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…”
Hewie
Guest
If after 80 minutes scores are locked award the 2 points for a WIN to the team that scores the 1st try or the team that has the least number of penalties or if a team has a player sent off or sin binned that team automatically loose the game if the scores are equal after 80 minutes.It would be very rare that a result was not established if such guidelines were introduced.
Cadfael
Roar Guru
This weekend in both Super Rugby and club rugby, there were many times a team won the ball in a scrum against the feed. It works in union because the rules are different.
Professor Rosseforp
Guest
Why not 4 points per game for a win, 1 point for a loss if less than 10 points ; a golden-point win would receive 3.5 points if the winner is playing away, and 2.5 points if playing at home. If the winning team has a score that is a prime number, they get a bonus point -- provided that point would take their total competition points to a prime number higher than the one they scored. Each captain nominates a number before the game in a blank envelope, and the opposing captain guesses it at the end of regular time. Closest to the number can nominate an opposing player be removed from the field of play for golden point time. If no team has won after 30 minutes of golden point time, all scores are wiped out and the game starts again. Pretty simple, and would nullify the "boredom factor" of the draw.
Professor Rosseforp
Guest
Agreed Lester -- golden point is unnecessary and penalises a team that has been unbeaten for the full 80 minutes. Both teams are also penalised by having to play extra time, when it comes to their next games. 1 point each and go home with a draw.
Michael gardiner
Guest
Please get rid of golden point if the teams come to a draw then so be it, leave it at that, it's the fans with the biggest mouths that are listened to on this non sensical rule . I am sure it the NRL ask fans if they want to be rid of the scrum or not the the fans with the biggest mouths not the majority , will be listened to and I believe they will want to keep the ( it makes no sense whatsoever) scrum. Let's face it whoever feeds the scrum ( same applies also to union) gets the ball , so let's get on with the game and stop stuffing around. no grain
Jarrod Free
Roar Rookie
Ditch golden point and make it good, old fashioned extra time if draws are not acceptable. Two five minute periods of play with the leader at the end being the winner. This keeps extra times while also promoting genuine attacking play, as teams will know that one point does not automatically win the match, as well as encouraging referees to properly officiate extra time without fear of one decision deciding the outcome.
Casper
Guest
Hang your head in shame Lote Tuqiri, this all came about because you didn't bother to convert Dane Carlaw's late try in the 2002 origin decider with NSW bleating because Qld retained the shield as holders. From my recollection, you put no effort into the kick because you didn't need to convert it to win that series. Shame on you Dane Carlaw, you had a free run to the try line and could have got closer to the posts. Poor NSW had another reason to cry hard done by.
Michael L
Guest
This is a preposterous idea and in the spirit of the game would lead to gaming the system.
Onside
Guest
Agree Epiquin. Next !
Dogs Of War
Roar Guru
But the fact that it would have impacted the roosters like that means it should be under serious consideration
Epiquin
Roar Guru
RL is a team sport, I'm not sure I like the idea of a Grand Final being lost by a single guy who's never kicked a ball in his life. That's a tough thing to carry with you.
Ismo Seppänen
Roar Rookie
I think they do it in finals in UK union (correct me if I am wrong) and you have to go through the roster. Theres a couple of games on youtube which have the penalty kickoff going for scores like 28-27 goals. High tension, but give me 10mins of ET then a draw of a winner any draw. Screw GP
Rellum
Roar Guru
I'll take it a step further for system that will make golden point more interesting. 5 points for a win in normal time 4 points for a win in extra time by scoring a try 3 points for a win by scoring any other type of point. 2 points fro a draw at the end of extra time 1 point for loosing in extra time 0 points for loosing the old fashioned way.
Michael Keeffe
Roar Guru
Agreed. My 7 year old son and I were at the Broncos v Cowboys last week. The game was high quality but if there was a draw it would have no doubt been deflating. Fair to the teams = yes. Best outcome for the fans = no. Based on the last 15 minutes (10 in regular time & 5 in extra time) it went from being a very good club game to one of the best regular season clubs games I've ever been to in 25+ years of going to the footy. At a time when we're struggling for crowds as a game we need to keep everything we can that enhances the fans experience.
Onside
Guest
Would a penalty kick off work. Each team in turn initially has five shots at goal If result equal at end of five shots, continue until there is a two goal advantage. Tension and watchable. Less of a lottery than GP.
The lazy Phoenix
Roar Pro
Touche!! I would have 4 points per match. One point each for a draw, then the winner gets another 2. All proper winners get 4. This is not an endorsement of golden point, which is stupid, just acceptance.
Sleemo
Guest
I don't necessarily agree with the idea that each team gets a point and then play for an extra one if drawn after 80 minutes... But the argument that it will result in some games being worth 3 points while other games are worth 2 is kind of diminished when you look at soccer, which has that exact system for the past 30 years (where draws result in a point each where a win results in three points to the winner and none to the loser). And it seems to work alright. However, to appease, could a suggested compromise have both teams getting a half-point if drawn after 80 minutes and the winner plays off for an extra point, and if neither of them get a win in GP then they both end up with one point?
matth
Guest
Exactly. I have heard this alternative before and it seems reasonable to me. If you are good enough to win outright you get 3. If it takes extra time for you to get over your opponent, then 2, if you force your opponent into extra time but lose, then 1. If you just lose then 0
Adsa
Guest
I fully supported the golden point rule last year when the Cowdies one the GF. Last week I thought the whole golden point rule was a joke and should be changed.
Christov
Guest
Golden point fix - just make the match go for another 10 minutes. The winner at the end of the 10 wins. It would be more exciting. Imagine the GF last year, would the Broncos look to draw with a field goal or score a try. This way it rewards good rugby league not just field position.