BBC SPORT | Rugby League | Laws & Equipment | How to score points How to score points There are four main ways to score in rugby league: Try - four points A try is worth four points - the maximum number of points you can score in one go in rugby league. It is scored when a player puts the ball on the ground with "downward pressure" (very important) inside the opposition's in-goal area between the try line and dead ball line. If a defender makes an offence while the opposition are about to score a try, then the referee can award a penalty kick in front of the posts after the conversion kick. This means the opposition can score eight points if they are successful in scoring the try, the goal kick and the penalty kick. But if the try was not scored because of the offence, the referee will award a penalty try in front of the posts, as well as the extra penalty kick. Goal kick - two points A team is awarded a goal kick after a try has been scored. The team has the chance to "convert" the kick at goal for two further points. The kick is taken from a point level with where the try was scored.

The kick is successful if the ball goes between the opposition's goalposts and above the crossbar. Penalty - two points The referee will award a penalty when an offence has occurred. A player can punt, drop kick or take a place kick anywhere behind where the offence took place. They also have the choice of kicking for goal or for touch. A kick for goal is worth two points if successful. But to be successful, the ball has to go through the opposition's goalposts, above the crossbar. Two touch judges will raise their flags if the penalty is successfully kicked. If the team who gave away the penalty argue or commit further offences, the referee will punish them by taking the penalty 10 metres forward towards their goal-line. The team kicking also gets a new set of six tackles to play with. Play is re-started by placing the ball on the ground 10 metres into the field of play, parallel to where the ball went out to touch. Teams can kick in any direction even backwards if they want to find space for a set play. Drop goal - one point A drop goal can be a spectacular way of scoring. If successful it will add one point to a team's score.

A drop goal is scored when a player kicks the ball from hand through the opposition's goal posts, above the crossbar. However, the ball must touch the ground between being dropped and kicked. Scoring in Rugby | Vienna Youth Inc. - Rugby SCORING IN RUGBY How do you score in rugby? In American football, it is only necessary for the ball to cross the plane of the goal line. In rugby, the ballcarrier must touch the ball to the ground on or over the goal line (try zone). When the ball is touched to the ground by an attacking player, he (or she) scores a "TRY"! You may gave seen players diving over the goal line to touch the ball down. That works, and so does running across (or not) and simply placing the ball on the ground. The ball must not be dropped out of the hands. If a player crosses the goal line but fails to touch the ball to the ground (tackled out of bounds, or runs over the end line), then no try is scored. How else can you score in rugby? After a try is scored, the scoring team can take a conversion kick at goal.

Unlike American football, where the conversion kick is taken from in between the goal posts, the rugby conversion kick is taken anywhere on a line straight out from where the ball is touched down. For this reason, it is important to touch the ball down as close to the center of the goal posts. Equally important, defenders should prevent the ballcarrier from getting to the middle to make the conversion kick as difficult as possible. What about field goals? There are no field goals in rugby, but there are penalty goals and drop goals. If the referee awards a penalty, the team may elect to kick a penalty goal. The penalty goal may be kicked from a tee or from a drop kick. A drop goal is scored during the course of play where the player drops the ball to the ground and kicks it as it touches the ground., A goal cannot be scored by punting the ball through the goal posts. How many points are scored in these situations? Try = 5 points. Conversion goal = 2 points. Penalty goal = 3 points. Drop goal = 3 points. © 2017 LeagueAthletics.com, LLC. and Vienna Youth Inc. - Rugby (1937). All rights reserved.

Visitor # 207,153 x New Privacy Policy We have made changes to our Privacy Policy . By using this site you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service . BBC SPORT | Rugby Union | Laws & Equipment | The basics of rugby union Rugby player positions explained Rugby union is played by two teams of 15 players. Although the aim of the game is simple, there are many laws which make can make it hard for the new viewer to keep track of what is going on. Here BBC Sport runs through the very basics of the game and, to the right, you can click on the links to find our more on the various rules of rugby union. AIM OF THE GAME Jonny Wilkinson scores the winning points in the 2003 World Cup final The aim of the game is very simple - use the ball to score more points than the other team. You can run with the ball, kick it and pass it, but passing forwards is not allowed. Rugby union is a contact sport, so you can tackle an opponent in order to get the ball, as long as you stay within the rules.

There is a referee, aided by two touch judges (one on each side of the pitch), to decide how the rules should be applied during a game. There are several ways to score points. A try - five points are awarded for touching the ball down in your opponent's goal area. A conversion - two points are added for a successful kick through the goalposts after a try A goal kick - three points are awarded for a penalty kick or drop goal through the posts If both teams score the same amount of points, or no points are scored, then the match is a draw. In some cases, extra time is played to decide who wins. DURATION A game of rugby union has two periods of 40 minutes each. In international matches the referee will stop the clock for stoppages. Between the two halves, there is a maximum 10-minute interval, after which both teams change ends. The referee's whistle indicates the start and finish of the half. Extra time will only be played if it's a knockout competition. KICK-OFF Before the start of the match, the referee tosses a coin to decide which team will kick off the match.

The captain of the team that wins the toss gets to decide which end he wants to attack first, or whether his side or the opposition will kick off. The game is started by a place kick or a drop kick from the middle of the halfway line. The ball must travel forwards at least 10 metres from the kick-off. If it does not, the opposition get the choice of a scrum or line-out on the halfway line, with the advantage of the feed or throw. If a penalty or drop goal is scored during the game, play is restarted with a drop kick from the halfway line. The team that has conceded the points takes the kick. THE BALL Rugby union is played with an oval-shaped ball. All balls must be between 28cm and 30cm in length (approximately 11-13 inches). Most full-size balls weigh between 383 and 440 grammes (approximately 13.5-15.5 ounces) Bookmark with: Rugby Football History All Blacks Barbarians Canada British & Irish Lions Ireland Scotland Springboks USA Wales Wallabies Introduction In early rugby as played at rugby school, the only scores came from goals and there was no points value associated with scoring.

The 1845 rules stated that in order to take a punt at goal (this had to be a 'place kick' not a' drop kick') a "TRY at goal" had to be earned by touching the ball down between the posts. The ball was then "punted" over the bar and between the posts without touching the dress or person of any player and in the face of onrushing defenders. The 1862 rules provide a detailed description of the complexities regarding touching down and scoring the goal. 1871 The first RFU laws state that 'A match shall be decided by a majority of goals only'. March 1875 a proposal for a points scoring system was rejected, as was a proposal that three tries should equal one goal. November 1875 the law was modified to 'A match shall be decided by a majority of goals, but if the number of goals is equal or no goals be kicked, by a majority of tries'. 1876 Cheltenham College adopted RFU rules but still continued to use their own points based scoring system (they referred to points as rouges). 1877 'When a goal is kicked from a try, only the goal is scored'.

1881 & 1882 Proposals were made for the RFU to introduce a points based scoring system: 1881 (rejected):-"A match shall be decided by majority of points, which are calculated as follows - a touchdown, a touch in goal and a dead-ball all equal in value and each count one point; a try counts 4 points, and a goal kicked from a try 12 points or equal to three tries, and a goal dropped or kicked from the field of play 8 points or two tries. When a goal is kicked from a try the goal only is scored." 1882 (rejected):- "A match shall be decided by points as under: - A goal direct from a place kick from a try shall count 8 pts; A goal dropped from the field of play, 6 pts; A goal from a flying kick 4 points; a try 4 points; a touchdown, a dead ball, or a touch in goal, 1 point each. The team obtaining a majority of four more points to be declared the winner. Any less majority than 4 points to count as a drawn game." Prior to 1886 various clubs assigned their own points system.

The practice of Touching down the ball behind your own goal line was awarded a Point, sometimes referred to as the "Minor Point" or "Rouge". This should not be confused with the Cheltenham scoring system which referred to points in general as rouges. Many football annuals of this vintage will show scores consisting of Goals, Tries and Minor points (rouges). Although there was no generally accepted scoring system which contained the minor point (rouge) some unions did adopt it. But in 1886 a pattern favoured at Cheltenham School was adopted by the RFU, whereby points were scored for a try, a conversion goal and a dropped goal. 1886 (accepted):-"A match shall be decided by a majority of points, a goal shall equal three points, and a try one point. If the number of points be equal, or no goal kicked or try obtained, the match shall be drawn. Where a goal is kicked from a try the goal only is scored." Later penalty kicks were introduced, allowing teams disadvantaged by illegal play to kick for goal and score points if successful. October 1888 "Fair catch" (mark) introduced.

Laws amended to introduce 2nd type of goal (of lesser value). 'A match shall be decided by a majority of points. A goal shall equal 3 points, with the exception of a goal kicked from a kick awarded by way of penalty, which shall equal 2 points, and a try 1 point. If the number of points is equal or no goals be kicked or try obtained, the match shall be drawn. When a goal is kicked from a try, the goal only is scored.' September 1891 The IRFB responsible for: 'A match shall be decided by a majority of points. A try shall equal 2 points, a penalty goal 3 points, a goal from a try (the try not also to count) 5 points. Any other goal shall equal 4 points. If the number of points is equal or no goal is kicked or try obtained, the match shall be drawn.' March 1893 RFU & WRU raise try from two to three points. The value of the conversion is also changed from three to two points, meaning that the value of a converted try remains five points. IRFB adopt this scheme the following year. March 1905 Field goal is abolished.

'A try equals 3 points. A goal from a try (in which case the try shall not count) equals 5 points. A dropped goal (except from a mark or penalty kick) equals 4 points. Goal from a mark or penalty kick equals 3 points.' A field goal was scored when the ball was kicked between the posts during open play. March 1948 'A try 3 points. A goal from a try (in which case the try shall not count) 5 points. A goal from a free kick or penalty kick 3 points. A dropped goal otherwise obtained 3 points.' 1958/59 - It never ceases to amaze me how many different versions of the 'history of scoring' there seem to be in various books etc. The above table represents my current understanding. The main problems associated with recording the history of scoring results primarily from the fact that each home union originally had its own laws although the RFU's laws were usually adopted, there was no International Board until 1890 and the IB's laws were not used for non-internationals until 1930. See laws NB.

In the table above I've shown the points for a try/conversion as accumulative, this is for ease of comparison reasons. Strictly speaking a separate score for a goal after the try was scored was not introduced by the IB until 1979 and prior to that the 'goal from a try' substituted any points awarded for the try itself e.g. using that method you would show 1891-1892 as 2 points for a try and 5 points for the conversion goal (converted try would be worth 5 points. Notes: 1. In June 1871, the first RFU law stated that a game would be decided by the number of 'goals' scored only. 2. In March 1875, a proposal for a points scoring system and another that three tries should equal a goal were rejected. 3. In November 1875, a game was decided by whichever team scored the most goals and if that was equal, trys. In 1877 this was modified so that if a try was converted to a goal then it was only counted as a goal. 4.

In October 1886, a points system was introduced which followed the Cheltenham college system. 3 for a goal and 1 for a try. But if a try was converted, 3 points were awarded for the conversion (goal) which replaced the 1 point awarded for the try i.e. the team scored 1 point for a try and 3 for a converted try (goal). In the table above I've shown the points as accumulative e.g. 1886 a converted try (goal) = 3 points (1 + 2). 5. Fair catch or mark introduced in 1888. 6. In 1888, a free kick awarded as a penalty for off-side could be made into a goal. 7. The International Board in 1889 (which England had not yet joined) stated that a goal from a try was awarded 4 points, a dropped goal or one from a fair catch 3 points and a try 2 points.They declined to award any points for a penalty goal.

The dispute between England and the IB was referred to arbitrators who decided the Laws then existing in England should be adopted for that year, with the exception that there should be no penalty of a free kick if the ball was knocked forward from a throw in from touch. England then joined the IB (1890) so things got a little less complicated for internationals from that point onwards. 8. Scotland proposed in 1900 that the penalty goal should only equal 2 points but the proposal was rejected. 9. The change of a try from 2 to 3 was made by the RFU and the Welsh union in 1893 but the IRB adopted it in 1894. 10. In 1905, England proposed and Wales supported that the points for a drop goal be reduced but this was rejected by Scotland and Ireland and so it was rejected. 11. Field goals, which started at 3 points were changed to 4 points and stayed at that value for nearly 60 years (1891 to 1948), before finally being reduced by a point. 12.

A try was increased by the IRFB to 4 points for a trial period of 2 years in the Northern hemisphere and was formally adopted in 1973. 13. Try also includes the 'penalty try' where a try is awarded if unfair play by the defending side avoided an almost certain try (same value as try). 14. The goal from mark ceased to exist when the free-kick clause was introduced 1977-78. Goals from marks were rare but valid scoring actions counting for three points until the free-kick clause was introduced to the Laws in September 1977. Before that date a mark for a fair catch could be made anywhere on the field. The player making the catch could opt to kick a goal. Since 1977 a mark can only be claimed by a defender inside his 22, with a free kick to follow. So even if a kicker had the distance to land a goal from his 22, it would not count. Some definitions: Try. When an attacking player is first to ground the ball in the opponents’ in-goal, a try is scored. Penalty Try.

If a player would probably have scored a try but for foul play by an opponent, a penalty try is awarded between the goal posts. Originally included in the laws in 1888. Conversion Goal. When a player scores a try it gives the player’s team the right to attempt to score a goal by taking a kick at goal; this also applies to a penalty try. This kick is a conversion kick: a conversion kick can be a place kick or a drop-kick. Penalty Goal. A player scores a penalty goal by kicking a goal from a penalty kick. Dropped Goal. A player scores a dropped goal by kicking a goal from a drop-kick in general play. The team awarded a free kick cannot score a dropped goal until the ball next becomes dead, or until an opponent has played or touched it, or has tackled the ball-carrier. This restriction applies also to a scrum taken instead of a free kick. A Beginners’s Guide to Rugby Union : Scoring points Try - 5 points Try signal A try is scored when the ball is grounded over the opponents’ goal line in the in-goal area. A penalty try can be awarded if a player would have scored a try but for foul play by the opposition.

Penalty - 3 points Penalty signal When awarded a penalty after an infringement by the opposition, a team may choose to kick at goal. Conversion - 2 points After scoring a try, that team can attempt to add two further points by kicking the ball over the crossbar and between the posts from a place in line with where the try was scored. Drop goal - 3 points A drop goal is scored when a player kicks for goal in open play by dropping the ball onto the ground and kicking it on the half-volley. Time to reduce the points awarded for penalties and field goals in rugby | The Roar I hate to bring this up again. Really I do, but anyone who I have spoken to during this past Test series has been disappointed. Not with the score line or that the Wallabies won, but with the spectacle. So, here it is: has the game of rugby outgrown its scoring system? It’s a basic rule these days. Find yourself in the opposition’s half, draw a penalty and there is no hesitation in taking the three points. With kickers these days nailing up to 80 percent of their attempts and with territory at a premium, it’s an attractive option and has been for the past decade.

Don’t get a penalty? There’s always the drop goal. The question is: How did this come about? Why did the three point option become so attractive? Anyone over the age of 25 remembers the days when running rugby was the standard. So what’s changed? Well, everything. Defence has improved markedly. The rules have changed. Attacking plays are no longer conducted at a 45 degree angle. It’s simply harder to score tries. Teams have gone one of two ways – work out how to get around the problem of scoring five pointers, or rely on the boot. Teams like New Zealand don’t need to rely on kicks. With Dan Carter they have that option, but usually they possess the attacking class to run a few across the stripe as well – just ask Ireland. But for those sides without such reliably damaging backlines, the points on offer from field and penalty goals is simply too good to resist. Saturday was a classic example. Despite a return to Sydney’s rugby home, on a sunny afternoon in front of a packed house, the first half was dour – an all too familiar ‘divisible by 3′ score line the result. As soon as the Welsh crossed in the second half, however, it opened up.

Suddenly the home side were down by four and a try was needed. Cue the best 15 minutes of Test footy from the Wallabies this year. It was an attacking period that reminded rugby fans of the glory days. By and large, the game has changed. It will not change back by itself. It needs some help. Change the rules and the sides will work their way around it, but change the incentives, and the rest will take care of itself. Increasing the worth of a try has been done before, both in 1971 and again in 1992. The IRB then faced the same issue we have now – they wanted to see more tries. The sceptics will say that increasing the value of a try will see sides deliberately give away penalties to avoid conceding. That’s a valid point. But then, why not encourage more use of the yellow card? I think that rather than increasing the points for a try, the award for a penalty kick should be changed to two points. The same for a field goal. South Africa has gone a step further, and – with the support of the IRB – introduced a new scoring system in their Varsity Cup.

The competition awarded 2 points for a penalty and 3 points for a conversion, effectively meaning a converted try was worth four times as much as a shot at goal. So, we have a working model and the stats suggest the negative impact is minimal. While penalties were up by 11% on the previous year, tries were up by 25%, and most importantly attempts at penalty goal were down by over 70% – with no increase in yellow cards. This may well be different if trialled at senior level. But, as rugby loses even more ground on the rival codes, anything that could improve the game as a spectacle is worth a shot. Scotty Scott, Good analysis and not a bad option, but I don’t mind the time gap after a try. Allows the crowd and team to celebrate a bit! If the scoring system works to reduce penalties attempts and increase try attempts, then the time lost for scoring tries will be offset by the time gained by not going for the penalty. I’d prefer to see a more strict limitation on the amount of time for a penalty attempt than reducing the time lost after a try is scored. The other major time loss is in re-setting of scrums.

Fix both of these up and we will have a much better product. Scott Allen At the very least I’d like to see time off once a try is scored and not restarted until the ensuing kickoff. Wouldn’t work the same way for penalty attempts as if you miss the ball is still live. suckerforred Like this idea better. Who? What’s the problem with the current system? 3 points for a droppie’s perfect – it’s a real skill. It’s disappointing to see droppies used as last resorts (the reason why Bernie’s droppie was better than Wilko’s was that he wasn’t hiding in the pocket – he was in the line and the droppie was just one of several options available), but that does’t mean that they’re irrelevant or unworthy. 3 points for a penalty’s right, too. If it’s directly in front of the posts, then the infringing team deserve to lose the 3! If it’s out wide or miles back, then any kicker who can slot it has earned the 3 points for his team. We MUST retain conversions. It’s a way of rewarding a team for holding the middle of the field.

It rewards players who chase the length of the field on a breakaway try to ensure the conversion’s taken from wider out, which is something that we should appreciate. I’ve no problem with 2 or 3 for a conversion, with 5 or 6 for a try, with the total value being 7-8. As for time in play, I don’t see why we can’t have time off between tries and conversions (2 minute limit), beween indicating a penalty kick (be it for touch or the posts) and either the formation of the lineout or striking of the ball off the tee. As it stands, the forward pack generally does this anyway, and also at scrums. So I don’t see why we can’t blow time off. It also gives the ref more time to speak to captains, and more time for Channel Nein to throw in ads. JimmyC The scoring system is fine. These things just run in cycles. The law I would like to change is the drop goal one. A missed drop goal that goes dead should be the same as a kick in general play that goes dead. Scrum from where the ball was kicked against the kicking team Barbarian Wow… have never heard that suggestion before.

It makes some sense, though it would eliminate one of my favourite spectacles in rugby- the last minute conversion to win the game, with the opposition charging off the line to stop it. My suggestion is this- penalty goals should be worth 3 points if the penalty is given inside the 22, and 2 points if it is given outside it. Teams will still be punished for infringing in the red zone, but it should encourage more teams to kick for touch, especially on penalties that are 40m out and on the sideline. Ben I’m not sure that reducing the points on offer for longer-distance penalties is the answer. My logic is this: kicking the ball over from distance (I’m thinking of Frans Steyn as an example) requires a lot more skill than from 20 metres out. We shouldn’t dismiss the theatre that a good kick from distance provides, e.g. Steyn from his own half against the ABs in 2009, Beale vs. the Boks in Bloemfontein. I understand the impulse to make rugby more spectator-friendly, but I think we need to be mindful of not removing an important skill from the game.

wiggety Frans Steyn and his ilk can go jump in the lake. Yep, they are highly skilled, and congratulations to them, but so are synchronised swimmers. I wouldn’t want to see rugby games won by the team with the most skilled synchronised swimmer, anymore than I like seeing games won by the team with the most skilled kicker, especially if it means penalties from their own half rather than kicks for touch. I am all for the idea of 3 points in the 22, 2 points out of it. Or you could take it further, and give only 1 point from past the 10m line. Points for kicking should never be an end in itself, but only exist to reward good running rugby (ie conversion if try in center field), and punish negativity preventing running rugby (ie penalties close to the try line). For the same reasons, drop goals should only be 1 point so that it is only a rare tactical tool (eg for a tie breaker or increase a lead from say 7 to 8 points). Matthew Bates Picture this… Attacking team requires 3 points to WIN the game, time up on the clock. Defending team infringes in huge ruck ON the 22.

Ball cant be sighted. Good luck ref! Scotty PS I agree with keeping the field goal to 3pts, and my preference, like Timmsy is to have conversions and penalties both worth 2 points. I would also like to see a more straightforward system implemented for the use of yellow cards (eg every 4 defensive infringements is an automatic card). Paul absolutely agree. Something like in basketball where you have a number of team penalties then a penalty goal or the next penalty a yellow card. You could also record number of individual penalties conceded and if they reach a certain number, sideline the player for the rest of the match. It will open the game up and take away the management of discipline from the referee to the team. If the team gives away too many penalties I think the captain will be having words with his team. It’s like in the military, one member of the team stuffs up the whole team gets punished (push ups, fireman carries etc). Instead of the commander discipline his troops, their peers sort out discipline (harsh language and worse). Rob Edwards Here’s one I like.

Reduce penalty goal to 2 points BUT the restart (if kick successful) is a scrum to the non-offending team at place of infringement Matthew Bates Picture this… An attacking team with a very dominant scrum receives penalty right out in front from some scrum infringement. Kick the 2 pts, get another scrum, get another penalty, kick the 2 pts, get another scrum……. Groundhog Day, hardly promoting running rugby. Bally Moore I can see the benefits you highlight in your suggestion for no conversions, but reckon the conversion adds an element of intrigue to the game. A potential extra bonus after a try scored (2 celebrations for the fans), the excitement of a conversion from the sideline on the wrong side, a reward for scoring under the posts, and incentive for defense to keep chasing a try scorer to force the conversion wide. The mathematics of what is required in the last few minutes … a try… a converted try… I dont know… ultimately i’d like to see players / captains / coaches take on a little more responsibility to play positive rugby, but as you say, high stakes typically renders that simply idealistic. Roscoe Tims Why don’t we just move the posts closer together?

That would make kicks more difficult and reduce the incentive to go for goal. Scott Allen The simplest ideas are often the best. I like this one. Davo The great thing about this is that teams still get rewarded for good field position, if you’re right in front the posts being a bit closer together doesn’t really matter (except for Giteau). Kiap If they are going to alter the posts (possible, but problematic due to the all the work involved cutting them to size for every field), another option could be to move them back to the dead ball line, American-football stylee. This would add extra distance to all kicks for goal, making the tryline comparitively closer. Also takes the posts out of plays on the try line. vidiot I think that penalties should have to pass under the crossbar, and one of the opposition players should be allowed to stop it. He could wear a slightly different jersey and even gloves.

wiggety We could also raise the bar ;) Gumby I like the suggestion really though I must admit, there have been times where that final conversion attempt on the bell has just about as much high drama as the whole of the game before it; e.g., O’Connor’s kick in HK a few years back.There have been quite a few such historic moments over the years. Would it also mean more drawn games, whereby the equal number of tries were scored resulted in more games being drawn (especially in poor conditions like we saw in Newcastle)? Not sure about that one but it is worth thinking on because like Soccer few people are satisfied when you don’t have a winner. Redslug Great article and I too loved the history and how many changes have occurred. I like the idea of more tries, but not at the expense of ball in the hand time, good point. I do believe there would be few forwards out there that would not be to quick to embrace your concept. The time the kicker takes to attempt conversion, the players that have put the effort, tend to use this time to suck in the air, recuperate and allow the blood to settle.

As a female spectator, avid physique aficionado and vocal supporter I would not like to see the devolvement of the Forward’s physique into a Back’s shape to cope with the speed. Speed in exchange for kilo for kilo grunt and drive would make the forward pack into a Rugby League pack, ridiculous! I would like the front rowers that look fit and big to stay that way as it adds to the spectacle of Rugby and my entertainment and enjoyment. Otherwise an great conversation and article thanks Scott wiggety It’s the existence and importance of scrums, lineouts, rucks, and mauls that ensure the various Union forward physiques, not the speed of the game. League forwards are all the same because the only difference between them and the backs is hit ups. Lee Enfield To keep the ball in play longer, the time is stopped from: The moment a try is scored The moment the ref indicates a penalty goal will be attempted. Time is resumed the upon the first player touching the ball after the kick to restart. The kicker still has 90 seconds to take the kick, to prevent deliberate slowing down the game.

Davo An in between option would be to force the kicker to take a drop kick for the conversion (as is currently the case in 7’s). It takes less time than a place kick but still some time to show replays and for the supporters to celebrate (I actually think this is an incredibly important consideration in terms of the spectacle). I would imagine there will be less successful conversions so you could maybe change the points to 6 for the try and 1 for the conversion while you’re at it. That way a try is guaranteed to be worth TWO penalties / field goals. Now that I think about it we could do the same for penalties, drop kicks from right in front have a pretty high success rate but we will get less of the 50m speculator penalty shots. Teams still get the 3 points they deserve for the other team being dickheads. I’m not so sure of this option though. Pedro I was thinking place kicks for conversions, drop kicks for penalties. Dave No we shouldn’t change it. Every scoring system will have its advantages and flaws which you wont know until they are implemented which realistically will not happen any time soon.

Seems like a complete moot point… There are plenty of guys from 1870 with you on that Dave Yeah but in 1870 the sport wasn’t professional with media contracts being negotiated years in advance. Since the sport became professional the points have not changed and such a fundamental change would be exponentially more difficult to achieve now rugby is a business. What circumstances do you envisage where all the rugby governing bodies worldwide as well as sponsors and media contract holders agree to such changes? ChargerWA If a team infiringes in the 22, the penalty kick is only worth 1 point, but they have to restart from in goal. If they infringe outside the 22 the penalty kick is worth 2 and they restart from the 22. Rewards the team with field position and gives them possession back in the danger zone to remove the temptation for infriging negatively. At least that was what I was going to say until I read your idea of making try’s worth 7, a much better idea. Piggy I’d like to see kicks at goals given the same rules as field kicks.

If unsuccessful and it goes dead in goal it comes back to the place it was kicked as a scrum to the none kicking team. Leave the points the same, start binning people for infringing within the 22… Patrick I’m not sure what I would like, some really good ideas there, Scott’s has the virtue of avoiding NFL-esque technicalities. I am sure that this site produces some damn fine rugby reporting/news/commentary, Scott Allen’s posts being always a prime example. In the forum a few people appear actually upset that Fairfax might go behind a paywall or disappear completely or something, I can’t work out why anyone cares. The only issue for me is how sites like this can generate some kind of reliable earnings to ensure that they operate on a sustainable basis! HarpinOnRugby Super article though I have “throwing baby out with bathwater” concerns about the 7point try. Might meet with some resistance from the placekicker’s union and it will diminish their art form considerably. Remember…we normally only see them go for difficult kicks from the touchline when it’s a con from a try in the corner, and I reckon the game would suffer without that skill.

A fair compromise would be a 6-1 split in the try instead of 5-2, but unfortunately the Yanks have first dibs on the that! Still bravo on the piece, plenty of food for thought there! Ben Let’s think about the secondary effects of these changes for a second. The most obvious one is encouraging cynical defensive play, especially offside and in the ruck. I think most people are aware of this effect, and it is a question of whether you think the trade-off between a higher penalty count and more tries is worthwhile. What about the type of rugby that is played? I think it’s important not to treat ‘scoring tries’ and ‘running rugby’ as synonymous. I don’t necessarily think that spectators want to see more tries, but rather they want to see the ball in play – and in motion, not stuck at the bottom of a ruck – more often. My concern is that the set-piece (particularly mauling from a line out) would become increasingly important. I like a good maul as much as the next man, but I don’t think a game full of stoppages and attacks from set-pieces is going to bring all the boys to the yard.

Having said that, the proof will very much be in the pudding. I am looking forward to seeing what the future holds. Brumby Jack One of the biggest time wasting issues is try scorers throwing, or even kicking, the ball away after they score in the post try celebration so having a ‘shot clock’ would be good and throwing the ball away would only penalise your own side. Why not make it like NFL and have the conversion – drop kick only – from right in front no matter where along the try line it was scored. Lindommer ANY buggersising around with the ball at a breakdown, or try scoring, should result in an immediate 10m penalty. If teams gave up 10m at the restart they’d soon stop throwing, or kicking, the ball away after scoring tries. DrewB The points system HAS to change! I propose: A try to the Wallabies – 10 points A try to the All Blacks – 1 point NH Side penalty goal – 1 point England drop goal – negative 3 points All other scoring can remain as is. robbo We must keep the conversions. I agree with the point about how many games are won after the siren this way.

Maybe 3 points if it is within the sideline 10 metre line (narrowing the posts by a metre would add to this)? How about reducing the number of offenses that draw a straight arm? Is a prop missing his bind worth the same penalty as foul play – this might reduce the number of endless resets as one team looks to draw a scrum penalty. Every change will have unintended consequences, but change should be tried. I can remember when a team kicking to touch on a penalty did not get the throw. That was one change that worked really well. robbo Also as most tries go to the video ref, the post try restart restrictions are not going to work. The scoring team will just go to the half way line while they wait. johnny-boy On the opposite side I have often wondered what would happen if you increased penalty points to say 7 as well. At the moment, players and teams seem happy to give away a penalty rather than possession and the possibility of a try by cheating, tho admittedly risking a yellow card at times. Rugby being what it is these days, being led by the kiwis of course, tends to be in some players minds, a contest of who can cheat the best.

If you make cheating a potentially heavy cost, less players will ‘try it on’ perhaps. It might be a cleaner, fairer more free flowing contest. I don’t think it would become sterile as players would soon adjust to playing smarter and with more discipline. It’s not usually a team ‘constructing’ a penalty, tho they may try to put enough pressure on to force one, it is usually the other team negatively pushing their luck hoping to get away with it which kills the spirit and flow of the game. Some teams might spend the whole game trying to force penalties rather than score tries but I think the players would eventually get sick to death of such a negative approach to the game so it should self correct. It might be better than a yellow card and one team going to one man down. In Super XV and tests, being one man down usually means the game as a competitive exciting spectacle is over, except for bumbling incompetent teams like the Welsh of course. Big Fella I think we could take a lesson from other sports. When developments in Golf technology (clubs and balls) meant that courses were being monstered, the R&A mandated changes to save the game, and thousands of golf courses.

They restricted the ball’s distance capability and introduced new restrictions on clubs Athletics had to shorten and add width to the Javelin when too many throwers through it onto the running track. Today, the rugby ball travels too far in the air, enabling most teams to have kickers who can kick goals from around 55m out. Not too long ago these goals could only be kicked by freaks or at altitude. The game of rugby has changed as a result of the great scoring chance that comes with a penalty anywhere in opposition half, or sometimes even further from goal. Teams kick away from their try line because ‘bad things happen’ in your own half and the game offers referees a multitude of options to award penalties. Today the reward of running the ball is grossly outweighed by the risk of conceding a penalty goal and 3 points. If the rugby ball was restricted from travelling any further than say 40m in the air, I’d suggest this would have a massive positive impact on the game as a whole, and scoring could perhaps stay the way it is currently. saulih I love to watch guys that can slot it from 55mm out – remember you not only have to make the distance but also get it between the sticks.

I would think that would extra incentive enough for a defending team to not infringe. The real issue is purposeful infringements closer to the try line. That is the danger area that defending teams are rationalizing the intentional penalty versus continued defense. IMO more of these penalties should be deemed cynical and have the ref reach for his pocket. 14 men for 10 is a big disincentive. ian Great read. But I reckon the points system doesn’t need to change. The objectives of change in the game seem to be 1. Make it easier for try-oriented teams to win games and 2. Reduce the amount of time spent on penalty kick to-ing and fro-ing. A rule change might do that: if a penalty shot is taken and missed, option of a lineout adjacent to where the kick was taken, with the throw to the defending team. Like I said, it MIGHT work. I think the main issue with all of these ideas is the law of unintended consequences, such as where defending teams ‘game’ the rule change with increased infringements etc. murph Penalty = 2 points and team awarded penalty gets free kick/scrum from point of penalty no matter the outcome of the shot at goal.

That will stop cynical infringements to prevent a try murph Or, of a try is scored whilst advantage is being played, it’s worth 7 and a kick to come JimmyC Great idea. It pisses me off watching a game and the defending team offends multiple times (advantage called but penalty not blown) then all is forgotten if a try is scored. The ref should still be going for the pocket but they never do. muppet The one thing that has worked really well in recent times is the bonus point system. How about awarding bonus points DURING the game? e.g the 3rd try worth double. Zeno At the level of principle I’m concerned about making adjustments to the laws to try to get an effect for spectators at the senior/pro/elite level, when 99-point-something per cent of rugby is played by, and for the challenge of, amateur players. That said, I’m totally behind the idea that the laws should be geared to encourage try-scoring efforts and keep goals of all kinds as secondary scores. And I too would like to see more than 30 minutes of play in provincial and international matches. I think we need more consideration of what offences warrant full penalties and what the proper sanctions are.

Some time ago rugby league introduced the ‘differential penalty’ — no kicks at goal allowed for penalties for scrum offences. There’s merit in that idea. Rugby’s recent ELVs and short-arm penalties come to mind. Some shit simply isn’t bad enough to be punished with three points on the scoreboard; losing 30 metres of field position is the right price. One change I would like to see to penalty shots: no taking the ball back upfield for a better angle. You can’t walk off the spot for a tap-kick, you can’t move infield to give a wider angle for a touch-finder… so why should goal-kickers get the break? Take the kick from the spot of the offence; if it’s too close to the goal line, that’s a sign your captain should be calling for a scrum or a planned move from a tap. newrebel Great suggestion! I 100% agree, and for one reason that overrides all other factors. The ‘attacking’ strategy of looking for a penalty needs to be erased from the game. Once again, great suggestion! newrebel oops, sorry, only read page one.

I like the 3 point conversion and 2 point penalty and drop goal. Need the time after tries for beers:) Or can’t they just stop the clock for conversions and penalties?! saulih I do think that the importance of goal kicking should be upheld – if purely to preserve some of the roots of the game. I might be the minority here BUT when the goal kickers are good, I don’t mind watching them take their shots. How many games have seesawed back and forth due to goalkicks. Some of those games have been quite a spectacle. Now when they are bad… that is a different story… maybe points awarded should be reduced for a goal kicker if they continually miss ie after two misses they only get 1 pt for a penalty goal. I do like the idea of stopping the clock at the time of the conversion (not penalty kicks) – but giving them a 90 sec shot clock. Time would restart at kickoff. Tight5 I reckon a penalty kick within your attacking 50m should be 2 points and if u can slot anything over 50m you get 3 Big Fella Houston we have a problem.

Of late there have been more goals scored in Football World Cup Finals than tries in Rugby World Cup Finals. If we wish to leave the scoring the same, then changes to rules (or interpretations by referees) surely must come in to our game. Craige There is nothing wrong with the current points system. The real problem for me is the complexity of the laws. I feel 2 things can be done to solve this problem. 1 Simplify or eliminated really technical laws. 2. Plug the the match officials mics in to the Ground PA system and have the refs explain there calls when they are awarded. This point alone would encourage new people to the game hand enable them pick up hand understand the laws. I always fined it funny when professional commentators are scratching there heads and wondering what just happened. Phil I think there needs to be a physical limit on where penalties can be kicked from, such as within 30m of the posts. The penalty should be in recognition that the opposition has done something to disrupt your ability to score a try, a hard arguement to make when you are 50m out. If you are outside of that 30 m distance, the option should be kick for touch and take your chances with an attacking lineout.

murph To reduce rugby union's penalty goal points, or not? | The Roar Wallabies Fixtures 2017 news Though it comes up every year without fail, the annual debate about what penalty goals should be worth seems to have popped up earlier in 2012 than ever. The motivation for it all is quite simple; there are too many penalty goals in rugby, and teams that score tries shouldn’t be getting beaten by teams that don’t. Ultimately, rugby fans just want to see more tries. On that count, it’s hard to argue. And in order to fix this apparent issue of disparity between the value of penalty goals, drop goals, tries, and conversions, every man and his dog has aired a theory on how many points each is worth. My new column colleague, former Brumby and Wallaby Clyde Rathbone, had his two cents’ worth just last week. “The change would encourage attack as a first priority and it would negate the effectiveness of teams who deliberately slow the pace of a game,” Clyde told us, on the theory of upping conversions to three points, and dropping penalty goals back to two. And maybe it will.

In fact, it seems it already is, if the early observations from an IRB-sanctioned trial are any indication. In South Africa’s Varsity Cup , the top level of rugby for tertiary students in the Republic, the IRB gave the competition special permission to tinker. For their 2012 season, which is already under way, conversions are worth three points while penalties and drop-goals are now only worth two. After the first month of competition, the early conclusion is that the swap has had the intended effect. Attempted penalty goals are down, while the number of penalties awarded remains about the same. The number of tries scored is up, as are the total points scored. Excellent. More than anything, I’m just glad to see a new idea being trialled at a relatively meaningful level. Other theories and systems are thrown in to the air every day. Some say leave penalties alone, but increase conversions. I’ve previously suggested increasing the value of tries would have the same effect as decreasing penalties. Others have even proposed that we increase tries to six points, but decrease conversions to one. All of them work on some levels, but fall away at others.

The most common belief is that decreasing the value of penalty goals will only lead to an increase in the number of infringements in the defending team’s own 22, and this is my opinion too. Under the current methods of scoring and refereeing, it seems a no-brainer what would eventuate. Picture this. You’re an openside flanker, who for the sake of illustration, we’ll call Richie McRoar. You’re defending on your own line, in a tight game, and the attacking team are up to their 10th phase, with a try a matter of when, not if. Before your eyes in the breakdown, the ball drops on the ground and is at the bottom of the ruck. Knowing that putting your hand on the ball is illegal and that you will be penalised for it, you also realise that conceding only two points now for a penalty is a far lesser evil than conceding seven possible points for a converted try. As such you “take one for the team” and play the ball with your hands. Is it really fair that you can deliberately infringe to stop a likely try, knowing that further punishment isn’t likely? It’s a cynical, deliberate infringement; the very definition of a professional foul.

But it matters not in the wash up of things, because in conceding the penalty you’ve kept your team within touch of the opposition with no major consequence. And therein lies the answer. It doesn’t require any tinkering of points at all; the current points system is just fine as it is. The answer, friends, is in the rectangular shape of a small, yellow piece of cardboard in the referee’s pocket. Simply put, the International Rugby Board and its refereeing body just need to tell its whistleblowers to deal with these calculated infringements with a more liberal use of the yellow card. If that same scenario from above plays out then you, Richie McRoar, are now being shown a yellow card and you’ve conceded three points. The attacking team – as they should – get the advantage of playing against 14 men for the next ten minutes. And the message is received loud and clear that cynical, deliberate infringements have no further place in the game. In my view, all these theories and hypotheses about new point systems actually miss the point (if you’ll pardon the pun) of what is truly trying to be achieved here.

Reducing the value of penalties may push attacking teams to go for more tries, but it still doesn’t prevent the defending team giving away penalties. The Varsity Cup figures show this is the case; yes, tries are up and shots for penalty goal are down. But the number of penalties hasn’t really changed. In fact, it’s slightly increased. Therefore, the points system isn’t really the problem. The problem is that penalties are still being conceded, and this what we should actually be trying to reduce. So leave the points as they are. But send the refs out with instructions to punish own-22 infringements with the yellow card. The incentive to attack remains, as does the disincentive to infringe, only now this disincentive to infringe is coupled with a real risk of leaving your defensive line one man short, and incurring the wrath of an angry coach. More yellow cards will in time decrease the number of penalties given within kicking range, as attitudes toward line-defence discipline from coaches and players change. Ultimately, fewer penalties means more ball-in-play time, which literally equates to more rugby for the viewing dollar. This, after all, is what this debate should really be trying to accomplish.

Brett McKay Brett McKay is one of The Roar's good news stories and has been a rugby and cricket expert for the site since July 2009. Brett also writes for ESPNscrum.com, is a commentator for ABC Grandstand radio and on Fox Sports’ NRC live stream commentary, and has written magazine columns and articles in Australia and New Zealand. He tweets from @BMcSport . Game Play & Scoring | What is Rugby? Game Play & Scoring Game Play & Scoring Goal The goal of rugby is to move the ball forward by running with the ball or kicking. The team which scores the most points (see below), wins the game. Play A match begins with a kick-off from mid-field which must travel at least 10 metres. Play is continuous and free-flowing. There are no “downs”, no designated offensive and defensive teams, no blocking and no automatic “turn-overs” of posession. The ball usually marks the offside line. The ball may be advanced by running or kicking. Passing with the hands cannot be forward but can be lateral or backward. Players without the ball cannot be tackled or interfered with in any way (this includes a player who has just kicked the ball).

When a player is tackled to the ground, the ball must be released and the player must move a way from it; play continues without stoppage. A “ruck” or informal scrum (see below) forms over a tackled player without stoppage of play. Scoring Their are 4 ways in which a team may score points in rugby: Try – Five points when the ball is touched to the ground (“grounded”) in the opponents end zone. Conversion – Two points for a kick through the uprights after a try is scored. The kick is taken on a line (parallel to the touch-line; see above) which passes through the place where the ball was grounded. Thus, grounding the ball “between the posts” makes for an easier conversion attempt than if the ball is grounded near the side-line. Drop Goal – Three points for ‘drop kicking’ the ball through the opponent’s uprights at anytime during play. Penalty Kick – Three points for place-kicking the ball through the opponent’s uprights following an infraction by the opposition. Penalty kicks must be taken from the point of the infraction. Further Reading

Question: How many points are scored for a penalty goal in a game of rugby league?
Answer: Two