Should bonus points be booted from Super Rugby?
Roar Pro
By Greg Russell, 1 May 2009 Greg Russell is a Roar Pro
- Tagged:
- bonus points in super 14, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
Force's Tom Hockings dives over to score a try against the Highlander's during their Super 14 rugby match at the Queenstown Events Centre. AAP Image/NZPA/Tim Hales
So the ACT Brumbies have won six and lost four this season, while the Blues have won five and lost five. That means the Brumbies are sitting one win ahead of the Blues on the Super 14 ladder, right? Actually, the Blues are essentially one win worth of points ahead. Huh? Welcome to the weird and wacky world of Super 14 bonus points.
The situation just described is not unique.
There are several other examples of it in the current table, which would look drastically different if wins and losses were the primary criterion for position (have a look and see for yourself!).
Most notably, the Blues would be ninth rather than fifth. True, they would still be just one win away from the team in fourth. However, to climb above this team the Blues would need at least five teams above them to keep losing – highly unlikely.
And let’s remember 2007, when the Brumbies came fifth with a nine win/four loss record, and thus missed the semi-finals, while the Crusaders came third with an inferior eight win/five loss record.
Is it justified that bonus points can have such a highly distorting influence on Super 14 tables?
One common defence is that the situation is the same for everyone, and all teams know the rules before a season commences.
True.
But this is no reason to persist with a system, year after year, if it is not working.
So is the system working?
Its defenders argue that it results in better rugby. But let’s examine some matches from this season to see if this claim holds up.
Exhibit A: Highlanders 6 Vs Crusaders 0 in Dunedin
The lowest scoring and arguably most boring match in the history of Super Rugby. Can someone please explain to me why the Crusaders deserved a bonus point from this match? If anything, both teams deserved to be penalized points for such a turgid, inept display.
Exhibit B: Chiefs 63 Blues 35 in Hamilton
Why did the Blues deserve a bonus point for scoring a fourth try late in the match when behind 20-56? Oh, I get it – if not for the lure of a bonus point, the Blues would have executed rolling mauls and played for penalties. Yeah, right.
Exhibit C: Blues 24 Reds 31 in Albany (Auckland) last weekend
Trailing 17-31 with the final siren already having sounded, Queensland were certain of winning. So how exactly was this match improved by the Blues scoring a try to make the final score 24-31? Although completely meaningless in terms of result and entertainment, this try garnered the Blues two bonus points and increased the total points tally of the match from 5-0 to 5-2. This implies a 40 percent “improvement” in the match for scoring a trifling try after the final bell. Absurd!
Yes, there are some memorable matches where “bonus” points truly may be deserved. For example, the excellent match between the Brumbies and the Bulls recently in Canberra.
But the above three examples are by no means atypical, and therefore I contend that the system is not working.
So much for tearing down the straw man – that’s always the easy part. The hard part is to make alternative and constructive suggestions.
Here are mine:
1. The iniquity of the present system should be removed by using bonus points only as a tiebreaker when win/loss records are equal.
What do I mean by iniquity?
That points hard-earned for winning a match count no more than the soft points virtually gifted to the Blues in losing in matches B and C above. This is professional sport, where winning should count first and foremost. It is ridiculous that frivolous bonus points count as much as win points, and thus that the Blues head the Brumbies on the points table.
Of course for-and-against, as traditionally used in most football codes, including rugby, would equally do the job I suggest here for bonus points. However, if people instead want to use bonus points for this purpose, then I cannot see any harm in that, especially since it probably would make no difference.
2. The inequity should be removed by having the same number of competition points for all matches.
What do I mean by inequity?
That with the current system a match may generate either 4, 5, 6 or 7 competition points in all, which clearly is ridiculous. Yes, I know that football has this (3 for a win, 2 in all for a draw), but that is purely a product of draws being a likely result in that very different sport.
In this context, the nub of the current problem may be clearly seen: that winning teams do not lose any points when their opponents acquire bonus points. In other words, there is an inequitable situation in which only the losing team has motivation to try.
In the win-loss world of professional sport, it should always be the case that what one team gains, another loses. Had the Chiefs in Hamilton had to sacrifice a point for conceding a fourth try to the Blues, one can be sure they would have defended far more vigorously. Ditto for the Reds last weekend.
I advocate 6 points for all matches, with 4 for winning, and each side being able to claim a bonus point for 4 tries, which one might call “good attack”.
If a side does not claim this point, then the other gets the (bonus) point for “good defence” (i.e., for not conceding 4 tries).
In the rare event of a draw, each team gets 2 win/loss points and a bonus point, regardless of tries scored and conceded.
In the above scenario, the try by the Blues after the siren would have seen this match change from 4+2 to the Reds to being 4 to the Reds and a bonus point each.
In other words, the Reds would have had a reason to keep trying.
Some would say this suggestion is still artificial, but at least it’s a whole lot fairer than the current situation (5-0 to 5-2), and it pleases those who want bonus points in order to encourage positive play.
On which point, what is it saying about a sport if it needs artificial incentives to encourage teams to play positively?
Shouldn’t that just happen of its own accord if all is well and good with the game?
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby Union articles
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (198)
- Will South African rugby force a Super 21 by 2018? (172)
- Brumbies 2012: New coach, new players, new attitude (128)
- Dan Parks and the unsolved questions of expat rugby (61)
- Pocock set to be named new Force skipper (56)
- Can the ‘Tahs win the battle after losing the Waugh? (51)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Chiefs continue to wait for SBW
- Nathan Sharpe to retire at end of 2012 (2)
- Queensland ready for Super challenge (2)
- Australian teams at Super disadvantage (44)
- Foley excited about Samoan rugby challenge
- Force rugby coach praises his pack
- The real story of how John O’Neill turned Manchester City down (49)
- Wales show Southern Hemisphere how to play running rugby (26)
- What opening matches of Six Nations taught us (18)
- Will Super Rugby crowds continue their slide? (201)
- Clinical Chiefs cost rusty Rebels in Corio (9)
- Six Nations shows rugby is a parochial game at heart (5)
- Goose’s Super Rugby up-and-comer XV for 2012 (29)
- What does the future hold for the Six Nations (50)
- Explore:
- bonus points in super 14, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
Knives Out said | May 1st 2009 @ 3:03am | Report comment
Greg, you’re claiming that the ‘system’ isn’t working but without any real evidence. Nor do I think that fans of the bonus point would argue that the system increases the quality of rugby, more that it encourages attacking rugby when a game might otherwise have descended into a succession of one-in, one-out rugby. My perception of Super rugby is that the Australian administrators see the game within the short-term context. They want a spectacle that will challenge the Australian sporting status-quo. The bonus point system, despite it’s occasional problems offers this.
Here is a scenario: Italy lose all of their games in the 6N but by 7 or less. Scotland get smashed in all of their games but happen to host Italy at Murrayfield. Scotland beat Italy. Is it fair that the more consistent team will finish last only on account of playing their most even team in an away game? I don’t think that it is.
NB. In the Guinness Premiership the four teams who scored the most tries finished first. It seems like the system is working there.
madsul said | May 1st 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Perhaps a couple of simple tweaks would help
1. You have to score points to get a bonus point.
2. only 1 Bonus point available for losing sides or
only 5 (or 6) points available for each game and the winning team gets first shot
LeftArmSpinner said | May 1st 2009 @ 7:27am | Report comment
Bonus points are good for the game. They encourage expansive play, if the coaches are listening.
I exclude the Tahs ’cause they clearly think the opposite, and more than likley will pay for this mistake by missing the finals in 2009.
The bonus points make individual games more exciting also, as they strive for them at the end of games…..
Knives Out said | May 1st 2009 @ 7:33am | Report comment
LAS, I don’t necessarily think that bonus points encourage expansive play, but expansive play in bursts. If a team already has 3 tries then it makes sense to push for the 4th. However, if a team has 2 tries then the bonus point system is irrelevant – why take the risk if you are in a winning position. In the last game of the GP season Harelquins needed a bonus try win to consolidate a home semi-final. They duly scored the 4 tries in record time and then sat back on their lead for 60 odd minutes. There are definite pros and cons, but my perception is that the main effect of the bonus point system is to encourage the game from not becoming a slug fest as matches progress. The Waratahs remind us that the most important thing in rugby, first and foremost, is to win. To that extent bonus points will always be a secodnary objective.
ohtani's jacket said | May 1st 2009 @ 7:41am | Report comment
Alternatively, if the Brumbies had won on the weekend, they’d be fourth or fifth on the table.
If you take a look at the table, you’ll find that the Brumbies have zero bonus points for losing within seven points. They’ve the only side that hasn’t scored a bonus point this way.
Maybe they’re just not a good side?
Robbo said | August 12th 2009 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
You dolt. They smashed the Blues when they played them.
Brett McKay said | May 1st 2009 @ 8:22am | Report comment
It seems bonus points are the topic of the month…
Greg, I’ve long held the opinion that the bonus points system has worked fine over the history of Super rugby, and have just accepted that some teams will be unlucky. The Brumbies as you’ve mentioned seem to feature in this regard, and certainly under Laurie Fisher, they lost out due to a lack of bonus points several times. However that in itself isn’t enough to convince me the system needs tweaking.
I am slowly warming to the idea of the losing team not being able to get the 4 try bonus point and the less than 7 loss bonus point as well, which is essentially the same as drawing a game. Maybe the losing team should only get a bonus point if they score four ties AND still only lose by 7 or less? But then the Blues still would’ve got a point from last weekend’s game, and as you suggest, that probably wasn’t deserved.
Maybe a win needs to be increased to 5 points?
I do think your good attack/good defence idea has merit though. If a team is firstly good enough to score four tries, but at the same time preventing the opposition from scoring four, then they probably deserve the six point win. Likewise, maybe a team should be awarded another bouns point if they don’t concede a try at all?
tothepoint said | May 1st 2009 @ 8:36am | Report comment
I know what you mean
Like those games that are 55 – 15, and in the last minute someone runs a try over and its 55-20 and they get a 4 try bonus point. We saw this a lot last year in the sydney club premiership along with the blues match you mentioned previously.
I think that if the winning margin is over 20 points, the losing team shouldnt be able to gain bonus points
MikeN said | May 1st 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
I do not agree with getting rid of bonus points. I like the fact that if a win is out of reach, the losing side will keep playing hard if they can still salvage one or two ponus points. It retains my interest in a match where the win is not in doubt. In the past both teams would shut up shop once the result was a forgone conclusion. That is the problem with tothepoint’s suggestion.
I did though like the idea of not awarding bonus points for a team not scoring any points, but would also like in that case for the winner to get less points as well.
Jimmy said | May 1st 2009 @ 9:26am | Report comment
I like the system that applies in the French T14, where the try bonus point is earned for scoring 3 tries more than your opponents. A team that scores three tries can’t simply sit back and defend its lead because if its opponents do get a try the bonus point is lost, unless the winning team can score another try, to re-establish the 3-try difference.
What this means is that the losing side can only ever get one BP (for finishing within seven), which seems fair enough. And the overall points reflect the margin of victory: 4-1 if the winning margin is seven points or less; 4-0 if the margin is more than seven but less than a three-try difference; and 5-0 if the game is one-sided.
It doesn’t answer all the objections, but the distribution of points more fairly reflects the outcome of the game.
True Tah said | May 1st 2009 @ 9:32am | Report comment
OJ
they’re about as good as the Blues are, and Australia’s 2nd best after the Force (although the merits of that achievement are debtatable).