Do Not Sell My Personal Information
RugbyDump RugbyDump
Wednesday Feb 17, 2016

A Look at the First Ever NINE Point Try in Rugby

A Look at the First Ever NINE Point Try in Rugby
20
Comments

A week ago a fascinating experimental laws variation came into play in South Africa’s Varsity Cup, whereby the first ever nine point try was scored. The new points scoring system is based on where on the field the try originated from.

The 2016 Varsity Cup has been trialling some new try scoring laws whereby a try is worth the normal five points, however to encourage flair and adventurous play, the are a few variations.

This was seen in full effect when Pukke flyhalf Barend Janse van Rensburg made history, starting a counter attack then dotting down for the first ever nine-pointer.

The trial laws are as follows:

  • There are bonus points, depending on where the try-scoring move started
  • If the team that scores the try started its move between the half-way line and the opponents’ 22 and they kept possession from start to finish, they will get two bonus points. That means that the try is worth seven points
  • If the team that scores the try started its move in its own half and they kept possession from start to finish, they will get four bonus points. That means that the try is worth nine points

In this case, the nine point try was converted, resulting in a whopping 11 points score.

It’s a fascinating concept and perhaps one that sounds like a nightmare for the officials, but what it seems to have done is encourage more attacking rugby, resulting in a more free flowing game.

You will also notice that the try was sparked from a ‘free catch’, whereby the player was able to mark it from outside of his 22m. We then saw some good hands and a neat inside flick, all contributing to a highly memorable passage of play.

What are your thoughts on the concept of the position based points?

credit: supersport

20 Comments

  • drg
    8:46 AM 24/02/2016

    Player goes for clearance kick on own try line, slices the ball "free catch by opposition on 5m line"... Yeh, I can see this **** going well...

    Reply
  • eddie-g
    6:02 PM 22/02/2016

    To all the killjoys here - thank goodness rugby is experimenting with things like this. The standard of rugby in the Varsity Cup is not far off professional club levels, so it's a great competition to try out ideas that could improve our game. Personally, I think the scoring rules here are somewhat overcomplicated (and also clearly designed to benefit NZ, so a bad idea. [this is a joke]). But the free catch rule? Now I'm interested. More ball-in-hand and less kicking should be a good thing.

    Reply
  • lockdog
    8:25 PM 19/02/2016

    Not just "no," but "hell no."

    Reply
  • larry
    3:37 PM 19/02/2016

    I've replied to you with a post below, regarding the game some twenty years ago and prior to that time, with some comments about today's game from the perspective of my being a referee now and former player back in the day.

    Reply
  • larry
    3:33 PM 19/02/2016

    Of course there was nothing wrong with the game twenty years ago, when all these changes were starting to be implemented. I'm convinced, and if you read Gareth Edward's biography from 2000, he was convinced, it was all being done to make a spectacle for TV viewers who were casual fans, to get more people to watch, on commercial networks, like Murdoch's Fox, so he and other media moguls could make more money. So, the game became professional, and though it's still broadcast on the BBC, it's on many premium cable TV networks, and there's money to be made from advertising dollars. The idea was 6-3 games were boring, and 40-30 games would be more exciting. So, are cheap tries more exciting? No. I like seeing defenses and if there's end to end stuff with no tries or only a few or one in a match, so what? I want to see good play, regardless of the score. I don't see much good play now, only static rucks, endless phases of play; think about that club match in Scotland around this time last year in which there were some 60 phases of play in one possession of the ball: who the hell wants to see that?! So the idea of "opening" up the game even more than it already had, to get more scoring, to encourage more try scoring with the 5 point as opposed to the four point try of '72 to '92, is a ship that has already sailed. I referee, so I have to see to it that the laws are enforced and have to keep up with all the changes, the last that a scrum half can't go into the "pocket." USA rugby has not waited until July 1 to do the latest changes. They are now in effect!

    Reply
  • larry
    2:58 PM 19/02/2016

    I played well before lifting was admitted and when the ball was the point of offside in mauls and rucks. Believe me, the game was different. All lineouts were contested, unless one side had a few 6'7" guys and the other only had guys as tall as 6'2". And I played on a club that for a few seasons had a 6'9" eight man who couldn't jump more than a foot off the ground, so he was rather useless!Nowadays lineouts aren't contested anywhere near as much, though I have to admit it seems there's been an uptick to defenders contesting more throws in games I've refereed lately. Same with rucks: more counter-rucking going on. I see your point on rucks, though, as when four, five, or all eight forwards could involve themselves in a ruck, or maul for that matter, from each team, before the law changes, you would have thought that there'd have been more injuries, especially in the pileups that would occur often enough. But that wasn't the case to be honest. Any injuries would be from foul play in those rucks and mauls: punches, the boot being put in. But a really good referee could keep those incidents to a bare minimum, with the cooperation of both captains. With so many forwards involved in fighting for possession of the ball, if there was a quick heel from a ruck, or in the case of the maul a quick passing back to the scrum half or acting half, there was plenty of space for backs to shift the ball out or take advantage of gaps created inside. There were no lines of defenses ala rugby league back in the day. And heeling? See that anymore? Correct answer is no. What you have with these "shallow" rucks of two players deep on either side of the ball is hands in the ruck, all the time. It's never called, though, but accepted practice for any scrum half or acting half to just reach in and pluck the ball at the the foot of a team mate who is "bound in." I did call it once recently, when a ruck got three players deep on one side; the scrum half, a she, was astonished!

    Reply
  • heavyhooker
    3:18 AM 19/02/2016

    I think I will give up watching and playing rugby. I was not for the lifting. The changes to the rucks. The new scrum calls that change every two years. Now lets fuck with the scoring. What was wrong with the game of 20 years ago? I agree if a change are for player safety but this is just bollocks. Golf anyone?

    Reply
  • larry
    2:50 PM 18/02/2016

    I'm laughing. Perhaps those in charge of the game should devote more time to making the game safer regarding head concussions rather than figuring out how to change the game to get more casual fans to watch it on the TV.

    Reply
  • larry
    2:48 PM 18/02/2016

    All I'm going to say about a free catch is that some time ago, until the mid-70's, a player could call for a mark from any point on the field of play. Sometime later kicking a drop goal from a mark or penalty tap was disallowed. I didn't agree with those law changes. In fact I haven't agreed with many law changes in recent times. If I could paraphrase Stephen Jones again from his article in 1993, why were wholesale law changes necessary after a very successful 1991 World Cup? Answer: to make the game more of a spectacle for the casual TV viewer, AKA known as changing the game to make more TV revenue advert dollars for Rupert Murdoch.

    Reply
  • larry
    2:39 PM 18/02/2016

    How about the referee not calling anymore signals? Let the front rows come together as before. Let's face it, at least in international matches I do not think either side wants a scrum to be completed, because it means, with forwards all bound in, that there's plenty of space, especially with the offside line five meters back. I referee. Believe me, most scrums I set in lower-grade university matches here in California are completed, and there's few collapses, and few shenanigans of front row players. Life goes on after the scrum. With so few being completed in international matches, it's as though scrums at the highest grade of rugby union are being made into a farce, intentionally. Next thing you know there will be a law change basically making the scrum the formality it is in rugby league, as it happened in that sport some forty years ago.

    Reply
  • larry
    2:34 PM 18/02/2016

    I like the sarcasm. How long did it take you to make up this s***?

    Reply
  • larry
    2:32 PM 18/02/2016

    More stupidity. More changes. Let's just let things as they are, for crissakes! Who's to say that a try scored from ten meters out was any easier or harder than one scored from 100 meters out? Why should a try scored from anywhere further out be worth more points? Do we really need Aussie Rules football scores, or basketball scores? Correct answer: NO! Regarding penalty goals, now that's something different. I've thought for a long time now, since kickers have gotten so good at it, to downgrade a penalty kick that was placed to two points, and one drop kicked to keep at three. A team's captain would have a choice to make, in going for an easier two points, or a more difficult three. This always changing of the rules is going to prompt me to start an organization called Real Rugby, similar to the 1880's-very early 1900's baseball game that is played in the United States by some organizations, using equipment and rules of baseball from that time (and of course it's totally amateur). It'll be rugby with laws pre-1969: no kick into touch rules even, three point tries, and of course totally amateur! No polyester kit will be allowed!

    Reply
  • 45678
    1:18 PM 18/02/2016

    these changes are too complicated I get the idea of a free mark - it would stop pointless kicking however, all that needs sorting under the current rules is the scrum most scrums at the top level now result in a penalty too easily and too early. please make it into a proper contest again and allow a scrum to reach its natural conclusion, rather than blowing up because one team has gone back a metre or it wheels 15 degrees

    Reply
  • akared
    8:22 AM 18/02/2016

    Another move which will no doubt make the gap between the north and south hemispheres even larger.

    Reply
  • weltot
    7:15 AM 18/02/2016

    That actually might have the opposite effect, though. Defending players are going to be much more likely to kill the ball by whatever means, knowing that they are potentially saving their team 4 points. Potentially a much more stop-start affair. Conversely, make a penalty worth four points, and a try four or five points, and you might see teams more likely to allow the other team to run the ball. It sounds icky, I know, but it's a thought I had recently.

    Reply
  • breakaway
    3:52 AM 18/02/2016

    I've got an idea that will unlock the entertainment potential of rugby union. After taking possession of the ball a player may go back through his/her own goalposts and then move down the field making sure that the ball is passed at least once in each quarter of the field (although a kick and regather in the same quarter cancels the need for a pass), and no player should handle the ball more than once (except when regathering his/her own kick within the quarter in which it was kicked, if the kicked ball travels beyond that quarter the kicker may not regather), and the try scorer must run the ball in under the goalposts (this can be done from the in-goal area, in which case the player must then double back to force the ball) and then convert his/her own try. I think that has to be worth 25 points and I can foresee no problems for referees in adjudicating what is bound to be a popular innovation of real benefit to this great game.

    Reply
  • drg
    10:41 PM 17/02/2016

    ....and the team that catches the golden snitch wins the game outright.....right? GTFO with these variations... I'm all for reducing the points for penalty kicks to 2, reducing conversions to 1 and increasing a try to 6 or some form of variation... but something that will require countless viewings by the TMO, opinionated decisions where cameras can't quite see and undoubtedly another angle to argue about when fans feel aggrieved when their team unfairly lost, is just another example of how idiots are given far too much control and decision making job titles!

    Reply
  • tphillipsstl
    9:49 PM 17/02/2016

    silliness

    Reply
  • elvis15
    8:44 PM 17/02/2016

    Honestly too much variation for me. The ref has to decide during play not only where the try started from but if the ball changed possession at all (e.g. some rucks get very cloudy on the subject).

    Reply
  • bman
    8:06 PM 17/02/2016

    Free Catch??? Get that crap out of the game!

    Reply


Great Tries

View All

Big Hits & Dirty Play

View All

See It To Believe It

View All

Funnies

View All

Amateur

View All

Player Features

View All
A Look at the First Ever NINE Point Try in Rugby | RugbyDump - Rugby News & Videos