By Greg Russell
May 1st 2009 @ 2:27am
Related coverage
Should bonus points be booted from 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?
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(47)
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).
Chris Beck said | May 1st 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
This reminds me of the try-scoring vs penalty-kicking debate. In theory, at least, making a win more valuable would see more teams striving to win instead of attempting to stay close. So award six points for a win and keep the bonus points as they currently are.
sheek said | May 1st 2009 @ 9:46am | Report comment
I’m cool with it – I think it works just fine.
At the end of the day, the “right” team usually wins the comp, which is precisely as it should be.
Would fans prefer semi-finalists be chosen by the toss of a coin?
At least the bonus point system rewards teams who are ‘pro-active’ throughout the season.
Pippinu said | May 1st 2009 @ 9:55am | Report comment
I can recall being interested in this BP business back in 1996 – my view then (and remains unchanged), was/is good on rugby for trying something new for what was a new competition (and in many respects, it remains a very unique competition to this day).
People may recall back then that the Brumbies had a fantastic debut season (I recall terrific against the odds home wins against the Blues and the Reds, recalling the Brumbies were seen as a cobbled together outfit at the time – but McQueen was a miracle worker in those early years).
Ultimately the Brumbies pretty much missed out on finals action because of their low BPs.
I distinctly recall that neither management nor the coaching staff whinged about this – they set out to improve the situation – and the rest is history – the Brumbies became one of the most attacking, attractive sides to watch in the following 8 or so years.
The lesson: the system is there – teams have to work at it – if they have to be more attacking to get the additional points, then so be it. Alternatively, if they need to bunker down to stay close with a superior foe – then so be it.
That’s the comp – that’s the game.
Justin said | May 1st 2009 @ 10:09am | Report comment
I am not a fan of a losing team getting 2 points (the equivalent of a draw). I think it should be a maximum of one point for a losing team, either 4 tries or a loss of 7 or less. A winning team cannot secure 2 BPs can they…
Sport is about winning and I think where possible over a full season a team should be rewarded for winning more games than an opponent. It doesnt matter if when you lose, you lose by 10 or 20 or 30. A win is a win is a win.
Ben C said | May 1st 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
I hadn’t heard of it before, but I like Jimmy’s comment about the scoring in the T14.
Suppose a losing team scores four tries and finishes within 7 points of the winner, earning 2 bonus points. That team is awarded the same points as a draw. This doesn’t seem fair. I think that if the current system is retained, the losing team can win only one bonus point, not two. Why reward a lack of sucess so generously?
Gordo said | May 1st 2009 @ 10:48am | Report comment
Keep the bonus points exactly as they are, but make a win worth 5 and a draw worth 3. Problem solved.
Now on to the more important topic – who is going to win this weekend? and by how much? Having a lot of trouble tipping the Reds v Brumbies game….
Sam Taulelei said | May 1st 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Well at the risk of sounding like a broken record because I’ve previously stated my opinion on bonus points several times – I still maintain that only the winning team should qualify to earn a bonus point.
That’s an objective position, the arguments for bonus points rewarding effort, encouraging expansive play, teams continuing to strive to the end of the match, are all subjective, open to interpretation and artificially inflate teams positions.
Here is what the current ladder would look like if bonus points for scoring 4 tries or more is ONLY awarded to the winning team.
Hurricanes 32
Bulls 31
Sharks 30
Chiefs 28
Brumbies 27
Waratahs 26
Force 26
Blues 24
Crusaders 23
Highlanders 19
Reds 15
Stormers 13
Lions 13
Cheetahs 9
Brumbies
The top six teams are all still in with a chance of qualifying for the finals and the Blues and Crusaders would be rank outsiders. Under the current points scoring system, the Blues and Crusaders are in a higher position with a greater chance of making the top four courtesy of bonus points collected when they’ve lost. So teams that have actually won more games during the regular season are at a disadvantage if they haven’t earned bonus points. The Blues have earned the equivalent of two extra maximum victories with 10 bonus points. The highest in the history of Super rugby.
I don’t have it in for the Blues, they’ve always been one of my favourite teams to watch and support but something is not right when they are in a more advantageous position due to bonus points.
Sam Taulelei said | May 1st 2009 @ 11:20am | Report comment
I should clarify that I didn’t count bonus points for losing within 7 points in my revised ladder.
Sam Taulelei said | May 1st 2009 @ 11:27am | Report comment
The system used in the French T14 sounds very sensible and would cover both sides of the argument. Teams that lose can only earn one bonus point for finishing within 7 points and teams have to work hard to maintain a 3 try margin to earn the scoring bonus point and the win.
sunshinecoaster said | May 1st 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
Just drop the “within 7″ bonus point
leave the 4 try bonus point
Nashi said | May 1st 2009 @ 11:47am | Report comment
I don’t have a problem with the current system.
On the face of it the Blues are 3 places ahead but they cannot defend, the waratahs are 2 places down but they can’t attack, and the Brumbies are 2 places down because they got belted by the comp leaders when they were undermanned.
The Blues will not make the finals after the Hurricanes give them a thumping tonight.
The Waratahs only have a chance if they learn to attack and the Brumbies need to recruit well for next year. Which they seem to be well on the way to doing.
So the bonus point system encourages a well balanced side with depth. Seems pretty reasonable to me. I’d be very surprised if any of the teams we are talking about will make the final 4 in any case.
James Mortimer said | May 1st 2009 @ 11:54am | Report comment
Appreciate the work that has gone into the argument, but it is all a bit moot.
I think the system works fine, and any reward based system is going to have it’s flaws.
I wrote an article a while back (non rugby related) about the flaw in Rudd’s recent cash handout, that you technically had to earn at least $12,000 to qualify for it – so nearly a million Australian’s who really need it didn’t get a cent – where thousands of people living oversea’s in luxury, but paying tax on assets here in Australia earn’t then a esasy $900.
Equally bonus points, exist for two main reasons, to encourage attacking rugby (note the word encourage), and to enable competitiveness.
Greg, in relation to your three examples
A – Agreed, a game which shows the flaws of the system, the Crusaders should not have got a point for scoring 0.
B – The Blues deserved a bonus point for scoring so many points even in the face of a 60 point mauling. WHile I believe the Chiefs are one of four genuine contenders, they shouldn’t have conceded so many points – but that is what happens in an all out attacking game.
C – If my numbers are right, I think the Reds conceded 17-19 points in the last 20 minutes while scoring none. So, to put an alternate slant on your argument, should the Reds have had a bonus point taken away from them?
If the Blues gain another bonus point this year, then they will break the Super 12/14 record of bonus points. Personally, I think it is a fair reward for a team that has played (in my opinion) visually appealling rugby, that attacks at all costs (with the team sitting in the top three of all attack based stat’s – running metres, ball carries, offloads, linebreaks) and that never gives up even when getting trounced by the Bulls, Chiefs or REds, deserves that reward.
Ben C said | May 1st 2009 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
James
I appreciate your arguments but if a team wants to play a conservative game then the lure of a bonus point won’t do much. The Waratahs are a case in point. Regardless of whether they could do so, they have rarely looked like they wanted to score 4 tries. Kafer made the telling point that the Tahs ball has never been passed through the hands from half to wing this year!
Encouragement is all very well but sports is about competition. As we have seen with the ELV’s, trying to distort the game with arbitrary rules/rewards ultimately has little effect on how teams will want to play which depends on the coach and available players.
I also disagree with you on one point, that attack at all costs rugby is visually appealling. It can be, but not if you are also leaking like a sieve to acheive it. Why should a team be rewarded for playing ‘chuck the ball around’ football when they are behind and getting hammered? It doesn’t make the loss any more palatable for the spectators.
Rusty said | May 1st 2009 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
Really like the idea of a points available per game e.g. 6
Basic points:
Win = 4
Draw = 3
Lose = 0
Attacking BP:
Win by a score = +1
Score 4 tries = + 1
Defensive BP:
Lose within a try score = +1
Prevent winning team from scoring 4 tries = +1
Scenarios:
Team A wallops Team B by more than a score and with 4 tries = Team A (6) Team B (0)
Team A beatsTeam B by more than a score with <4 tries = Team A (5) Team B (1)
Team A beatsTeam B by 6 points with 4 tries = Team A (5) Team B (1)
Team A beatsTeam B by 6 points without scoring 4 tries = Team A (4) Team B (2)
Team A draws with Team B immaterial number of tries= Team A (3) Team B (3)
Certainly rewards both facets of play offense and defense and would cause teams to defend their points and aim for more at the same time….
Sam Taulelei said | May 1st 2009 @ 1:35pm | Report comment
These are the only two years I have found so far where the issue of bonus points during regular season has affected teams chances of making the top four. 2009 may yet be another one.
In 2006 the Brumbies won 8 of 13 matches but they finished on equal points with the Bulls and Sharks because the other two had earned more bonus points. The Bulls had also drawn a match so their season record was 7 wins, 5 losses and 1 draw but because of their 8 bonus points it didn’t negatively impact upon their season. Unlke the Brumbies who missed out on a spot in the top four.
In 2007 the Brumbies won 9 of 13 matches but were squeezed out of the top four by the Crusaders who won 8 matches but earned 10 bonus points. Interestingly the Chiefs finished on the same number of points as the Brumbies but only won 7 matches.
With those examples bonus points has assisted and hindered teams in qualifying for the top four. When you consider the expectations, pressure, costs and demands on everyone involved with each team and the short duration of the Super 14 season, it must be enormously deflating and frustrating to win more games than a rival and yet still miss out on an opportunity to win the title.
Campbell Watts said | May 1st 2009 @ 2:38pm | Report comment
I’ll put it to you like this:
Who would you rather watch at the moment if they did manage to sneak into the semi’s – The Blues or Tahs??
I just don’t see that the insipid Tahs deserve the semi’s ahead of the exciting Blues. Reward sides playing like the Tahs and the whole comp would be a disgrace!
Keep the bonus points and reward the entertainers I say!
Robbo said | August 12th 2009 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
“Entertainers” being code for “Can’t Defend”?
Sam Taulelei said | May 1st 2009 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
Campbell
Your argument is subjective on what you would consider to be exciting and who you feel should be rewarded by bonus points for how they play the game. It’s a very similar argument surrounding the value of the drop kick during the world cup when many people on the Roar denounced the value and merit of drop kicks over tries and wanted to see them either abolished or devalued. Drop kicks may not be everyone’s cup of tea but anyone who has played the game and tried to kick one under pressure should know that it’s a skill every bit as practiced and worthy as a sidestep, tackle and pass.
If the Tahs have won more games than the Blues regardless of their difference in style and panache then I would definitely want to see the Tahs progress through to the finals. That is a just reward for effort, application and perseverance. They may have not won over many fans with how they’ve played the game but I can guarantee you that no Tahs fan will give a toss about style if they win the title this year.
Rugby is by design a game for all shapes and sizes, how rugby is played should also be as diverse and you shouldn’t just award points on the basis of artistic merit and interpretation.
westy said | May 1st 2009 @ 3:35pm | Report comment
Sam I agree keep it simple you get them only if you win. There is nothing more anti the spirit of rugby and how it should be played than a losing team kicking for a penalty in the last few minutes to reduce the loss to less than 7. You are rewarding failure. Go for the try lift the spirit see what you can do.
i also do not like rewarding a losing team who engages in a form of touch football and completely ignores the basic tenets of defence.
Even the winning team sometimes acquieses in such a game. The winning team is entitiled to the bonus points no one else.
Jerry said | May 1st 2009 @ 4:24pm | Report comment
Gordo & Rusty – you’re awarding far too many points for a draw. 2 draws can not worth more than 1 win.
Rusty said | May 1st 2009 @ 4:30pm | Report comment
Just made mathematical sense but I see your point…although its pretty hard to end up with a draw, even more so with the same team. Alternative is that both teams get 2 for a draw….
ohtani's jacket said | May 1st 2009 @ 5:39pm | Report comment
True Tah,
The Brumbies are 6-4, the Blues 5-5… There’s not much in it. Bonus points would only be an issue if the top 6 went through. As it is, the top 9 have to win their remaining games to make the semis, and the Blues are not going to win this game tonight. Their season is over and this whole discussion is pointless, so to speak.
Jerry said | May 1st 2009 @ 7:05pm | Report comment
The only issue I have with bonus points is that a losing team should not be able to get a 4 try bonus. Too often these come from a team essentially playing an entire half of ‘garbage time’ where they have no little to no chance of winning and pick up tries from lax defence. The Blues v Chiefs match is the perfect example.
I wouldn’t have a problem with bonus points only being used as tie breakers or the method mentioned above where a bonus point is awarded for 3 tries more than the opposition but overall I’m not that fussed about the current system. There will be inequities in any system.
ohtani's jacket said | May 1st 2009 @ 7:20pm | Report comment
I don’t see how you could deny the Blues a bonus point in that game. They played well.
The Aussie teams need to improve their backplay and score some tries.
Robbo said | August 12th 2009 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
A team that concedes 50 has NEVER “played well”. EVER.
ohtani's jacket said | May 1st 2009 @ 7:29pm | Report comment
I disagree, Jerry… If it’s a rout and the losing side has no incentive to get anything out of the game then it truly is the rugby equivalent of garbage time. One point, or even two, is not that big a deal when there are a maximum five points on offer.
Spiro Zavos said | May 1st 2009 @ 8:36pm | Report comment
The NSW Waratahs are the best defence of a bonus point system. I’m not too fussy about what sort of system should be used. The present system is OK by me: and so is Greg Russell’s system, and the French system. But there has to be some incentive for teams NOT to play the type of stifling rugby currently being exhibited by the Waratahs. I’m hoping the re-arranged backline might produce some entertaining and effective rugby against the Cheetahs. But so far in the season they’d be a blight on the finals, despite the fact that in the finals bonus points don’t apply.
Jerry said | May 1st 2009 @ 8:41pm | Report comment
Like I said, I don’t actually have a huge problem with the current system. But realistically I don’t think the Blues deserve any points from the match tonight – yeah, they played well on attack but they were never within two converted tries after about the 20 minute mark on. It wasn’t like the Chiefs match where the team with a big lead just switched off, but I don’t think a team that only plays when they’ve got the ball deserves any points.
And routs happen – the incentive is to not let them happen in the first bloody place. Creating some artificial mini-game to contrive some tension when a team is 30 points down doesn’t really do it for me.
Knives Out said | May 1st 2009 @ 10:16pm | Report comment
“But there has to be some incentive for teams NOT to play the type of stifling rugby currently being exhibited by the Waratahs.”
It’s sad to see a ‘corresponent’ condemn the variety of a sport. It shows a profound lack of understanding or at best a very shallow connection with the game.
Rowdy said | May 1st 2009 @ 10:34pm | Report comment
This whole business of bonus points is a result of the game being professional and therefore being regarded now as entertainment; it’s aimed at getting money to pay the players, which means TV coverage, which means fiddling about trying to force a single, ‘entertaining’ style of game. In the (sh)amateur era, and still for the 99% of players who are amateurs, the game is for the players, not the crowd, so who cares whether or not it’s chock full o’ tries ?
Incidentally, anyone who actually prefers a 78-63 game to a 15-12 should take up watching basketball.
Knives Out said | May 1st 2009 @ 10:45pm | Report comment
Rowdy, I still believe that the game is for the players. People equate buying a rugby ticket with being entertained. If the fans stopped paying and the game became amateur I firmly believe that the vast majority of players would still play. There is a sevens circuit for a reason.
ohtani's jacket said | May 2nd 2009 @ 10:31pm | Report comment
That’s more like it.
Score some tries — get a bonus point — back in contention. Pretty simple really.
Jerry, the Blues don’t have the players to defend and they can’t control the game through their pack and first five. Their only hope was to out gun the Hurricanes, which they couldn’t do, but they deserved to be rewarded for enterprise. It was the least lopsided rout in recent weeks and early in the second half they were within 15, which is close enough to two converted tries.
Anyway, there’s a natural order to all this, which I believe will render the column meaningless.
Jerry said | May 3rd 2009 @ 6:34pm | Report comment
Agree to disagree OJ – the Blues may be enterprising but they’re often not really competitive. It may not have been a rout, but the Blues played the last hour without actually looking like winning. I don’t feel ‘enterprise’ without actually being competitive is deserving of competition points.
Nird99 said | May 3rd 2009 @ 7:33pm | Report comment
Since writing an article about the brumbies plight with bonus points recently I have been thinking about it a bit. I am starting to agree with the components of no bonus points let it run on wins and losses. The brumbies may still have missed the finals, but so be it.
I also like the idea of rewarding the most consistent winning teams. Not teams who grind out wins and when they lose make it by less then 7. We all know that teams who win super rugby comps score plenty of tries, and yes the crusaders and brumbies have been successful in recent years scoring plenty of tries and I believe that they would have been successful in winning the competition even if they did not have bonus points. They would have finished first on the table regardless and won the finals regardless, put simply because they won more games.
OJ, should the Reds be awarded with bonus points for turning up and trying this year. Early in the season, and even last week they were the most enterprising of the Australian teams. Should a team try not to lose a game in a rout because they have a little bit of pride, if not in their jumper and province but at least for themselves and what they do. Why should a one point bonus mean they should try any harder. It has actually not helped the reds secure bonus points and stop big losing margins.
Nird99 said | May 3rd 2009 @ 7:37pm | Report comment
By the way I dont want to bring back days of 6-3 scorelines because it is a stale mate and middle of the field arm wrestle but it seems that defence is becoming a lost art. Maybe still reward bonus points for try scoring and use them as a tie breaker if teams are deadlocked at the end of the regular season as others have said before.
ohtani's jacket said | May 3rd 2009 @ 8:01pm | Report comment
I think any side who scores 4 tries in a losing effort deserves a bonus point, regardless of the scoreline.
The Blues didn’t play that game to get a bonus point. Their first three tries were an attempt to get back into the game. The fourth try was a consolation try and added some respectability to the score. I thought there was a huge difference between the Blues’ performance and that of the Reds or the Brumbies and Lions last weekend.
The Blues received a lot of flack for their defence, but their openside was called up from club rugby and their blindside is one of the worst locks in the country.