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?
Robbo
Guest
A team that concedes 50 has NEVER "played well". EVER.
Robbo
Guest
"Entertainers" being code for "Can't Defend"?
Robbo
Guest
You dolt. They smashed the Blues when they played them.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
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.
Nird99
Guest
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.
Nird99
Guest
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.
Jerry
Guest
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.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
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.
Knives Out
Guest
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.
Rowdy
Guest
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
Guest
"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.
Jerry
Guest
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.
Spiro Zavos
Expert
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.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
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.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
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.
Jerry
Guest
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
Guest
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.
Rusty
Guest
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....
Jerry
Guest
Gordo & Rusty - you're awarding far too many points for a draw. 2 draws can not worth more than 1 win.
westy
Guest
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.