Cross Code Challenge
Erasmus
5pts for a try, 2pts for a conversion,drop goal or a penalty.
Clever that making kicks less valuable ,stops the kickers dominating the
game.
--
Peter O'Dea
www.odeauk.fsnet.co.uk
pe...@YOURVESTodeauk.fsnet.co.uk
Remove YOURVEST to reply
The fact that aliens fail to contact us surely proves
their higher intelligence.
"J"
Tinno
> The scoring system has been agreed for the Saints - Sale Game
> 5pts for a try, 2pts for a conversion,drop goal or a penalty.
> Clever that making kicks less valuable ,stops the kickers dominating
> the game.
Good work there by the organisers, with the added incentive for points at
goal, there could be a flowing game to watch.
--
Cheers,
Tinno
**Three pounds to a dollar!
Eoin Adams
wrote:
>Erasmus wrote:
>> The scoring system has been agreed for the Saints - Sale Game
>> 5pts for a try, 2pts for a conversion,drop goal or a penalty.
>> Clever that making kicks less valuable ,stops the kickers dominating
>> the game.
>
>Good work there by the organisers, with the added incentive for points at
>goal, there could be a flowing game to watch.
This would make the try/goal ratio 2.5, which is greater than BOTH
codes...surely they idea of a compromise is to find an average?
Erasmus
"Eoin Adams" <pe6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gquc2v0halhr5dasg...@4ax.com...
It doesn't matter what the rate is as long as it is the same for both halves
of the game,
the idea is to stop the union side just kicking penalties and drop goals in
their half ,
which would negate the try scoring prowess of the league side in their half.
3 points for a drop goal would only be 1 point less than a try in league
which would have made a mockery of the game.
ersms
tad87
interesting.
Why didn't RU think of that?
Oops they did, 100 years ago in Huddersfield.
"Erasmus" <pe...@KILLTHATSPAModeauk.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b00ise$urn$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Erasmus
"tad87" <dgnw...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sTGV9.6511$uW5.52...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Mmmm- make tries worth a lot more than kicks to make the game more
> interesting.
> Why didn't RU think of that?
>
> Oops they did, 100 years ago in Huddersfield.
Would you like to correct the last line, U is one line and 2 keys away from
L.
erms
Ash
100 years ago they still called themselves the Northern rugby Union
didn't they?
Angus
Instead you weaken the point of a penalty so the defending side can
infringe to there harts content whenever the attack looks remotely
threatening and stick there two fingers/points at running rugby.
(not that it matters what silly scoring system you use to compare two
diffenernt games in this silly match)
John Turner
"Ash" wrote
> 100 years ago they still called themselves the Northern rugby Union
> didn't they?
Ash 1 - Errrrm 0. ;-)
John.
Paul Cooper
"Angus" <an...@zworg.com> wrote in message
|
| Instead you weaken the point of a penalty so the defending side can
| infringe to there harts content whenever the attack looks remotely
| threatening and stick there two fingers/points at running rugby.
|
| (not that it matters what silly scoring system you use to compare two
| diffenernt games in this silly match)
Instead of weakening the point of the penalty as you see it maybe the powers
that be should enforce a case of compulsory sin bin use in the 22 metre
area. You infringe you get binned. Eventually one side will have next to no
players and the other will score tries and not resort to pathetic penalty
goal attempts. The differential penalty is one of the better innovations in
RL. Maybe RU should do it, but then England would never win a test match
would they ?
Erasmus
"John Turner" <jo...@53amodels.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b09mpq$m57$1...@newsreaderg1.core.theplanet.net...
But that is not the Rugby Union,just as American Football is not ,the same
as British Football.
a draw I would suggest :-), all goals were made worth 2 points in 1897
along with the abolition of line outs
which were replaced by a punt in from touch,in 1900 the charge at goal kicks
was disallowed.In 1901 accidental knock on allowed
play on if the ball was caught before touching the ground.
2nd lesson next week.
ersa
Alf King
"Paul Cooper" <pdco...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:Ws7W9.1141$m47....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Maybe the differential penalty was a good idea but it is used so
infrequently nowadays that most people have forgotten its original intent.
Alf King
Paul Cooper
Scrum penalties are a thing of the past, and if a referee awards one these
days, it is seen as being unusual. The hardest thing from my point of view
is that the spectators want an open game, they want offending teams
punished, they want to see in the main free flowing football with great
attack and hard defence. Unfortunately you can't have all those things,
without the detriment of one of them. I would be happy to see a score of say
22-18, where one team scores 4 tries to 3, and the game not a walkover for
one side, and defence not playing such a part that no points are scored. It
is all about finding a middle point. For example Brisbane beat Manly 44-10
in 1988 which was great to see from a try scored perspective, but also two
State of Origins stick out in my mind too. Qld won both (lol), but one was
10-8 and the other 5-4 (and no mathematical intents meant).
"Alf King" <alf....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:7sfW9.225$xB2....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
John Turner
"Paul Cooper" wrote
> Instead of weakening the point of the penalty as you see it maybe the
powers
> that be should enforce a case of compulsory sin bin use in the 22 metre
> area. You infringe you get binned. Eventually one side will have next to
no
> players and the other will score tries and not resort to pathetic penalty
> goal attempts. The differential penalty is one of the better innovations
in
> RL. Maybe RU should do it, but then England would never win a test match
> would they ?
In RL I've always felt that awarding a penalty often advantaged the
defending side. It gave them the opportunity to re-organise their defence
and often would result in a loss of two points rather than a try and a
conversion.
Why not consider something more to the advantage of the attacking side, such
as a free shot a goal from directly in front of the sticks, followed
(whether successful or not) by a restart from the point of infringement?
John.
Angus
And having a game played with a difference of 2 or more players
because of a ref interpratiation of a subjective ofside law would be
better how. If it were obvious when a penalty at a breakdown was
deliberate there would be no problem but when the tackle becomes a
maul or ruck is not clear cut. Certainly not clear cut enough to send
a player to the bin for 10min every time it occours unless you want to
stop all contest for the ball at contact. In which case watch the
other code
Paul Cooper
S12 games) the defending side tries to pilfer the ball and in doing so
offends. We have video referees, they could help. A clearly written law
would also help - contrary to what some think this is entirely possible but
due to differing views i.e. SH & NH it will never occur.
By using the sin bin the referee is making a conscious effort to clean up
the game. If he makes a mistake then so be it, he will eventually make more
correct decisions than wrong ones. Also the referees should get the back up
by a clean set of rules - with no hemispherical interpretation. What is a
penalty at SA should be penalty at Twickers - no buts, ifs or maybes.
Europeans think they have the right rules and interpretation, as do the SH
supporters. Personally I think S12 is much better than 6N.
And why would I want to support the other code when I support Rugby League ?
"Angus" <an...@zworg.com> wrote in message
news:33d77552.03011...@posting.google.com...