Should we axe golden point?

Why not, 3 points for the win, 2 points for golden point win, 1 point for a draw.

Finals and Origin only. In the bad old days in finals we would have mid week replays. OK up to a point when it was Sydney teams only but not now.Nothing wrong with a draw in club footy.

Wow the moderating of this thread is a bit off. Two comments which conformed with the comments policy not published and no explanation.

In extra time if Team A score a field goal,penalty goal or try on their first set of tackles it is hardly fair. Both sides should have an opportunity to score. I think the NFL use that process. My personal opinion leave it a draw after 80 minutes and use it in finals.

Every year this comes up umpty times. Most of the comments are from those who want it scrapped, very few from those in favour. Leave it be - I like Golden Point although it makes it difficult when meeting up with friends and family after the game!.

I agree, I find golden try to be nonsense. I would prefer just 5 minutes extra time each way and if the scores are still locked up at the end of the second half of extra time - call a draw or roll into golden point from there.

"The idea of golden point was introduced based on the idea of avoiding draws." No it wasn't, Adam. It was brought in to appease Channel 9. Golden point was brought in to stop sides who had drawn level with 5 or 10 minutes to go, shutting up shop and playing for the draw. I remember drawn games where it was clear 5 minutes or more before full time that was going to be the result. Both sides had more or less said, a point each is fine so we'll kick the ball into touch, take our time packing scrums and generally run down the clock. Not surprisingly, the broadcasters arked up about it, as people were switching channels minutes before the end of games and they lobbied the NRL to change it. The broadcaster got their wish, so they get to show more commercials with a captive audience wanting to see the end of the game, thus making more money. The losers out of this are the players, which no-one seems to care about. The guys on the field don't train to play 90 minutes of football, yet potentially this is what might be asked of them any week of the season. For what? So Channel 9 or Fox can make more money and a few fans get excited at a drop kick? There's nothing wrong with a draw in normal time and that's the way the game should be. It was in place for 80 odd years and only changed through the greed of certain TV channels. Play extra time for games that demand a result, eg finals and SOO, but accept a draw as a fair result, without having the need to manufacture a victory for one team or another.

Wow, you must be some sort of crazy person. Did you actually read me comment or just wanted to write a smart @rse comment to justify a pointless and nonrelated sentence? And for the record, I'm in favour of the golden point rule hence the Beatles reference "let it Be" as it doesn't need changing IMO.

I'd get rid of extra time during the normal season....a point apiece is fair. During the finals the team with the most tries, fewer penalties, first try etc etc (....or any other metric deemed equitable) wins the game after normal time.....it may actually provide the impetus to produce attacking footy. (PS. Your use of musicians who have died by 'misadventure' is becoming a worry Adrian) :)

Regular Season: Have a draw and move on. The broadcasters have deadlines, and they pay the bills. Finals/SOO: 5mins each way. If still deadlocked, then do the same as the AFL, and continue playing the "2nd half" until there is a result.

Regular Season: Have a draw and move on. The broadcasters have deadlines, and they pay the bills. Finals/SOO: 5mins each way. If still deadlocked, then do the same as the AFL, and continue playing the "2nd half" until there is a result.

The way you win a game of rugby league is by being in front after X number of minutes, it isn't by scoring any winning points. If scores are locked after 80, play 5 more minutes. If they are still locked after 85, play 5 more. I don't want golden try or anything, I have no problem with a team kicking a field goal to win a game, but it shouldn't end a game. Just like it wouldn't end a game if you kicked at 78 or 79 minutes, you should still have to defend that lead until time expires, what ever time that is. I don't think you need 10 full minutes of extra time, if golden point can be over after 45 seconds, 5 minutes will do. and then 5 more if needed. Call it a draw after 90 minutes in the regular season if you want, keep adding 5 minutes in the games that have to have a result.

Given let it be predates the rule change allowing golden point aren't you arguing against it?

Yes

Every year we have a few "I hate Golden Point" articles usually written by some-one whose team lost in golden point. Why not just write "I love Draws" articles because that is what you want.

I think a combination of 1 & 3, with a bit of a tweak - Only for SOO and Finals, but needs to be 5mins each way, Golden Try. This will all sound a bit long winded, but bare with me. I'm sure that someone smarter than me can come up with a more succinct way of turning this into a rule - I think that one of the problems with Golden Point is that referees are cautious to call any penalties, knowing that they can potentially decide the whole game with one contentious decision. So we need to try and keep the final result out of their hands as much as we can, so they don't feel added pressure, and can ref overtime the same as they would any other part of the game. So rather than adding pressure on the referees by expecting them to sin-bin players for anything that could be considered as a professional foul (although they should still definitely sin bin players for blatant professional fouls), I think that teams are allowed to go for penalty goals in the final 10 mins, and if after 10 mins of play and no try has been scored, if a team is ahead on penalty goals, they win. That'll stop players from giving away professional fouls in overtime, and refs can still happily call penalties that are there, without worrying that the whole game will potentially be over because of it.

Golden point is fine. People complain about the fairness. At the end of the day, you didn't do enough to win the game outright convincingly, so you have to expect an element of chance. It baffles me that the fairness of it gets so much airtime and/or columns devoted to it. Yet a team could score 3 tries right infront from deflected grubbers and barge over tries, converting all three while another team could come up with a combination of amazing ad lib play and great strucutred planned plays and score 3 tries all out wide converting just 2 and they lose because conversions are not taken from the same point on the field but are all worth the same... Doesn't that have more impact on the outcome of the game? Just leave it as is.

I am happy to drop it altogether, but if is is around then it has be to golden try, but I am also happy to have the Field goal dropped altogether. Golden try with no field goals might actually be worth it.

If I am reading that right you are saying you are happy to get slapped in the face?