Looking at some of the Onion scores this weekend, I couldn't help noticing how close some of the scores were. I'm no defender of what seems like a pi*****r sport to me, but I suppose for those who like the game, these close results must improve the experience and thus be A Good Thing. Does anyone less lazy than me and with time on their hands know if Onion scores in their Premiership *are* generally closer than ours?

Feels to me like thats the case, and its the one paradox that makes running a league competition hard. For me, League is brutal in exposing a difference in ability, where a small gap in performance leads to big score differences. The 'purity' of the game is such that there's not much you can do to 'spoil', and play to perhaps one advantage, such as (in Union) if you had a good line out just belting the ball into the corners all the time.

Play on flooded pitches in Winter, that's a good leveller

I've not studied it, but in general I think the scores are closer. Generally because it's harder to dominate a team and expose their defences partly due to the poor attack and it's just the nature of the game that a big, well drilled pack can slow the game and turn it into an arm wrestle. Plus the penalty kick at goal is worth too much so discourages going for a try.

its closer because of the setup of the whole sport not because all teams are equal.

drop goal equals 3 points if that was the case in our sport teams would have a field day 30 meters out drop goal job done.

Saturday, 8 September 2012
Leicester 34 - 26 Worcester
London Irish 31 - 40 Gloucester

Saturday, 1 September 2012
Wasps 40 - 42 Harlequins

The attacks must've been alright in those games?

Leicester vs Worcs: Five (incl one penalty try) tries to two.
Irish vs Gloucestr: Three tries all.
The 16 23 Sale and Saracens game only saw each team score one try each.
Bath 30, Wasps 23 was three tries to two.

I agree with that. Also, I wouldn't underestimate the try-reducing effect of having 4 extra bodies on the field. Stands to reason that if in 7 a side you score every couple of minutes, then go the other way, up to 15, and the effect is the opposite. I've often wondered whether Union would start to be considerably better to watch if they lost the flankers. I played the odd game of Union and always felt like everybody (including your own team) was in one another's way.

Good point, I thoroughly enjoyed my time playing union and like you felt it would benefit from more space. I think losing the flankers would make a huge difference to Union as it would force the second rowers to become fitter and more athletic to take up some of the flankers role instead of being ridiculously tall lineout and scrum experts. Plus the extra space.


So if played under RL scoring system the scores would have been:
Leicester 28-20 Worcester (26-12 without penalties)
London Irish 24-30 Gloucester (16-16 w/out penalties)
Sale 12-16 Saracens (6-4 w/out penalties)

I read a good history of League a few years ago (wish I could remember the title - it was at my dad's house but I can't find it now ) which covered the development of the rules over the years and its interesting how the reduction in number of players came about precisely to offer more space, but other things, like removing the contest for the ball at the tackle have not always been agreed on and came in later. In fact ( and League historians please correct me ) I recall that competing for the ball at the breakdown has been brought in and out in various flavours many times with the 'play-the-ball' not having always been universal. The current situation (no stealing) is probably the highest degree of protection the ball carrier has ever had. Seems to me that both Union and League have spent the last 100 odd years trying to work out the best way to deal with the ball in the tackle. The Union process isn't 100 percent daft in theory - watching the All Blacks on a roll, with rapid recycling, it can look really fluid, it's just that 99 percent of the time its a mess that breaks down every 10 seconds.

I think the question ought to be asked why there are so many blowout scores in Sl, rather than worry about another sport entirely. The nature of the sport makes it harder for poorer teams to stand up against better ones, but I've long held the view that SL teams (including the likes of Leeds this season) throw the towel in far too early.

The league scoring system in onion encourages teams to keep the score closer too with bonus league points for all sorts of things

I'm not sure it's "throwing the towel in"
More so, that when teams go behind they start taking more risks. Those risks lead to errors, which lead to conceding more points, going further behind, and pushing more risks.

Union games on average are generally lower scoring games, so they are likely to be closer. Also they play are a large part of the season in winter (Nov,Dec,Jan) where games are also generally lower scoring affairs. Most try scoring bonus points come at the start and end of the season when the weather is warm and more conducive to open rugby!