Manly-Canterbury was a great game, but to call the ending a ‘thriller’ (as the Bulldogs’ website did) is to severely overstate it.
Granted it is great for the crowd to leave the ground split in two, either celebrating a great escape or mourning an agonising defeat, but superfluous field goal attempts and the milking of a penalty once the team is in a kickable position are defeating the purpose of golden point.
Maybe I’m overreacting, scrapping the concept altogether could be stepping over the line. Perhaps all that needs to be done is some tinkering.
An easy fix would be 10, 15 or 20 minutes of extra time being played (should there be a deadlock after 80 minutes of regular play) and whoever, if anyone, is leading at the end of extra time takes the points.
‘But what if nobody is leading?’ – I know. If, after extra time, nobody is leading surely we can recognise the teams as inseparable on the day and let them share the points for a game well contested?
Coaches will rue not going home with all the competition points but even they would appreciate two teams giving their all and not being able to come away with a win.
Maybe that’s not the solution but it would be much better than the current kick-a-thon that sees shanks flying all around the park from 45 metres out at the end of each set.
There could be a different solution. How about a 10-on-10 contest for 10 minutes? This would see great ball movement and some pretty impressive finishes to games.
What do you think?
planko
Guest
Just play the extra 10 and if still tied it is a draw. But the key is PLAY the whole 10 regardless.
Linedropout
Roar Pro
I'd be happy with the 10 minutes extra time regardless of a field goal being kicked in the first two minutes. Would be good for the players to have a chance to win the game with a great try.
Conor Hickey
Roar Pro
EIther Peter Sterling or Gus Gould has a good idea where you have golden try but after X minutes you have to take two players off the field. I suppose you'd have to test that to make sure, like in Golden point, the team which gets the ball first doesn't get an advantage. We could implement a system similar to the NFL. They have it so both teams get a chance to posses the ball unless a touchdown is scored. So if a team receives the first kick in the beginning of extra time and scores a field goal, which is really easy to do, they don't necessarily win the game without the other team getting a chance. If a team does score a FG, the other team gets a chance to either score a TD or a FG. A TD wins the game and a FG sends it into sudden death, the next points win. For League you could have 10 minutes of extra time unless a try is scored. If a FG is kicked then the time keeps going until it expires, giving the other team a chance to equalise or score their own try.
solly
Guest
Look, just leave it as a draw. Why is that so hard to accept? The only time you need a win-lose result is in finals football. You don't even need it in Origin since a drawn result means you didn't knock out the champ. Ergo, the reigning champ continues to reign. As for finals football, the first team to score a try wins but scoring a penalty goal and field-goal does not. The good thing about this system is its flexibility as it not only relieves the pressure on the referees but also ensures that a semblance of rugby league can still be played. A team may take the penalty or field-goal to take the lead but they still have to defend it. A try, of course, rewards rugby league.