Stuart Barnes argues the value of a drop goal is too high and is damaging rugby as a spectacle.
Three points is too many in modern era, says Stuart
The door on the England fly half position slammed well and truly shut at the weekend when the goal and drop kicking of Jonny Wilkinson sealed a narrow victory for Toulon over Toulouse.
In front of nearly 60,000 spectators the magic foot was working again - as Frederic Michalek said, every time he set foot in the Toulouse half he scored. That will do for Martin Johnson but should it do for rugby?
There is no doubting Wilkinson's mastery anywhere near the posts but there should be some sort of debate on the value of a drop goal. Currently it is valued at 60% of a try and that has to be simply too high.
The three-point score was a more just reward when the pitches were bogs and the balls were puddings but that was some time ago. On the superb surfaces of today, standing in front of the posts and drop kicking through remains a skill (and not least a test of nerve) but it means the determination to score tries diminishes and the attraction of the game is inevitably somewhat lessened.
In a sport that is only in its professional teens it is no small thing to ignore the appeal to the mass.
Amidst all the ELVs was it never on the agenda to drop the value of the drop goal to a single point. It would remain a skill worth mastering and one that occasionally wins games (think the 2003 World Cup final) but it would lose its undeserved eminence.
While it is currently valued so highly it will guarantee a continuation of the often obsessive drop goal antics which blight so much of French rugby and it will mean England hunting autumn victories primarily through territorial control and pure pressure.
This is no criticism of players or coaches who understand the imbalance between the drop and the try. I would go as far as to say teams that do not place high priority on the drop kick, as Australia did not do when they ran hither and thither in the dying seconds of one of the Tri Nations games, are idiotic.
Pragmatism
There is nothing wrong with pragmatism either. Teams should play to win rather than to entertain but shouldn't the lawmakers try and make try scoring a little valuable by making drop goals a little less loaded as a points scoring method and alter the balance in the interest of keeping the ball in the hands?
English rugby fans should hope Wilkinson drops five goals a game in the autumn - a la Jannie Beer - and win all three games but for the neutral rugby fan, is this the way to make this sport as interesting and compelling as it can be?
One day union will admit league was right to cut the value of the drop. It was a feeble failure of the ELVs not to do so and I expect we will have to wait many years.
Until then French club supporters will have to watch a bunch of would be Jonnies trying and failing to emulate the points scorer supreme and English supporters will probably see back play treated as a minor issue and ball retention, aimed at squeezing penalties and position out of the opposition, as the only god.
If Wilkinson stays fit there is no doubt his presence will magnify their hopes of victory and for that Martin Johnson will rightly keep his fingers crossed; he after all does not make the rules.
Test
As for news from home; Leeds' hammering is a test for morale and self belief as is - to a lesser extent - Harlequins' third straight defeat at home to Saracens.
With Leeds struggling to keep their heads above water it may not feel like a full-scale crisis but the club needs to start recovering its attractive habits of last season on the pitch.
Leicester is 0-0 after three games. No tries scored and none conceded. The champions have injuries and a right to do it any way they wish but as champions we expect something a little more scintillating.
My mate at the Sunday Times (not the) Martin Johnson, a staunch Tiger, had it right when he wrote the game against Newcastle was fit for a hot dog stand rather than a spanking new Grand Stand.
While the Tigers keep their paws closed for the time being an ex Tiger is roaring away from the blocks in the race for Premiership's top try scorer.
Tom Varndell has five from three games; it is too early to get carried away but he and the Wasps are clearly doing something better than last season.
Now to this week's mail...
Stuart answers your emails...
Got a question for Stuart? Email him at skysportsclub@bskyb.com or use the feedback form below...
Play-off palaver
Dear Stuart, I've followed English rugby and cricket for a long time now so I'm used to looking on in horror as governing bodies sacrifice common sense for short-term financial gain. But even I was taken aback by the RFU's spectacularly myopic decision to ask eight of this season's 12 Championship clubs to contest an end-of-season play-off for promotion to the Guinness Premiership. Holding a play-off for the top four teams is one thing. But giving a club that finishes three-quarters of the way down the table just as much chance of reaching the Premiership as the team that finishes seven places - and, if last season is anything to go by, a full 60 points above it - strikes me as crazy. Let's face it, the 22-game, eight-month slog that is this year's season-proper now means next to nothing. So surely it would be better if the RFU cut the Championship to eight clubs, told the players to put their feet up for a few months and downsized the season to a four-week play-off bonanza in May. Doing so would save the clubs, the players and, above all, the fans a lot of unnecessary trouble. Spencer Mizen
STUART REPLIES: Spencer, but it would cost them money through (or rather not coming through) the turnstiles. I cannot believe that eight from 12 will make the play-offs for a shot at the Premiership. It is the equivalent of 16 from 24 teams having a shot at the football Premier League. The champions should be promoted full stop; if they want a play-off it should be for a second team going up and a second down and right now the gulf in terms of finance and playing class makes that inconceivable. It makes you weep doesn't it?
Quota concern
Stuart, while I agree with Argentina's invitation into a new Four Nations tournament, I will be very intrigued to see how the suggested allocation of players to the Super Rugby franchises works out. Could it be possible that we will see something similar to the quota controversy in South Africa? There is a chance that an Argentinean player may keep out a superior local player from a Super Rugby side not on merit but by virtue of a participation agreement. This could be very difficult for a local supporter to stomach. Paul, Dublin.
STUART REPLIES: Paul. The reality is that a few of the franchises, the Australian regions in particular, are stretched and if another team enters the tournament - as expected - the scope for the best of Argentina will increase. Local fans want success and if outstanding talent increases that chance I foresee no problem. There would be no more than 30 Argentine players and at two per squad I cannot see how this will equate in any way to an imposed quota system. Let's be positive.
Penalty poser
Dear Stuart. Can you please clarify when a penalty try should be awarded? We have a big discussion over this. I was under the impression that three penalties from the five metre line would result into a try being given. Is this correct? Thank you for your help Regards, Sylvia Moore
STUART REPLIES: No, it is not correct although the error is an understandable one. The penalty try must be awarded - and I quote the rule book - if the offence prevents a try that would PROBABLY otherwise have been scored. But quite often a referee will deem a scrum that infringes three times within five metres of its own line is too weak or technically incapable to do anything than cheat to prevent a try. But "probably" is the key word for any referee.
