goals, advantage on a free kick restart is played to the offender. Offending team may elect the free kick during advantage, which ends on play restart election.
3. All penalties except goal kicks and those taken quickly may be taken to the nearest 15m from touch line (alternatively up to 10 metres either side of the penalty location).
4. Quickly taken penalties may be taken up to two metres either side of the penalty location.
5. Scrums taken in lieu of penalties and non quickly taken tap kicks may be taken up to 10 metres in advance of the penalty location.
6. Lineouts resulting from penalty kicks to touch can not be within 10 metres of the offender’s goal line.
7. For non goal kick penalties and during subsequent play without the ball being dead, the non offending team are allowed gubyr kicks, (alternatively one gubyr kick, see definition below).

    Part two

    Brief: Make goal kicking interesting again with dramatic improvements. Increase goal kicking difficulty while maintaining average goal values (also see part one).

    Proposal

    Penalty goal kicks may be taken not at the penalty location, given they can not be:

    1. Moved away from the nearest touch line.
    2. More than 15m from a touch line.
    3. In front of the penalty location.

    Consequences

    1. No goals from more than 15m from touch, thus, ends “taken for granted” goal kicks. Increased drama means heightened interest.
    2. Allowance for all goal kicks to be moved towards the nearest touch, thus, allows an option (gamble) for all penalty goal kicks outside the offender’s 22 and more than 5m from touch of a lower value easier kick or higher value harder kick (see part one).
    3. Greater average difficulty of kicks, thus, the skill of the place kicker is exacerbated. The better kickers will have superior relative success rates, compared to lesser kickers.
    4. Narrower lateral range of goal kicking positions and extra value for many wide goals, thus, more consistent values for penalty goals on the basis of location across the field.
    5. The requirement for penalty goals more than 15m from touch to be moved towards the touch line, increases the range of shots, thus, a reduction of field in range.

    Notes
    The prolonged slow improvement in place kicking execution has reached the stage where there has been a serious erosion of its dramatic impact. The remedy offered is through a potential for higher rewards and punishments (see part one) and a return to greater uncertainty of outcome.

    The opportunity, on many goal kicks, to choose between rewards that are safer and lower or riskier and higher, represents a gamble of the type likely to be appreciated by player and fan alike.

    Some see goal kicking as a secondary means of scoring. This proposal attempts to at least improve its intrinsic quality.

    *************************

    Definition: gubyr kick

    A gubyr kick is a punt, signaled immediately prior by an identifiable lifting gesture of the ball towards the head, by the kicker. It can not be played before it is complete, which is when the ball has:

    (1) on the first bounce, risen above knee level,
    (2) bounced a second time,
    (3) left the field of play,
    (4) been touched unintentionally by a player within 5 metres of the kick,
    (5) been touched unintentionally by an unavoidably unaware player,
    (6) failed to bounce, due to field conditions,

    and which is:

    (7) immediately after the ball has been played illegally.

    Credits:

    These proposals were inspired in part by: “Ian Diddams” (free kick restart post successful penalty goal); “gio the sensation” (originally scrum back restart post unsuccessful penalty goal).

    William Webb Ellis… what a concept!

     Articles  1 Response »
    Jan 172010
     

    William Webb Ellis. The name evokes varying connotations. The best known footballer of all. The originator of the distinctive feature of the Rugby game. The great myth. A pawn in the great political game for control of the code. An obscure schoolboy raised to a prominence that surely would have struck him dumb, had he but known of his fame.

    He is all of these for some and some of these for all. For he has become myth. William Webb Ellis may be seen as a barometer of social attitudes through the ages. For well heeled Victorians he was a real schoolboy hero. Further fuel for their self confidence. English public schoolboys were born to innovate and dominate. Rules could be made and could be broken… for some, at least.

    Our generation has a more cynical, political and prosaic view of him. We, of course, know better. We have the benefit of history. We know that he was merely used, at a much later date, to prove lineage and control of the code, at a time of schism. A convenient figure, who may have been genuinely remembered by his ancient school mate as having made a contribution. But we will never know the full truth, so we disbelieve. That is our way. Another schoolboy he will be.

    In 1987 he was again resurrected. This time his name went on a small, ornate gold cup to be awarded for the then dubiously regarded Rugby World Cup. By the 21st century those doubts have been supplanted with glee as the competition reaches ever wider audiences. WWE is now a better known name than ever before.

    It is time to take stock of the credited instigator. There has regularly been a connection with him by schoolboys over the ages. A link of age and spirit. Something that we are expected to put behind us when we become serious citizens. I think the grown ups have got it wrong.

    What youth intuitively recognizes is not that WWE was a person, but that he stood for something intangible. He is an idea. His actuality is not important. He is the spirit of rebellious youth. Some refer to having a healthy disrespect for the Law. The noteworthy phrase on his Rugby School plaque is: “WITH A FINE DISREGARD FOR THE RULES”.

    Thus, we have William Webb Ellis the concept. Who he was, what he did and when he did it pale into insignificance. The idea is real. Perception has become reality. Only that reality is not the man, but the spirit.

    The game is what the rules say it is. Those rules must be respected for it to function. Yet the strength of the game is its adaptability. The rules can be changed, for better or worse. WWE, the concept, stands not only for the formative change in the rules, but is a continuing process. It is up to us ensure that this legacy is not abused.

    Rugbyology.org is invigorated by the concept of William Webb Ellis. It motivates and enables. We believe in showing that fine disregard for the rules. But mind that it is fine. The continuing growth in the game’s complexity requires more care than ever before. It is with this as a consideration that the site was launched. Nowadays it is perhaps not enough to just pick up the ball and run with it.

    The challenge is to maintain the visionary spirit of WWE but live in the 21st century. So you have a website, an internet forum, worldwide discussion. Maybe the next WWE is out there. Anyone care to pick up the ball, run with it and… well, what does come next?

    Counter Attack Promotion

     Laws, Proposals  No Responses »
    Dec 292009
     

    The goal of this proposal is to promote counter attack off long kicks, thus reducing over reliance on them.

    Proposal

    A gubyr kick, allowed under specified conditions, is a punt, signalled immediately prior by an identifiable lifting gesture of the ball towards the head, by the kicker. It can not be played before it is complete, which is when the ball has:

    (1) on the first bounce, risen above knee level,
    (2) bounced a second time,
    (3) left the field of play,
    (4) been touched unintentionally by a player within 5 metres of the kick,
    (5) been touched unintentionally by an unavoidably unaware player,
    (6) failed to bounce, due to field conditions,

    and which is:

    (7) immediately after the ball has been played illegally.

    It is allowed after a team directly receives, within 40 metres of their goal line, any opponent’s kick from within 40 metres of the kicker’s goal line and during subsequent play without the ball being dead.

    Alternatively, reception from penalty or free kicks could be excluded and perhaps only a single gubyr kick per play may be considered.

    Rationale

    The gubyr would leave the original kicking team very vulnerable at the back, requiring a redeployment of players to this area thus creating space for ball in hand counter attack. The counter kick itself creates desirable anticipation of uncertainty. The forceback cycle is made unlikely. As gaining gubyr kick rights requires direct taking of the ball and the alternative leaves the receiver vulnerable themselves, teams will benefit by deploying more players deep in the first instance. This encourages teams to carry out of defence. No stoppage of play is required.

    Simplicity. Officials only need watch one player at a time. More stringent offside laws for kicking teams would likely be as problematical as the current difficult and thus poorly implemented ones.

    Elegance. This uses the game’s natural resource… the shape of the ball, harnessing its “glorious uncertainty”.

    Notes

    Implementation of this device is likely to be conditional on the acceptance of the artificial restriction placed on kick reception (from the gubyr). Given the numerous alternate reactively inspired restrictive legislation changes in this area, this should not represent a major concern. The gubyr kick represents proactive change in that it actively encourages the desired result. This reduces the chance of unintended consequences. Restricting the negative option often results in equally unsatisfactory option taking.

    The general problem of excessive kicking might well be best addressed by offering a form of attacking kick that, through its efficiency, requires less overall kicking. The gubyr has numerous other potential applications, such as at the penalty, during penalty advantage, or even as the outcome of a drop goal (some of these are addressed elsewhere in this category).

    Counter attack promotion, the gubyr kick.

    Is this thing on?

     Rugbyology.org administrative  No Responses »
    Dec 212009
     

    Rugbyology.org is up and stumbling. The content is minimal at this time (homepage and blog) but give it time. I hope to have the forum up shortly. Check back soon. This message is mainly a sight check.

    All the best for the festive season (for those of you that have a life).