- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
The problem with golden point extra time (GPET) isn’t the concept itself – it’s the attitude of the teams and the coaches.
Why is there such an accent on attempting to kick field goals to break deadlocks, particularly when a large percentage of the shots are taken from either impossible positions or under too much pressure?
Why isn’t there a greater emphasis on trying to score tries, or at least getting a repeat set so you can begin another attack from great field position?
I really find the obsession with field goals in GPET extraordinary.
I can understand one or two desperate attempts to kick a field goal in the last few minutes of normal time, when you know the clock is about to run out.
But once the game goes to GPET there are 10 minutes in which to do something.
You don’t have to try to win the game straight away, especially through an ill-conceived attempt at field goal with the defence rushing at you and little or no time in which to get set.
Instead of just running from dummy half to try to get close enough to have some chance of landing a field goal, why don’t teams actually play some football?
Chances are they will end up further down the field on the last tackle and in a position to either put up a bomb, a more shallow kick to the wing, or a grubber into the in-goal.
Teams defending in those situations are going to be nervous about what to do, out of fear they could make a mistake and basically hand the game over to the opposition.
The team in possession in GPET is the team that has the strength, so why do they look so desperate?
They’ve got 10 minutes in which to get a result, and if you hang on to the ball and at least finish off your set with a good kick and chase, the other team is going to be under a lot of pressure to play off their own line without making a mistake.
My memory is not the greatest, but I seem to recall in the early days of GPET there was at least some effort to try to get into try-scoring positions.
It wasn’t all about the field goal, but it gradually became that way.
The Melbourne-Manly game that finished in a 10-10 draw, despite the extra 10 minutes, shouldn’t be regarded as proof that GPET is a bad idea.
It should be viewed as evidence the teams and coaches have got their approach all wrong.
If either of those teams had chosen to try to build pressure on Monday night, they stood a better chance of getting a win than they did from the shots at field goal.
I like GPET. As a big fan of the NFL, I thought it was a great idea when the NRL took the idea from that code.
It didn’t have to become a field goal kicking competition.
Also, I don’t buy the argument it’s too hard on players to – very occasionally – go around for whatever part of an extra 10 minutes it takes to get a result.
If you want to get real about the physical demand on players, go back to the fact they are asked to play 24 regular-season games in the toughest football competition in the world and the elite players are expected to back up for their clubs as soon as 48 hours after State of Origin matches.
That’s where it’s hard on players – not for an extra one, two, five or 10 minutes when they’re already out there anyway.
Wait and see – the next time a team scores a try to settle the argument in GPET, everyone will fall in love with the concept again.
The worry is how long we might have to wait to see it happen.
Reckon you can pick the winning team? Build your own dream team with Draftstars daily fantasy and compete on any match. For great odds on the NRL head on over to PlayUp. Imagine what you could be buying instead. Set a deposit limit.