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.

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.

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.

Incidentally, anyone who actually prefers a 78-63 game to a 15-12 should take up watching basketball.

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.

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.

The Aussie teams need to improve their backplay and score some tries.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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….

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.

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.

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.

leave the 4 try bonus point