Let’s get it out there from the start – the golden point in the National Rugby League is far from golden.
It’s an exhibition of the worst aspects of our game. There are poor player decisions, negative attacking options, suffocating defensive play pushing the boundaries of the laws, and mind-numbing stupidity.
The concept of golden point was born out of a desire to take the flat feeling out of a tied result and turn that into an exciting finish where a winner would always be declared at the end of the contest.
The idea had its virtues. The fans would be happy with an edge-of-their-seat finale, the broadcasters would be happy with some minutes of additional content, and the winning team would be happy with an additional competition point. The only losers were the losers themselves.
More golden point:
» Roar and Against: Is Golden point the best we have?
» What’s the point of golden point?
» NRL to consider scrapping golden point for finals
Let’s go back to the beginning – and it’s had its flaws since then.
To start with, golden point time only lasts ten minutes (five minutes each way). Why are we playing a ‘sudden death’ period of play when if we have no point scored after ten minutes we have no result anyway? The last example of this was in Round 3, when the Raiders tied with the Knights.
Golden point without a point is pointless.
I was a spectator at the first game that went into golden point, when Manly defeated Parramatta with a penalty goal to Ben Walker in 2003.
The penalty was awarded against Matt Petersen, who cleaned up an Eels dropped ball and was ruled offside. However, he was not offside since he was behind the point where the ball was first touched by his teammate. It was a technical point that wasn’t noticed until the game was reviewed by the officials the following day.
So we had a game decided by an error of law, where the aggrieved team was given no right of reply on the park. Golden point, see? First point wins.
That is where things have gone a bit crazy. We have moved too far away from traditional rugby league. Many other factors have influenced how the game is played those (potential) final minutes.
While pure gold itself does not tarnish, less than 24 carat will. The metals with which it is alloyed corrode with oxygen. Right now we have too much alloy and not enough gold. The corrosion is obtuse.
Never fear – relief is at hand! The NRL Competition Committee will meet next month with a plan to clear the golden point from finals games, which will be a big step forward to its elimination from regular games as well.
There are a few options on the table, like the NFL’s ‘make sure both teams each get a turn with the ball’ model, to a golden try alternative.
The most likely recommendation is regular extra time. Both teams will know they have a full ten minutes of game time to score the winning points, despite what the other team will do in the interim. A field goal from 40 metres out won’t mean the end of the contest.
From what I have seen since its inception, this has to be the way forward. Every game you see that enters the 81st minute has a toddler-with-a-crayon sense of ill-conceived pot-shots at field goal.
Play is routinely up the middle through the forwards, with a half positioned behind the ruck to take the shot. There is no thought of involving the backline. If the shot is missed, we head back up the park with the same play from the opposing team.
It is boring. Team are rarely in position to take a reliable shot at goal but they do it anyway. I’ve spoken to plenty of NRL players about it, and they are all of the same belief. “If you get a chance to win the game, you take it,” is the overwhelming response.
With five minutes each way to decide a finals game, the contest will be finally handed back to its genesis of skill and tactical nous. The long-range drop goal attempts will still be there, but an opposing team may choose to concede that point to use their backline on the next play and still win the game. Both teams will be afforded flexibility to utilise backlines and set plays.
The pressure is off the players to defend one particular scoring play and it is also off the officials.
Once criticism I hear about golden point is players offside on the 10 metres, markers not being square, and the match officials doing nothing about it so it’s their fault. To an extent that is true.
Players will be pushing on the 10-metre line. They will be trying to jump from marker. The referee will penalise someone who has infringed as long as it is peculiar to that time of the game.
If a player in defence holds down the tackled player a moment longer, the fans will see a penalty.
What the officials see is that tackle in context with the previous 80 minutes – if there is another tackle previously of the same standard, this one won’t be penalised.
There is additional heat on the officials – no doubt about it. My second ever NRL game was Round 6, 2008 between the Cronulla Sharks and the Penrith Panthers.
That game was tied at the end of regular time, and I can’t remember who levelled the scores – but I remember wishing it wasn’t happening.
I was two games into a first-grade career as an NRL touch judge, and I didn’t want it to end that night. But if you stuff up a decision that leads to a golden point loss for a team – where to from there?
I know plenty of officials with one or two game NRL games against their name. Not this little duckling.
Sean Hampstead was the referee and Steve Carrall was the other touchie, both veterans of the game (which is why they were appointed to a game with me on the other line). I decided at the whistle to start golden point that I wouldn’t be doing anything that I wasn’t 100 per cent sure of – and even then, only if I was asked.
We had a couple of sets either side with long kicks to put the opposition deep in their own half, before Penrith put in a clearing kick on halfway that hit a Sharks player. It was on the western side of the ground – about 50 metres from where I was – when I heard through my earpiece: “played at”.
It was Sean Hampstead’s voice. The Panthers had regathered the pill. “He’s giving the Panthers six more tackles,” I thought, “this might mean the game right here.”
Until a second later I heard the same voice: “Is it?”
Alarm bells went off in my head – he isn’t sure? What the… he wants me to confirm it’s six again in a golden point game?
I’m too far away – I didn’t see which way the player’s arms moved, I couldn’t tell for sure the distance between the kicker and the defender, I’m not equipped to give advice.
It seemed to take 20 seconds for all those doubts to go through my head, but it must have been more like one second. Because before I could panic, I heard Steve Carroll’s voice in my ear, simply confirming: “Yes.”
So Penrith had the ball and in no time Jarrod Sammut had slotted a field goal to win the game.
All over and after 80 minutes the scores were tied, but after golden point it became Panthers 2 points, Sharks 0 points.
So Cronulla-Sutherland that night came away with the same competition points as Newcastle did last weekend, having conceded 53 over 80 minutes and scoring none. I can’t see any equity in that.
Let’s leave it to the Competition Committee. Even if we have to endure golden point in regular season games, at least we won’t have to suffer it in finals.
At last some oxygen has been given to one aspect of the game that can help strengthen it rather than have it corrode.
up in the north
Roar Rookie
It seems to be a consensus that most people are willing to live with a draw during the season. The issue is how do we get a result in finals that's fair and equitable. Golden anything is a farce, too many random things can happen to make it unfair. So let's assume we go with a set period of extra time as was proposed, 2 x 5mins. Then what, if the scores are still locked? If we agree that the most points scored is how we determine the winner, as opposed to a system where you tally up things like time in opponents red zone, number of times an attacker was held up over the line, or pick your own obscure metric. We need to reward the side that is best based on realistic measures. Because with any system they implement there seems to be a chance that a draw could still be the outcome. Personally I believe a skills based contest should be the deciding factor even if it comes down to a penalty shootout after time is up. Just like soccer - only different. Picture the last Grand Final after JT missed the conversion. Both sides use one kicker who trade attempts from the left touchline, middle of the park and then the right touchline, repeat then rinse until one side has a two (2) goal margin. Then they win. For me it covers a lot of issues the biggest being it takes the lottery of golden stuff totally out of the equation.
Dutski
Roar Guru
Thanks Dan. He was one that looked promising and never took off
Emcie
Roar Guru
How is there a lopsided amount of points on the table? Do people add up the amount of points at the end of the year and divide it by the amount of games just to make sure everything is equal?
Dan Eastwood
Expert
He's playing in the UK. He was with the ill-fated 'Celtic Crusaders' for a season before that franchised collapsed leaving a lot of players out of pocket. I'm not sure who he's with now.
JGK
Roar Guru
Totally agree. Sometimes a draw is the right result. That said, I could live with the proposal above that there are 4 points per game and if there is extra time the winner gets 3 and the loser 1. I should also be upfront here and say that even though I was against golden point from the start, the fact that my Dragons have historically been utterly useless at it hasn't helped.
Perry Bridge
Guest
I'm not sure why a regular season draw is such a bad thing? It's not as prevalent as in soccer and it is a valid result. For finals it is unacceptable - for a variety of valid reasons. 5 mins each way makes sense - allowing each side to play with any advantage of wind etc. And in the 'turn based' structure of Rugby League it has always looked odd that golden point was applied. You can do golden point indoors with no wind as an issue and a 50/50 contest at some point to kick it off.
Dutski
Roar Guru
Whatever happened to Jarrod Sammut?
bear54
Mark: In NFL extra time rules, if the team taking possession first scores a field goal the opposition get a chance to do the same but had the first team scored a TD it's all over let's go home.
Hardwick
Guest
The NRL won't get rid of extra-time, so ultimately it's about coming up with the 'best' method. 2 x 5 minute halves seems a fair way to do it. Make it first to score 4 points - so you have the option of a try, or if a team is flouting the rules, then the option of 2 penalty goals. Or 4 field goals if the Milf is involved. For regular season games, if it's still even at 90 mins call it a draw. The NRL seems happy enough with this 'result' under the current rules. For finals, move into 'golden point' The issue people keep raising around negative play setting for a field goal is exactly what you tend to see after about 70 mins in a tied contest anyway.
Gurudoright
Guest
NRL Sydney-centric conspiracy theory no. 3,434
Johnno
Guest
My view: Regular-season bring back draws(Golden Point/or Golden Try reward mediocrity in regular season). Finals-footy: Keep Golden-Point not bring in Golden-try, why? The field-Goal is a skill-set that should still hold value in rugby-league, there not easy to do. It's makes the attack more unpredictable for the defence, knowing there are 3-scoring options(field-goal/try/penalty kick). Rugby union has field-goals at 3-points further making the skill-set a valued one. I'd like field-goals in rugby league to made 2-points, as a rule change, as it's a skill-set (kicking like in rugby union with the field goal). 2-point field goals split up the defensive patterns more as it would make the attack more unpredictable. Rugby league moving to 5-point tries like rugby union wouldn't be such a bad thing too, to increase enterprise play. Too much dummy-half running still in my view. Golden-try would make the game more predictable, we want more contests for possession in rugby league and unpredictability in the game. I'd also like to see a team who gets a draw away from home, to be awarded 1.5 points, that would be exciting, so you almost get a full points for getting a a Draw, and the home side who gets a draw is punished with only 1 point for the Draw. Would be a real incentive for away teams to get a Draw.
Sambo
Guest
Good read Dan.There is nothing wrong with a draw.The one point could be vital in confirming finals positions. Just get rid of it.
Mark
Guest
My understanding of the NFL rules are that a particular score doesn't win the game, but if a team scores on the first drive the opposition gets an opportunity to better the score. If there is no score on the first drive, then first score wins. They did that because winning the toss in overtime was too big an advantage.
planko
Guest
Cat Cat if I had Moses or Brooks manager in my office and asking 900k I would dusting off this golden point 10 minutes. This is why cronk is on 900k and why your boy is not. Cronks FG attempt was hit sweet as never look liked missing
catcat
Guest
It's 80mins of league followed by 10mins of some other game- but I have to admit that I get excited by the extra time shoot out. I would definitely like to see the "golden try" introduced as I think will bring extra time play more inline with the regular 80mins play (less poorly executed FGs). The NFL model works well too- if you want to tweak the golden try rules like that.
Epiquin
Roar Guru
This is the same as the idea I floated yesterday and is basically what they do in touch footy. I'd be a fan of 2 x 5 minute halves of set extra time. If scores are still tied at the end, make it golden try and start implementing the drop off rule (down to no less than nines players a side).
The Barry
Roar Guru
I've never been a fan of golden point. Sure, it's exciting at times but its always a cheap, dirty kind of thrill. I could take one point in a regular season game at the end of 80 and then 10 mins of extra time followed by golden point in tied origins or semis. Seven tackles hasn't helped golden point. Now we see a team have a wild shot, it goes dead. The other team gets seven tackles from the 20 metre line and of course they just hit it up the middle before having their own wild shot. Repeat.
Scrum
Guest
Two halves because of climatic conditions-namely the wind-not a fair contest if 1 team is running into a strong wind while the other has it at their backs.
Oiler
Guest
Get rid of "golden point" and make it "golden try". Take a page from the NHL and give the winner of "golden try" 2 points and the other team still earn 1 competition point. That way everyone still gets some entertainment and the losing team gets something for a draw after 80 minutes. Will make the table awesome!
Bulldog
Guest
Interesting mind set from a ref perspective which highlights that they are influenced by external factors and potential media scrutiny (only human I guess). On this point one of the problems with golden point for me was highlighted in the recent Broncos vs Cowboys game which the Broncos won. The Cowboys were over the line twice for tries in golden point but were denied by a marginal/arguable forward pass call and a 50/50 video ref call for a knock on by Feldt and hence punished for enterprising play by the "rub of the green". However in other games players are wildly offside defending the field goal and the refs (as pointed out in the article) are unwilling to blow a penalty and the video ref cannot not rule on obvious an infringement. Seems inconsistent....