- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
I’ve heard a couple if interesting suggestions over the past week to resolve two of rugby league’s roasting chestnuts – golden point and the bunker.
Brisbane coach Wayne Bennett, as most readers would know, doesn’t like golden point. He doesn’t like it when his team wins a golden point game and he doesn’t like it when they lose one.
Meanwhile, after a three-week honeymoon, decisions from the bunker have slowed down and there is a widely held belief it has started getting them wrong, too.
First things first.
My colleague Paul Kent supports golden point working this way: if a game is tied at the end of regulation time, the teams get a competition point each. They then play on for a third competition point.
There is a clear mathematical problem here: some games are worth three points and others would be worth two.
Why should some teams – those involved in golden point games – have the opportunity to get a point from what used to be a loss while others, i.e. those who are not involved in golden point games, miss that opportunity?
The answer, I guess, is that if you get close enough to go into golden point you deserve it.
It sounds awry to me that we could start a season not knowing exactly how many competition points are up for grabs but what are the practical implications of this?
Can it be exploited?
On the surface, it would be in everyone’s interests for every game to go to golden point. More competition points for everybody!
You might think there would be an incentive there for teams to go easy for 80 minutes, collect their one competition point and then have a go – like the final quarter of a basketball match.
But rugby league just doesn’t work like that. If the most you could get out of the afternoon or evening for yourself was two competition points, you’d want to pocket them as soon as possible. Bugger the other guys!
Kenty’s idea is like a bonus point for coming close, which does work in other sports. Nevertheless, I have a gnawing doubt that there is a flaw in the concept I just can’t grasp yet.
Can you help?
The second idea comes from another colleague, who shall remain nameless because he might want to write his own column about it.
He suggested in the press box at the weekend that instead of on-field officials pausing for the bunker to intervene, they should just go about their business until interrupted.
In other words, award or disallow the try and in the time before play resumes, the bunker can overturn a decision during the natural pause in the game.
It’s a really interesting idea – but probably wouldn’t help the bunker’s bid to get a sponsor.
The whole thing has been ostentatious, hasn’t it? They could have just left the appearance the same as the video ref, with the fact he is now off-site a mere footnote.
Instead, it’s been branded The Bunker. Capital T. Capital B.
I can’t seem the word ‘unobtrusive’ popping up in the same sentence any time soon. Also, taking away a try once it has been given on the field does nothing for the position or respect of the referee and is decidedly un-crowd-friendly.
No, I say they just have to stop forcing the referee to guess when he’s not sure. Perhaps the ref could say “we’ve got a rumour of a try…”