I heard people talking about introducing the four try and close loss bonus point system for the Six Nations.
I am going to tell you why this is a ridiculous suggestion.
It opens the possibility of winning a grand slam and not the Six Nations title. That does not make sense does it? Philippe Saint-Andre appropriately pointed this out and England would have won in 2002 even though France did the Grand Slam.
It could also open up the possibility of collusion among countries.
Hypothetically, Nation A could get 20 points and the Grand Slam. Nation B collude with Nation C and agree to tank the final game to ensure that Nation C get 21 points (4 4-try wins and a close loss) and deny Nation A the six nations.
I honestly don’t think it would actually happen. It is just a hypothetical and I am saying it might become a possibility.
I think that bonus points should not be used in the World Cup either. It makes no difference to the final tally. If you win all your games you top the pool, if you win three lose two you finish second.
The points system from the 1991-99 World Cups was worse when you had three for a win, two for a draw and one for a loss.
I believe all future World Cups should use the 1987 system, two for a win, one for a draw and zero for a loss.
Now for domestic competitions, Heineken Cup and Super Rugby.
In this case, I think that the four-try bonus point is fantastic.
It encourages positive play and if you are ahead by 12 points with five minutes to go, scored three tries and just had a penalty.
You are more likely to turn down the three points to get that fourth try. Though I do not like the close loss point.
These are grown men not under 10s, so why should you give a standing ovation for effort? It is unfair that a draw without scoring four tries is the same as a four try close loss.
Please Six Nations, stick with the points system you have. It is not to do with tradition, but with logical reasoning and fairness.
chuck
Guest
ireland
soapit
Guest
make normal wins worth 5 and a grand slammer can't be beaten to the title. no reason they have to be 4.
Old Bugger
Guest
And the RC is also home and away - the point is, each team knows that the bonus point system will favour those sides who are prepared to chase and secure that point. It does encourage opponents to go for it similar to the AB's effort in Jo'burg last year against the Boks. In your example, if England put 4-tries on the same opposition that France couldn't, then that's France's problem and the bonus point is England's reward for enterprising rugby and pursuit of their objective - to secure the bonus point. Nevertheless, I know which games I'd prefer to watch if the outcome of game results provides multiple tries being scored.....nothing absurd about that but you take your chances and opportunities on any field of combat. Isn't that what sport is all about - to not only secure victory but secure it emphatically.
Niven
Guest
The talk of Grand Slam winner France being potentially "robbed" of a Six Nations title in 2002 is misinformed. Granted, both France and England would have finished with 21 points under a bonus point system and England had a better for-and-against record. However, if the number of wins was used as the first tie breaker (as in Super Rugby since 2011), France would still have been the Six Nations champions (and Grand Slam winners). Also, statistical measures show that bonus points can more accurately rank teams from strongest to weakest, rather than just rewarding win and draws. However, a try bonus based on net tries (as in French domestic competitions) is superior to the four-try bonus widely used. See http://www.significancemagazine.org/details/webexclusive/4484481/Will-bonus-points-improve-the-Six-Nations-Championship.html for more information. (I apologize for the shameful self promotion.)
firstxv
Guest
Yes but we play home and away- twice each. Agree with the type of rugby to be played- just not the impact of the existing bonus points system on the outcome.. lets say England beat Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Italy- all with 4 tries France beat the same 4- all with 3 tries Both unbeaten...France on 16 points, England on 20. Last game- big finale- 2 very even sides. France beat England in a nail biter by 3 points- both two tries each. England is crowned 6 Nations champs (All France get is a Grand slam and a 100% win record). Now thats absurd...they should just look at tweaking the bonus points so that outcome isnt possible.
Old Bugger
Guest
forgot to mention - the RC comp is played between 4N vs 6N up north.
Old Bugger
Guest
I guess that's the difference between running rugby and kicking rugby; between scoring tries and kicking penalties; between watching a game that is a points fest rather than a slug fest. As a spectator at any sporting spectacle, you pay your ticket price hoping to witness a spectacle not a yawn....a game that goes from one end to the other and just burns the lungs of every player who participates. That's what I hope to see when I buy a ticket but I'm not greedy...I'll take 9 games out of 10 to be a spectacle.
Higgik
Guest
How about making a 8N. Weeks 1-3 1st rd - 2 groups of 4 play home or away Equal groups A England, France, Scotland, Romania B Ireland, Wales, Italy, Georgia Week 4 rest week Weeks 5-6 2nd round Championship group A1, A2, B1, B2 Plate group A3, A4, B3, B4 Play 2 matches v teams not already played Starting in 2015 England play France home, Scotland home and Romania away Assume teams finish in world ranking order, England would then play, wales home and Ireland away This would mean that the only difference would be swapping Italy for Romania in current format. This system, would allow new teams to develop, while still giving top teams regular matches.
firstxv
Guest
Although I am an advocate of the bonus points system I agree with the post, the main reason being that the number of teams and matches in the 6N competition are at a low enough level for the bonus points system to influence the table to a much greater extent than the other competitions, which have many more teams and matches. A side that gets 4 wins all with 4 tries effectively 'creates' the equivalent of another win, and should they lose the last with a within 7 bonus point could end up beating a side that wins every match with no tries scored by the one bonus point. Some may think that is fine in terms of the spectacle but any tournament that allows a side that wins 100% of its matches and doesnt win it, is flawed. The Rugby championship went close to exposing this last year but appears to have 'just' enough matches to stay clear of the same, though those who get their calculator out might find that wrong.
Magic Sponge
Guest
Scotland Johnno what about Italy, did you miss that game. I agree Mike keep as is , I think the games have been far superior than S15 games. Ireland vs England was a cracker.
sheek
Roar Guru
Mike, I think you are being melodramatic. The bonus points system works quite well in the southern hemisphere. It rewards teams for not only winning, but playing well. And if you're going to lose, the best way to lose is to push your opponent to the absolute limit by picking up two bonus points - one for scoring four tries & another for losing by seven or less. The next things the lawmakers need to do is to reduce the amount of kickable penalties. Only allow penalty shots at goal for deliberate dirty play & professional fouls/obstruction. All other pens short-arm. Rediscover the art of crafting & scoring tries!
Johnno
Guest
I think bonus points should come in. the 6 nations needs a bit of spark, bonus points, and promotion/relegation for other euro sides to come in. Scotland have been woeful, some have said they should be booted out. I'd like to see Georgia and Romania challanging for a 6 nation spot.