Firstly, I would like to make it clear that I am a fan of the bonus point system because it rewards teams for their ability to score tries and also rewards teams for a narrow loss (although being rewarded when you lose is questionable, but I can understand the logic behind it).
But I don’t think they should count for more than a win.
Allow me to explain.
Last year, the Warratahs ended up fifth on the ladder and hence missed out on the finals. However, they actually had a team (the Crusaders), that had less wins for the season, finish above them because of the bonus point system.
The team that has the most wins should always finish higher, in my opinion. That’s what you play – for a win. A win should always be the trump.
The only time the bonus point system should count is when two or more teams have equal number of wins, but even then I think it should come down to which team won their encounter during the season.
If we did away with the bonus point system then teams that finished on equal points would be separated based on which team won their encounter during the season.
Failing that, if the two teams on equal points played out a draw during the season or there were more than two teams that finished on equal points, then the points for and against would come into play.
If that was even, the team that scored the most tries for the season would finish higher, and in the unlikely event that was even, toss a coin.
At the moment the the system, in some cases, is set up to reward points with bonus points, and points for and against rather than wins.
sixo_clock
Roar Guru
Almost on the money Tubby. The Bonus Point system basically rewards teams for their entertainment contribution. Quite frankly I think we should have more. The minds behind this scheme are acknowledging that in the Pro era sport is an entertainment spectacle and incentives must be in play to add to the excitement. We need to attract bums on seats at stadiums and in clubs to add to our viability argument. So those teams who have generated the better spectacles get to the finals, what could be better than that!
Katipo
Guest
I'll tell you whats unfair. Some teams get six home games while others get seven.
Peter K
Guest
I like mitzer idea of removing the bonus point for 4 tries. Instead you get a bonus point if you have scored 3 tries more than the other team. This way the loser (in most cases) is not getting a bonus point for scoring tries BUT is still incented to take 1 away from the winner by scoring more tries. Also I would retain the bonus point for losing by within 7 points. The reason is that I have sen too many teams give up, and substitute all their best players, once they know they cant win. Also the attitude disapears and more tackles get missed and you get a blow out. By retaining the within 7 point bonus point teams try harder AND it retains interest of supporters of the losing team, can they get at least 1 bonus point. With this system a loser can only get 1 bonus point hence less than a draw. Also if you have 2 high scoring matches where defence is not at a premium it could easily be no bonus points are given.
Brett McKay
Guest
I don't have too much problem with the BP system as is, but I have to admit I like the French system that Red Rooster referred to above. The classic flaw with this current system gets brought up regularly, the horrendous Crusaders-Highlanders (?) game from a few years ago, where the loser got a BP for finishing less than seven points behind the 6-0 winner!! Would the French system also allow this?
Lee
Guest
Tend to agree, the highlanders beat the crusaders 6 0 last year and the crusaders got a point for that rubbish! Why should we reward that?
mitzter
Guest
Yes must say that I like the bonus points but would prefer the 4 try bonus changed to 3 more tries than the opposition to prevent those games where one team has scored four tries on the first half and now don't have much reason to keep scoring and to remove the losers of a game getting 2 bonus points. I think they are a valuable way of accruing points in the season and make it a bit more dynamic with the extra component. In fact the only thing i would really change is that if 2 teams have the same points, it is the team with the most wins that is placed higher before going to the for and against aggregate. You've said you want to place whoever won their respective match to be placed higher as the first discriminator and i think this is a big mistake as in this competition going into the future the 2 teams might not have played each other (in the conference system) and then also a home win is generally easier than an away win.
tubby
Guest
head to head would be fine in a sport like basketball where teams play eachother several times a year, but is a bad tie breaker in this competition where the benfit goes to the team who had the home game that year I don't see any problem with the current BP system, rewarding losing sides gives them something to play towards and can add excitement to a game after the win is decided.
Jerry
Guest
Wins should be the main factor in determining position on the ladder. Bonus points (of either variety) should be a tie breaker only. If you examine teams for and against, it usually matches their bonus points anyway. But the bonus points are a more tangible reward on game day so I think they should be retained, just not on an equal basis to wins.
Nathan
Roar Pro
Interesting way of looking at it...hadn't thought of it like that. At least the winning part becomes the priority.
Nathan
Roar Pro
A loss should be painful and no compensation necessary. That empty feeling that you get when you have given your all and come up short should not be softened by 'well at least we came up with 2 bonus points.' What the? You have to fight for every win that you can get and being compensated for a loss is not right in my opinion. Too bad, you lost, you get nothing, deal with it.
Nathan
Roar Pro
Agree with this...you get 2 points for a draw! Basically we are saying that a draw is the equivalent of a close loss but played well in the process. The 4 try bonus point shouldn't go to the losing team in my opinion. It's primary school stuff.
Nathan
Roar Pro
Agree that it appears that 1 of the reasons the Warratahs played more attacking rugby this year was because of missing out on the top 4 last year. The did enough to win games last year but realised that they would need to secure more bonus points if they were to make the top 4, hence their improvement in that area this year. They actually won the same amount of games (9) but secured 2 more bonus this year. Also, you raise a good point that all teams know the deal before the season starts and you have to play what's in front of you but it still bothers me that teams can finish ahead of other teams even though they have had less wins. There's just something not quite right about that and it shouldn't be overlooked in my opinion, otherwise we could just place teams based on their for and against for the season regardless of thier win/loss ratio or even worse wins could just become bonus points ie if you happen to win you secure 2 bonus points! There is an old saying in sport that goes 'winning isn't everything, it's the only thing' but agree that we still have to provide incentives for teams to play attacking rugby that's enjoyable to watch.
Ben C
Guest
Minority +1
Kuri
Roar Rookie
The Crusaders beat the Waratahs in Sydney in 2009 17-13, If anything it should basically come down to who beat who when teams are on level points. If a draw the points for and against should be used
Sam Taulelei
Guest
My views on bonus points is well known on this site as I've disagreed with the concept of a losing team walking away with any points. A bonus should only be awarded as an addition to an achievement i.e victory, hence the definition of the word. You don't receive a salary bonus for achieving less than expected. Bonus points merely inflate the overall positions on the points ladder, there have been countless arguments for rewarding teams that score four tries regardless of whether they win. This is a professional sport and the only thing that should count is a win. Moral victories, gallantry in defeat, momentous efforts that ultimately still end in defeat should not be compensated. A team that can score four tries, lose by less than seven earns the same points as a team that draws a match without a bonus scoring point. That to me is inherently flawed however I'm in the minority on this.
Willy
Guest
I think the real failing of the bonus point system is that a loser can get two points from a game - one for scoring four or more tries, and one for losing by less than seven. Really, one of the two should be removed for losing teams - probably the four tries bonus makes the most sense. As an example, look at the Chiefs v Lions game, where the South Africanswere beaten and conceded 72 points, yet came out of the game with two competition points. There is something wrong there.
Red Rooster
Guest
The French system rewards a bonus if you score three tries and then you must keep three tries ahead of your opponent. It means that the attack incentive must be worked for continuously if you are a bad defensive team
Matt
Guest
I think the reason the BP system is a good one is the Waratahs of 09. They were lamented for boring play and subsequently missed out using their win-ugly mentality. People might argue that you can win any way you like, but how much more popular and entertaining have they been in 2010 when they are playing attacking/try scoring rugby. The crowds are up and the ratings are up and the game in Australia is the better for it. The BP system is fair because every team starts each season and each game on the same system, which they all know very well now. If the Waratahs weren't smart enough to secure BP wins then why should they go through over a side who scored more bonus points? Points are points and all teams have equal chance of acruing them based on performance. I am interested in the French BP system that doesn't award for 4 tries but instead uses points difference in the match (I believe?). Something like a 13 points margin will gain you the BP. So that system, to me, encourages the take points whenever possible mentality rather than the take the try when possible mentality. In saying all this though, how often do teams turn down easy points? Most take the shot at goal if it's on, which is as old as rugby itself!
Derm
Roar Guru
Given the high scoring rate of tries that is valued so highly in Super Rugby, just make it 5 tries before they get a bonus point. Attacking teams have to try a little harder, opposing teams might defend a little more.