The UAFC

jacothelad wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 12:03 pm When I started playing if you were tackled in possession into touch, your team retained the throw-in as you were not responsible for the stoppage. That would be an interesting situation today.

But lineouts were more of a lottery in them thar days. No lifting and while the throwing team might know roughly where the ball was going, the opposition often just put their tallest player in the front third of the lineout and were able to contest far more effectively than these days.

Ball was usually tapped back, often not cleanly and scrum half was often reduced to collecting a bouncing ball with the problems that caused. Mauls from lineouts were unheard of because there was much less certainty about who would win the ball, and catching it was far less common than tapping it back off the top.

When I started playing it was usually the winger who threw in, not the hooker. I was that winger.

Personally I would be in favour of the removal of the place kick (penalty + conversion ) thus to score you would have to drop kick .

It would speed the game up considerably -- no more waiting for the Tee to come on -- no more watching kickers routine eyeing the posts-- eyeing the ball -swing arms --eye the posts --eye the ball --swing arms -- wiggle hips -- swing arms --step up and kick -- or variations of that boring routine -- no more -- silence for the kicker -- I ask you -- why should you be silent of a penalty kick -- do the opposition deserve a break -- its a custom which defies logic -- since possibly 50% of penalties are undeserved ie awarded for forcing the opposition to foul by illegal means. ( go to ground by boring -- killing the release rather than playing the ball + the one eyed ref situation when attacking within 5 metres etc).

rumncoke wrote:Personally I would be in favour of the removal of the place kick (penalty + conversion ) thus to score you would have to drop kick .

It would speed the game up considerably -- no more waiting for the Tee to come on -- no more watching kickers routine eyeing the posts-- eyeing the ball -swing arms --eye the posts --eye the ball --swing arms -- wiggle hips -- swing arms --step up and kick -- or variations of that boring routine -- no more -- silence for the kicker -- I ask you -- why should you be silent of a penalty kick -- do the opposition deserve a break -- its a custom which defies logic -- since possibly 50% of penalties are undeserved ie awarded for forcing the opposition to foul by illegal means. ( go to ground by boring -- killing the release rather than playing the ball + the one eyed ref situation when attacking within 5 metres etc).

Just out of interest would you still keep the "weighting" of a try of 5 points and drop goal 3? Or adjust the amount of points scored for a try?

Sent from my I3312 using Tapatalk

An interesrting question

Penalty/conversion ( ie virtually unopposed kick ) 3 points
Open play drop goal 4 points
try 5 points

Why -- it might be a way of reducing the five metre lift carry barge- a -way- over sessions

Thus try and conversion would be 8 points ( but the conversion may not be as easy ) and it would still require 3 penalties to defeat a try and conversion and a drop goal would still be sufficient to defeat a penalty.

NB a tap and pass from a penalty would not qualify as open play ( ie the ball or player must be in contact with an opponent after the penalty and before the attempted kick ) ie tap tackle and recycle before the drop goal attempt .

An open play drop goal maybe attempted from any place ( worthy of an attempt ) and still be a better option than a penalty .

It may also encourage the out half to lie deeper and bring back an element of the game identified in the name but neglected in open play a scoring kick ( Rugby Football ) most points now come from penalties and conversions not open play.

That is a rather hurried response with the justification being identified after the pointing being identified

jacothelad wrote: ↑Wed May 04, 2022 12:03 pm When I started playing if you were tackled in possession into touch, your team retained the throw-in as you were not responsible for the stoppage. That would be an interesting situation today.

Whaaaaat? Is that true? What a mental rule. Wingers would just be sturdy lads who would walk up the sideline, get tackled into touch, throw short, recycle and repeat all the way to glory. A "throwback" to the days when lineouts were a genuine 50/50 contest I suppose

A perfectly executed drop goal by Pollard today at precisely the right time. Extended the Boks lead to 13 knowing there was little chance of ABs scoring two converted tries.