Varsity Cup scoring flawed

Gareth Rosslee

Now that the dust has settled on the 2012 Varsity Cup it’s time to take a look at the experimental scoring system that was employed this season. Tuks won, Maties didn’t and the defending champs nearly got relegated – so if you were looking for unpredictability then you can have no complaints.  I, however, do have some complaints.

So my dear Varsity Cup – here’s my take on what happened.  I promise you I won’t mention how you undid so much of your hard work and credibility by sweeping a cheating scandal under the carpet. Here we were thinking you were something different and above the political meddling so common in SA Rugby, but we were wrong. Like all rugby in this country there are dark undercurrents and that’s just been reiterated this season. Let’s just leave that out for now though and talk about the scoring system you decided to use this year.

Notes on a scoring system

Sorry to be the one who tells you guys, but your Varsity Cup scoring system was a complete dog show. It was a nice attempt, and all, but you went barking up the wrong alley in making such drastic changes to the value of a try, conversion and penalty.

While I admire your bravery in attempting something innovative, I still can’t understand just what you were trying to achieve in the first place. Experiment too greatly with too many variables and you won’t know what worked and what didn’t. I’ll save you some time ahead of your review though and tell you that NOTHING worked in the 5-3-2 system you cooked up this year.

Why do I say that? A combination of factors really: a) lack of pressure situations b) stuffed with spectators, c) fundamentally didn’t make sense and d) the unintended consequences

Pressure situations

There seems to be a myth that rugby would be a better sport with more tries. The crowds will flock. Everyone will be cracking bottles of champagne (sorry – sponsors Black Label) and throwing it over each other with each and every try that is scored.  I’ve got a slightly different view and that is we watch rugby for pressure situations and how they are dealt with. We want to see tight games going down to the wire – not throw all caution to the wind in search of tries and damn everything else.  If a side scores two 8 point tries early in a game it opens a gap that is very difficult to close. Especially with the other side being unable to keep in touch by kicking penalties or even being only one try behind, but missing a conversion and being 16-5 down. The chasing side is now anywhere from two to six scoring plays behind. It opens a gap and makes it less of contest – which isn’t really what the fans want to see – no matter how many tries are scored.

Stuffs with spectators

I’ve watched rugby for a long time. I might not have a post grad degree in mathematics, but I know exactly how much a 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 15 or 20 point lead is in rugby. I know what the leading side needs to do, relative to the time left in the game, to close out the win or how much the losing team has to do to catch up. Now? Who really has a clue? If I’m sitting and watching baseball or gridiron and I have no idea what the scoring system means I’m less interested in the contest. Such it was with this system and having no feeling for what was going on made me reach for the remote.

Fundamental issues

Making penalties and drop goals only worth 2 points means that a team that has behind has no chance to keep in touch or build momentum by kicking penalties. They have to score tries and those tries had bloody well better be converted.  Why such importance attached to a conversion? Is 60m intercept try under the poles a better try than the one Gareth Edwards scored in the corner for the Barbarians?  Was the crowd more entertained by the act of the try being under the poles?  I don’t think so.  If kicking is something to be diminished in importance then why raise the conversion?

Unintended consequences

Penalty kicks for poles become virtually worthless so penalties are kicked to touch. This raises the importance of the lineout and then, naturally, the lineout maul.  We all know there’s a skill to it and so on and so forth, but it’s hardly as easy on the eye as Kate Upton.  In fact you only have to go back to the ELVs to see that the IRB was trying take away some of the power of the lineout maul by allowing it to be collapsed.  Under this scoring system the lineout and maul are of utmost importance. The stats might show more tries, but are you filling stadiums with fat-boys going over under a pile of bodies? Robbing Peter to pay Paul?  I think so.

I don’t mean to sit here and throw stones after the fact, but I think that the declining television viewership might indicate that people lost a bit of interest in the competition. I certainly stopped watching partly because UCT were disappointing, but also largely due to the scoring system.

Could we not have kept all things equal and just bumped a try up to six points?  I’ve always thought the great unfairness in the scoring was an unconverted try was worth less than two penalties.  Now you’d get the extra point making it at least equal to two penalties and a bonus shot at goal.  We’d all know where we stood with the points and the games would be closer.  Plus you’d still be incentivising tries by making them a little more valuable.

Gareth is the “Online Guy” at Sports Illustrated, publishers his own blog called Primal Beer, and is excellent value on Twitter – @garethrosslee