Golden Point - different points

[Coxy]

Given we're a round away from the finals and it's been an incredibly close competition, it's worth revisiting the idea of a different points allocation for games in the NRL.

My preferred scenario is:

Win in regular time: 4 points
Win in extra time: 3 points
Draw: 2 points
Loss in extra time: 1 point
Loss in regular time: 0 points

The actual ladder stands like this:

1 Bulldogs 38
2 St George Illawarra 36
3 Gold Coast 36
4 Melbourne 31
5 Manly 30
6 Brisbane 30
7 Parramatta 29
8 Newcastle 28
9 Penrith 27
10 Wests Tigers 26
11 South Sydney 25
12 North Queensland 24
13 Canberra 22
14 Warriors 20
15 Cronulla 14
16 Sydney Roosters 14

Golden point games this season were:
Melbourne def St George-Illawarra
Warriors def Sydney Roosters
Melbourne drew with Warriors
Parramatta drew with Souths
Penrith drew with Warriors

So under my points scheme it would be:
1 Bulldogs 76
2 St George Illawarra 73
3 Gold Coast 72
4 Melbourne 61
5 Manly 60
6 Brisbane 60
7 Parramatta 58
8 Newcastle 56
9 Penrith 54
10 Wests Tigers 52
11 South Sydney 50
12 North Queensland 48
13 Canberra 44
14 Warriors 39
15 Sydney Roosters 29
16 Cronulla 28

Hmmmm, well OK, having done it the only ones I can see who'd really have liked it this year would be the Roosters, because it'd get rid of their wooden spoon! [icon_lol1.

Still, I reckon it's a fairer system.
And it would add some intrigue to the Newcastle vs Penrith game. If Penrith were to win in golden point they'd end up level on points and it'd come down to for and against, which would still mean Newcastle finish ahead. As it is now, Penrith just have to win, extra time or otherwise, and they finish ahead of Newcastle.

Also, say the Titans and Manly are level at full time, but Manly win in extra time. The Broncos could then beat Canberra in regular time and finish ahead of Manly.
If that were to happen now with the current system, Manly and Brisbane would both have 32 points and because of for and against, Manly finish ahead.

Yeah yeah ok so I wasted 10 minutes of my life. Carry on.

 

[Coxy]

Well yes that would be good too :P But apparently it's exciting to have extra time, while a draw isn't exciting...unless it's a 90 minute draw. Go figure.

Only 5 golden point games this year to date. 8 last year. 9 in 2007. Teams are obviously more determined to kick the game breaking field goal before full time this season :P

 

[Coxy]

Yep, exactly. This season also has the rare occasion of having 3 golden point draws. There have only been 8 since golden point was introduced in 2003 - so 5 in the previous 6 seasons, and suddenly 3 in the one year.

So my system would illustrate the difference better on a previous season! :P LOLZ

 

[Fozz]

Would be are?

Prett sure i'd be jumping for joy if Hayne did his ACL.

 

[Coxy]

Haha, Rock's a pirate.

Harsh on the ACL Fozz...I don't wish that on anybody, not even Hayne.

 

[Ari Gold]

Too true. If they're going to have golden point then your points system is perfect and logical. What I find extremely harsh is that teams can sometimes get zero points for a loss in Golden Point. I mean, they made it to 80 minutes without losing but a fluky field goal or a stupid over-zealous penalty can cost them the game. Therefore, at least getting 1 point and losing the game in golden point would make a bit more sense.

Totally null and void argument IMO. For instance, if the video referees didn't screw up so much, then the Dogs would have beaten the Saints with a try in the last minute of the game, despite the Red V's not being behind for 79.x minutes. So what if a team loses in golden point and gets zero? How is it worse than what the Sharks suffered on the weekend? Or any other team that loses in the last minute of the game?

It sounds to me like you want to give out points for getting close but missing. That actually exists in another sport; AFL. It's called a behind, and I seem to recall several people bagging out the concept of the behind as 'giving points for missing'. Sounds the same to me.

 

[Fozz]

Harsh on the ACL Fozz...I don't wish that on anybody, not even Hayne.

Well, I'd probably wince. But I wouldn't be sad.

 

[Ari Gold]

It's worse Ari because the Sharks lost the game due to poor decisions in a standard 80 minute game of rugby league. If teams are all locked up at 20-20 after 80 minutes, it should be a draw - But with Golden Point, time goes on and a team can lose on the back of a shit call and thus get no points. If there was no such thing as Golden Point, they would have got 1 point.

Teams can lose on the back of a shit call in the 80th minute with the game locked up too. What you're trying to protect can still happen, the only difference is one might happen in the 81st minute instead of the 79th. How can you honestly say that because it happened a few game seconds after, it's a bigger injustice. It's not. Losing a standard 80 minute game due to a bad call with 2 seconds to go to 80 minutes. Lose a golden point 81 minute game with 2 seconds past 80 minutes. To suggest that one losing team deserves points whilst the other losing team does not, is quite frankly, ludicrous. Particularly when said points are at the expense of the winning team.

And there is such a thing called golden point. Sure it'd be better without it, but trying to implement a rule to try and limit it's effects is not the answer.

 

[Coxy]

Wrong Ari. It's a fundamental of the game that you get X points for a win. If you're ahead at 80 minutes, you deserve full points. If it's level at full time and they decide to give you an extra 10 minutes to break the deadlock, that's fine, but a win in 90 minutes, or even 80 minutes and 20 seconds, is not and should not be worth the same as a win in the regulation 80 minutes.

Golden point should be seen as the potential to earn a bonus point on your draw, and risk losing a point off your draw.

The current system of just having 2 points for a win, 0 points for a loss, regardless of whether it's in regulation time or extra time is fundamentally screwed.

 

[Ari Gold]

No. The concept of golden point is fundementally screwed, and because you can't get rid of it, you're introducing a idea that tries to limit its effects.

However, all that really does it screw things up some more. Can you imagine if the Eels, Panthers and Knights were all on 58. The Dragons beat the Eels, it's 18-all in the Panthers Knights game. Absolute recipe for disaster. And yes, I'm aware the same thing could happen with the current system too, but it's a lot more tempting if you only have to not try for just 5 minutes.

 

[Jeba]

Nah, you either win, lose or draw, golden point or not. There is absolutely no need to complicate the points system. Imagine what a new fan to Rugby League would think when they're trying to read the ladder. It'd just cause headaches looking at all the possible scenarios if a team got 4,3,2,1 or 0 points or whatever.

Keep it the way it is.

 

[simmo77]

Give the teams a choice at the end of 80mins if its all locked up. Ether take the one point or roll the dice and play on. Double or nothing. ;)

 

[Coxy]

Ari is exactly right. There should be no extra time during the season. It should only apply in games where there HAS to be a winner. Ie, finals.

However, as he said, we're stuck with this shit.

Therefore we do need to deal with the effects of it. I don't buy it that it's too confusing. It's simple. Much more simple than the Rugby style bonus points, or the sheffield shield, or one day series bonus points etc.

 

[Jeba]

I disagree. Imagine trying to explain the finals scenarios at the end of a season:

"So the Tigers are gone unless they win in normal time but if they win in golden point they are no chance however they might be able to beat the roosters on for and against and get into the 8 as long as they do it in normal time and win by 38 point and as long as the roosters lose in normal time by 26 points or more but then again if the raiders have a win in normal time they can make it as well but then the tigers have to lose in normal time by more than 18 points. Of course at the top of all this we've got to see who will play who in the first week of the finals and it all depends on whether or not melbourne win in normal time and to get a home final they need to do that and also the titans have to lose but it's ok if they lose in extra time as long as they lose by more than 20 points to the warriors, oh wait hang on the warriors can even make the finals here if they win in normal time............."

No.

 

[The Brizz]

Scrap golden point. Bring back normal extra time for semi-finals.

 

[Ari Gold]

I don't really think it's complicated at all.

But it certainly isn't better. Rugby League should be a battle. A game of absolutes. You win or you lose. If it's a really strange day you can draw too. If you want to talk about fundamentals, then one of the fundamentals of League is that you win or lose. None of this degrees of winning crap.

As for having to deal with the effects of golden point. Rubbish. If you can't scrap it, then you can't scrap it. But in no way is anything improved by introducing this rule. Introducing a problematic rule doesn't fix another problematic rule. You just end up with two problems.

As for the arguments about it not being fair for a soft call to decide the game in golden point - what lunacy. Golden point is sudden death. But that doesn't mean sudden death doesn't exist at the backend of a 'regular" game. The aforementioned Dogs Dragons game didn't go to golden point. But a horrible call decided that game in the final minute of the game. Was it fair? Not at all. Was it just as horrible as any call in golden point could be? You bet. Does this proposal in anyway alter how the points of this game would be distributed? Not at all.

It's just introducing another problem that is asking for trouble.

 

[Ari Gold]

I disagree. Imagine trying to explain the finals scenarios at the end of a season:

"So the Tigers are gone unless they win in normal time but if they win in golden point they are no chance however they might be able to beat the roosters on for and against and get into the 8 as long as they do it in normal time and win by 38 point and as long as the roosters lose in normal time by 26 points or more but then again if the raiders have a win in normal time they can make it as well but then the tigers have to lose in normal time by more than 18 points. Of course at the top of all this we've got to see who will play who in the first week of the finals and it all depends on whether or not melbourne win in normal time and to get a home final they need to do that and also the titans have to lose but it's ok if they lose in extra time as long as they lose by more than 20 points to the warriors, oh wait hang on the warriors can even make the finals here if they win in normal time............."

No.

Explaining the scenario isn't the real problem. The real problem is when a Round 26 Sunday game sees two teams going into the game needing just one point to make the top 8. If those teams are locked with 10 minutes to go, it's much much more than a problem.

 

[Ari Gold]

And to continue on from my last point.

I also seem to recall an Origin game a few years ago. It might have been the one that ended 10-all. Anyway, with about 5 mins to go, we were in great field position. Jason Smith could have had a shot for field goal, but I remember hearing in a post match interview that they didn't want to risk the Blues scoring off the kick off. A draw retained the Origin shield, and that's all that mattered.

If you only need 1 point to make the finals, do you think winning the game is the priority? Hell no. Achieving the overall objective of making the finals is. If that means an 80 minute draw is good enough, then by god that's good enough. That Origin game proved this 100%.

If two teams need a point and are locked together, it's all about protecting. No team is going to try and get the winning points because a win isn't important. Making the finals is. If you take the lead, the other team goes from protect mode to attack mode. They could score. Why risk that happening? It's much easier to just kick into touch and wind the clock down for a few sets.

Mark my words. If the scenario eventuated, then both teams would play for the draw. That scenario is about 93185196319369161236186981649617379 times worse than a team getting 0 points for losing in golden point.