Have we created a sport where it is too easy to score points?

[Dunbar]

So, that is the question. Have we created a sport where it is too easy to attack and score points - has the attacking side been given too many advantages.

The NRL regular season has ended.  Here are a few stats.

- There were 204 regular season games:

- Average points per game was 46.

- There were only 2 games all year with under 20 points scored.

- Almost 4 in 10 games (39%) saw 50 or more points

- 2 in 10 games (21%) saw 60 or more points scored.

I enjoy watching great tries but I also think we have created a version of the sport where the attacking side gets too many advantages and the attritional element of Rugby League, where points are earned and defenses have a chance to win a game as much as the attack, has all but disappeared.

I am sure we can get into the detail of how and why these points are scored - but I guess my first question is, am I the only one that cares about this, are the high scoring games great for most people?

[Damien]

I think this question has been asked various times over the last 30 years when with rule or interpretation changes the balance has shifted too much in favour of the attacking team.

For me there is a balance. I generally dont like high scoring games where tries are scored too easily. Sometimes this is because of poor quality by teams but it is also the rules contributing to it and the influence of the referee (and whatever interpretations are being followed at that time).

Of course there are the odd exceptions but for me an 18-12 type game with great defence is preferable to a high scoring game where tries are being scored way too easily.

[RigbyLuger]

No, that's basketball.

[corvusxiii]

For me it's not so much too many points as one sided games. 10% off your game and it's a bloodbath. A situation where quite often the Ref doesn't help. 

[Anita Bath]

42 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

So, that is the question. Have we created a sport where it is too easy to attack and score points - has the attacking side been given too many advantages.

The NRL regular season has ended.  Here are a few stats.

- There were 204 regular season games:

- Average points per game was 46.

- There were only 2 games all year with under 20 points scored.

- Almost 4 in 10 games (39%) saw 50 or more points

- 2 in 10 games (21%) saw 60 or more points scored.

I enjoy watching great tries but I also think we have created a version of the sport where the attacking side gets too many advantages and the attritional element of Rugby League, where points are earned and defenses have a chance to win a game as much as the attack, has all but disappeared.

I am sure we can get into the detail of how and why these points are scored - but I guess my first question is, am I the only one that cares about this, are the high scoring games great for most people?

The last round was even worse than average

Average points per game more than 57

Average winning margin more than 23

Only 1 game settled by a converted try or less.

At least the wallabies game was a contest ( I am counting to 10 with my tin hat on).

[JohnM]

7 minutes ago, corvusxiii said:

For me it's not so much too many points as one sided games. 10% off your game and it's a bloodbath. A situation where quite often the Ref doesn't help. 

Not convinced, especially regarding requiring the ref. to help the losing side. 

[corvusxiii]

18 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Not convinced, especially regarding requiring the ref. to help the losing side. 

I can see that my post could be read that way but it's not what I meant. It's more about a side losing by many points and whilst the strong side is allowed some leeway because they are dominant, the losing sde are subject to some 50/50 decisions that just do not need to be given. I'm not saying let's engineer the result but don't make an already one sided game more so without good reason. 

[sam4731]

I don't think that sports suffer or thrive by how easy or hard it is to score. Sports just become high or low scoring by their nature. Everyone is fine with basketball being high scoring and football being low scoring because that's just how they are. Tinkering with rules to modify this wouldn't increase or decrease the appeal 

[JohnM]

[Dunbar]

2 minutes ago, sam4731 said:

I don't think that sports suffer or thrive by how easy or hard it is to score. Sports just become high or low scoring by their nature. Everyone is fine with basketball being high scoring and football being low scoring because that's just how they are. Tinkering with rules to modify this wouldn't increase or decrease the appeal 

I would say the problem is exactly that though - we have tinkered with the laws and interpretations to constantly benefit the attacking sides and this is the result.

[V02]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

So, that is the question. Have we created a sport where it is too easy to attack and score points - has the attacking side been given too many advantages.

The NRL regular season has ended.  Here are a few stats.

- There were 204 regular season games:

- Average points per game was 46.

- There were only 2 games all year with under 20 points scored.

- Almost 4 in 10 games (39%) saw 50 or more points

- 2 in 10 games (21%) saw 60 or more points scored.

I enjoy watching great tries but I also think we have created a version of the sport where the attacking side gets too many advantages and the attritional element of Rugby League, where points are earned and defenses have a chance to win a game as much as the attack, has all but disappeared.

I am sure we can get into the detail of how and why these points are scored - but I guess my first question is, am I the only one that cares about this, are the high scoring games great for most people?

SL is essentially showing the opposite trends though IIRC. Mainly because we refuse to referee the ruck.

8 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I would say the problem is exactly that though - we have tinkered with the laws and interpretations to constantly benefit the attacking sides and this is the result.

So for example, you want to see slower PTBs and more wrestle than now? Because essentially when we talk about making it harder to score, that is what we are referring to, given the ruck is such an integral part of the game. 

[Dunbar]

14 minutes ago, V02 said:

SL is essentially showing the opposite trends though IIRC. Mainly because we refuse to referee the ruck.

So for example, you want to see slower PTBs and more wrestle than now? Because essentially when we talk about making it harder to score, that is what we are referring to, given the ruck is such an integral part of the game. 

Certainly the play the ball speed is one area.

I have been quite vocal on here that a slower ruck would not be a bad thing. But that doesn't actually mean more wrestling - actually enforcing a proper play the ball would do the job.

[sam4731]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

I would say the problem is exactly that though - we have tinkered with the laws and interpretations to constantly benefit the attacking sides and this is the result.

But what I'm saying is that I don't think its an issue. Just as it wouldn't be am issue if we left it as it was.

[Dunbar]

1 minute ago, sam4731 said:

But what I'm saying is that I don't think its an issue. Just as it wouldn't be am issue if we left it as it was.

Fair enough. That's why I asked in my first post if people are ok with the high scoring games as it may be the best form of the game for fans to enjoy it, I accept that.

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, sam4731 said:

But what I'm saying is that I don't think its an issue. 

It felt like in the years after Super League launched that every regular season match had the potential to finish 48-44. That doesn't seem to happen now and the sport no longer looks set up for that to be the case.

I'm not sure there is a problem at the moment.

[Celtic Roosters]

It became easier to score points when they stopped penalising forward passes.

[Sports Prophet]

7 minutes ago, Celtic Roosters said:

It became easier to score points when they stopped penalising forward passes.

Mate… don’t get me started

[Griff]

I think the answer is generally no. But it does contribute to blow out scores.

[Waynebennettswinger]

5 hours ago, Dunbar said:

So, that is the question. Have we created a sport where it is too easy to attack and score points - has the attacking side been given too many advantages.

The NRL regular season has ended.  Here are a few stats.

- There were 204 regular season games:

- Average points per game was 46.

- There were only 2 games all year with under 20 points scored.

- Almost 4 in 10 games (39%) saw 50 or more points

- 2 in 10 games (21%) saw 60 or more points scored.

I enjoy watching great tries but I also think we have created a version of the sport where the attacking side gets too many advantages and the attritional element of Rugby League, where points are earned and defenses have a chance to win a game as much as the attack, has all but disappeared.

I am sure we can get into the detail of how and why these points are scored - but I guess my first question is, am I the only one that cares about this, are the high scoring games great for most people?

Thinking as a saints fan whenever we have played a decent team I am going to say no . 
 

That said I have never liked the big scoring games (I’ll make an exception for 75-0), I like the tight games were great skill unpicks solid defence.  It feels like there have been more blow outs than ever but do we worry too much about this? 

[Dave T]

As a Wire fan I'd argue it seems too difficult to score tries.

[Hopie]

The reason I like Rugby League is it is brutal, not just the high speed collision (as apposed to contact) sport, but that the best team nearly always wins and that a team on top can score freely. Its not like football where you can shut up shop and keep out a much better team. 

[StandOffHalf]

I love close games where both teams score in the twenties. I agree that there are too many instances of teams scoring 40+.

I think the 6 Agains, the reduction of the role of big middle enforcers, and the cracking down on pretty much all contact on ball-players has created a streamlined and sanitised product. Good teams get into a flow and lesser teams can't stem the tide.

I think the changes have created some dazzling highlights packages, but created games that often are over quickly as contests.

[Agbrigg]

Bring back winter rugby, wet heavy pitches that turn to mud and scoring will quickly decrease

[Leyther_Matt]

11 hours ago, JohnM said:

Of course I’m biased but, even leaving the result aside, that was one of the most intense and entertaining games I’ve ever seen. 

[Big Picture]

13 hours ago, Dunbar said:

So, that is the question. Have we created a sport where it is too easy to attack and score points - has the attacking side been given too many advantages.

The NRL regular season has ended.  Here are a few stats.

- There were 204 regular season games:

- Average points per game was 46.

- There were only 2 games all year with under 20 points scored.

- Almost 4 in 10 games (39%) saw 50 or more points

- 2 in 10 games (21%) saw 60 or more points scored.

I enjoy watching great tries but I also think we have created a version of the sport where the attacking side gets too many advantages and the attritional element of Rugby League, where points are earned and defenses have a chance to win a game as much as the attack, has all but disappeared.

I am sure we can get into the detail of how and why these points are scored - but I guess my first question is, am I the only one that cares about thi s, are the high scoring games great for most people?

Too easy to attack, YES absolutely.

The combination of the 10 metre rule and the weird obsession with making play flow ridiculously fast has made it much too easy for teams to advance the ball downfield.