Michael Hagan is absolutely correct. Enough of the glorified half-time-style entertainment known as golden point.
Golden Point – What’s The Point?
Two teams play eye-scratchingly boring football for up to 10 minutes in the mindless pursuit of nothing more than a field goal, and risking injury in doing so.
It’s a development I have never supported, simply because it doesn’t reward a team for their efforts over 80 minutes of intense competition.
The Sharks and Knights served up a veritable dogs’ breakfast of field goal attempts on Saturday in Golden Point, taking the farce to a new level, while the only truly majestic field goal was kicked by the Warriors’ Shaun Johnson – ironically, in regulation time.
The Johnson ‘tap’
The Warriors were incorrectly awarded a try when Shaun Johnson tapped a ball forward over a defender’s head on the weekend, setting up their hard-fought win.
Depending on the mood of the referee on any given day, or their forgetfulness of yet another very basic rule, this type of incident can go either way.
The fact is that it’s a poor rule anyway. The player is deemed to be in control of the ball when fumbling, and a legitimate target for the defence. It should be exactly the same in this instance. It’s a low percentage play which most times it will be knocked-on anyway.
Manly thumb their noses at stats
Manly’s missed tackle percentage last night was twice as high as normal, they had less than 42% of possession, made less than 1100 metres in attack while their opposition made about 1500, and yet still won.
Like Parramatta, superhuman efforts can win games (or just come very close in Parramatta’s case), but will not sustain a winning record in the long term. They will have to be better against the Roosters next Monday. They know stats like last night’s won’t be good enough, even for the Roosters who they invariably beat. Then again …. it is Manly, after all.
Decoys and Obstruction (or why the Storm were rightfully denied a try)
The Dr’s position on obstruction has always been that it cannot be a rules-based decision. There needs to a context applied, the sole objective being to adjudicate whether a defender was impeded from preventing a try.
When Jason Ryles thundered into a Raiders defender on Saturday, the Storm was correctly denied a try based on obstruction, though opinion seems to be mixed. I don’t know why.
A bad read in defence is a bad read – period. It is not obstruction provided the collision and actual ball-runner passing through the gap are instantaneous.
The Ryles example occurred well ahead of the next phase of the set play, denying the defender the opportunity to ‘rebalance’ himself in the defensive line, and hence, no try.
Bantering with referees
Last night Bill Harrigan noted the increasing engagement of referees in long-winded diatribes, but it’s not like it’s a new development.
It is pervasive across the NRL, and clearly a coach-directed tactic to … you guessed it … waste time in pressure situations (with the exception of Jarryd Hayne, where it’s all about the comedy).
I’m yet to see a captain stop the referee when his team is on a roll. But I have seen them bring up ancient history when the opposition is on the attack.
Seriously, they have a memory like my wife in these instances, and the referees seem as helpless as me in trying to stabilise the situation.
The ARLC’s Competition Committee went down the wrong path again last week. They didn’t identify the problem (wasting time), preferring to restrict the concept to scrums. It makes no sense, but is akin to the shoulder charge rule where they missed the actual issue (head contact). And hasn’t that worked out well?
Dogs Of War
Roar Guru
Really you focused on the problem in your article, rather than any solutions. The easiest way is just to make it the first to 4 points in golden point, however it happens. This then means teams focus more on throwing the ball around, especially if the other team has already thrown a field goal over. That's the sort of stuff we want to see in Golden point as oppose to the field goal practice we currently see.
Haz
Guest
it used to be known as a technical knock-on, Wally Lewis got called on it, somewhere sometime in the early 90s. Imagine you have a player as skilled as an AFL player in hand-balling the ball. You could hand-ball over the opposition "whoops! I fumbled it", run through the opposition (who can't tackle you because you don't have the ball), and then catch it again. You've got momentum (you're facing in the right direction), they don't, so you've got the advantage.
oikee
Guest
I happen to like Dr NRL response, "no soup for you". Why should the game or anyone reward losers. hehe, otherwise we all would go through life like baby birds with our mouths always open because we know that running second gets rewards. No, No soup for any of them. hehe. Losing is part of life's lessons, take that away and we all will be eating soup, through a straw. hehe.
solly
Guest
I think Golden Point is stupid. I admit that there is some excitement in being forced to achieve a result. Nonetheless, the idea of a draw seems to have become anathema to some. Whether Golden Point fans believe it or not, a draw is actually a result. The world isn't black and white... I think seeing it abolished would be a good thing.
Football_illiterate
Guest
yes this DOW! the worst thing about golden point is the ref stops making decisions in the fear he will screw something up and we will read about in the tele for 3 days. well he is screwing it just as badly by not making decisions.
Wilson Flatley
Roar Rookie
"It’s a development I have never supported, simply because it doesn’t reward a team for their efforts over 80 minutes of intense competition." The losing team receives one point reward for their part in 80+ minutes of intense competition, and denying the other team a victory inside 80 minutes. The victorious team receives a one point penalty for exactly that; being unable to beat their opponent inside 80 minutes. I believe coaches would be happier in this sense than ending at 80 mins and getting 50% of the points. Under this system; a drawn score at 80 minutes would guarantee each team 25% of the points. The other 50% would be fought out in Golden Point. I haven't sat down and properly tried to draw up rules for such a system, but believe it offers an advantage over the current set-up. Bear in mind after 10 minutes if there is no winner the points are shared evenly. Another change i would like to see is removing field goals during golden-point. This puts the onus on a team to play clean, try-scoring footy. This would obviously cause coaches to try and beat the system tactically; but never-the-less i believe that it would provide a better spectacle than what is currently offered in extra-time.
Dr NRL
Roar Rookie
Why get points for losing in golden point? You've lost the game. No soup for you. Besides, it opens up an easy way to abuse the system. And why only 3 points for winning the game? It's like a penalty for not being able to finish it off in regulation time. I can't see any coach agreeing to that.
Wilson Flatley
Roar Rookie
It skews the table, right now there are 16 points that will be given out each weekend; never any more, never any less. I agree with the theory and have long espoused the 4-3-2-1 system that Dogs of War points out above. 32 points a round, no variation.
Dr NRL
Roar Rookie
I understand we all have different opinions on this, and that's fine, but I agreewith you that there is nothing wrong with a draw. It simpy moves the climax of expectations back to the 80th minute rather than the extra time period. Draws are as exciting as a 1-2 point ballgame where it's effectively next try wins, either way. If a draw is that unsatisfying, let the teams play until midnight. Why stop it at all? Clearly that's ridiculous, but so is golden point (to me) I also like the old 10 minutes each way in semi finals. A great way to get a result.
Cugel
Roar Rookie
Origin needs GP in all three, if either of the first two games is left a draw, it could end up 1-1 anyway
eagleJack
Guest
How is my solution making a game that goes to Golden Point worth more? If it's a draw at the end of 80mins both teams receive 1 point. Effectively they are fighting out Golden Point to receive an additional point. The most points you can receive for a win is 2 points, whether that occurs in normal time or extra-time.
Dogs Of War
Roar Guru
Why should a game be worth more than normal because it went to golden point? If anything it should be 4 points for a win, 3 points for a golden point win, 2 points for a draw in golden point, 1 for a golden point loss.
eagleJack
Guest
Im with oikee on Golden Point. While the football played is ugly, the whole thing is very exciting. The long time argument has been that there is no reward for the loser. So winner gets 2 points, loser gets 1 point. If it's still tied after extra time then both get 1 point. Pretty simple stuff really. The Knights fought to the death taking the game to extra-time but got zero points. In the eyes of the administrators this is equal to the Tigers getting flogged by 36 or the Eels by 50.
Ronald M
Guest
I cannot see what is so wrong with a draw and with shared spoils if after their alloted 80 mins then where is the problem. The ESL has for many years if not forever been quite happy to call a draw a draw. All the fans go home happy having watched a game in which the honours are shared. So far this year there have been 7 such recorded draws in the ESL. Each team goes away with one point and onto next week. The only case I can see for having a golden point game would be in the case of a final where a clear result is needed. Even origin doesn't need golden point unless we get to game 3 with a game each and a draw after 80 minutes. Apart from these rare exceptions, lets do ourselves a favour and get rid of golden point.
Maroon Blood
Guest
AND.....I was at the third State of Origin in 2002 which was the last game to end in a draw. After an absolute cracker of a game, the crowd was left totally deflated by the game finishing with no result. Even though Qld "retained" the Origin Shield, it was a hollow feeling leaving the game and the crowd that had made thunderous amounts of noise for the previous 80 minutes was reduced to a sombre, let-down rabble exiting the game. Using the Knights/Sharks miss-a-thon as an example to justiify getting rid of Golden Point is stupid as there have been far more examples of Golden Point games that have been absolute thrillers. AND....please don't anyone suggest Golden Try....THAT would turn out to be a complete shambles with players constantly giving away blatant penalties. Keep Golden Point, draws are horrible endings to any game. It ain't broke so don't try to fix it.
oikee
Guest
Going to the video refs is a lottery. I get very frightened when the ref calls it a try and the video ref has to award no try when we all can see it is no try but he cant find the evidence which is staring him in the face. Confused? yes so am i. It is like the Oak ad guy, he is scary. Confused,? yes me to. As for the golden point, have you ever been at a golden point game. Have you sat in the crowd, have you felt the excitement, and he wants to take this away from the fans. Why dont we just take the seats away as well, let's be done with it. Talk about killing the game. Here is a better idea. Lets just play golden point instead of the whole game, and we can all go home excited with a smile on our face. Are we living in a world of killjoys, or sadsacks or even worse partypoopers. Gee Whiz, glad he is not running the game, the kids would have their jumping castles taken away at family fun days. hehe
Dr NRL
Roar Rookie
The rule states that a player is not allowed to intentionally knock the ball forward to gain an advantage. It's actually quite a ridiculous rule considering knocking the ball forward leads, more often that not, to a knock-on. And possession in this game is the most important thing, after all, so it's not a 'coachable tactic', so to speak.
Pot Stirrer
Guest
As for the Johnson tap, while i dont know the rule as such ive always understood it to be an illegal play. However its also my undersanding its not a knock on unless it touches the ground or a defender after going forward. And that being the case im happy with the try being allowed.