Next year, the Rugby Football League – the governing body of the British game – has decided to give teams in the second-tier Championship and third-tier League 1 a point each in the case of a draw, as I would assume they have since 1895, and then let them play on in golden point time for another point.
This is not a new idea. The benefit of sharing one’s thoughts on Twitter before writing a column is that I was informed by one knowledgable chap that they did this for seven years in Group Four in New South Wales Country Rugby League. Or maybe it was four years in Group Seven.
But there are some very sound mathematical and integrity-related reasons why it has not been adopted more widely.
The chief among these is that golden point games are now, in the Championship and League 1, worth more points than every other game. There are three competition points up for grabs in these matches, compared with two in every other match.
To spell this out for people who are, like me, mathematically challenged: teams who play in ten golden point games will share 30 points, teams who play in ten regular matches will share 20 points.
Group one has an advantage over group two – even though the intention was not to make these games more important and to give group one this advantage.
In fact, the evidence suggests the opposite: golden point had its critics when introduced in Super League and the RFL could therefore be assumed to be trying to water it down – but in fact they are making golden point games more desirable and significant.
There is now a pronounced incentive to be involved in them.
Teams who played in more golden point games will, generally, finish above those who played in none – because they will hand out an extra point in these matches. I know I’m labouring the point but fans generally look at a game as an isolated unit and think if it’s fair within a game, it’s fair.
Even a tweeter who argued with me vociferously over all this admitted that the make-up of the NRL finals in 2019 would have been altered had this system been in force, with the Wests Tigers in and the Broncos out.
One popular defence of what is a mathematically flawed system was that bonus points have been going in the round-ball code of football for yonks.
But bonus points are handed out for competitively desirable reasons – more goals, away wins etc. Is it the object of rugby league to finish 80 minutes even? Is that what we play for?
No, but we are going to reward it anyway.
I’m not smart enough to suggest a way this new system could be exploited every week by a coach but certainly you would have to think a tied game with five minutes to go is more likely to stay a tied game if there is a consolation prize for finishing the match as the loser.
Just don’t be behind at the 80-minute mark.
(Photo by Albert Perez/Getty Images)
Golden point is nothing more than a gimmick. But, as I’ve said before, getting rid of the breakaways was a gimmick in 1907. Almost everything we do is a gimmick designed to entertain. I’m no big fan of golden point and I’m not a hater, either.
But there is a lack of understanding that golden point is supposed to be unfair. It’s supposed to be heartbreaking.
The NRL is in the business of entertaining, not being fair to well-paid players. Golden point comes from the same place as the now-defunct Million Pound Game. Toronto won a fake MPG this year – there was no jeopardy. The concept is deliberately cruel because people love watching cruelty on TV!
The British game, with its folksy northern roots and I-know-all-the-players-personally niceness, can’t quite bring itself to be so ruthless. And in League 1 and the Championship, players are part time. This was one of the things about the MPG that made people cringe: that the players might be out of a job if they lost.
So everyone getting a prize is considered more in keeping with the culture and economics at play than competitive integrity. I guess you can say fair enough.
The other point made by my British colleagues is that the draws are hopelessly skewed anyway. The teams do not play each other once or twice or three times – they just pull fixtures out of their backsides that will make money at the gate.
Summer Bash and Magic Weekend are most often just made up of games that bear no relation to the draw but do count on the table. If you historically draw well against team X, we’ll have you play team X four times to help fill your coffers!
And that is an open and shut case in favour of the new system. That arguments wins.
When it comes to degrees of expedient daftness, you stop counting after a while.
Max
Guest
The answer is simple. Give 4 points for EVERY game, instead of the current 2 points. Get 4 points for a win / 0 points for a loss in 80 minutes. Get 3 points for golden point win / 1 point for gold point loss. Alls fair.
mushi
Roar Guru
Then your argument lacks any validity. If on the day contributes to the season, which it does, of course it was. It also only affects those that lose golden point games, again the entire point.
mushi
Roar Guru
Basically exactly what has been proposed
Wade
Guest
As long as you added Golden try. So FG shoot out can occur, just won't win you the game till 10mins is up.
Wayne
Roar Guru
Make a win worth 3 points. Golden point win 2 Golden point loss 1 You are then punished for not winning in regular time
Big Daddy
Guest
The draw worked well for 100 years and the NRL decided to copy U.S ideas of we have to have a winner hence golden point. Should have left it as it was.
max power
Guest
make it 4 points for a regular win. for an extra time win, 3 to the winner and 1 to the loser
Steve Mascord
Guest
No, I’d argue the aim is to be fairer ON THE day by rewarding a team that draws in regular time. The aim was not to favour all teams over the course of a season who play in golden point games. But that is the effect.
Noosa Duck
Roar Rookie
The problem with golden point is that suddenly, mysteriously, the rules change and whatsmore that prat in the middle who has been annoying you for 80 minutes, the referee suddenly becomes the invisible man. Not only that we stop playing rugby league and pretend we are playing Aussie rules trying to get a kick between the big sticks as they say. Do you get the impression I dislike golden point, sure do happy with the draw and a point for each team.
matth
Roar Guru
John McCoy, the veteran radio announcer in Brisbane has been proposing this for a while and it makes perfect sense.
Cugel
Roar Rookie
Under the points for both teams scheme, at some point, a team will be ousted from the finals by a team with an inferior record. e.g. 12-0-12 with no GP is the same as 11-13 with two GP losses. Then it will be abandoned.
Mick Holland
Roar Rookie
Peter See I would think if the time stops more for wasted time & the game last longer then there is more opportunity for ads & ad breaks, I don't want league to end up like NFL were a 60 minute game last 4 hours & a thousand ad breaks but I do see time wasted in curtain areas that the clock could stop & give the fans more time in play rather then the boring stuff although conversion is not boring I just rather see the time being spent having the time in play rather then a conversion or as mentioned before about time wasting "winding the clock down" it could ad more worth to the experience the spectator has & still can fit into the 2hrs slot just less talk time at the end that's all
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Yes I like the draw sharing the two points offered too. The clock is not stopped because they want the game to slot into a nice TV time period with adverts included.
jimmmy
Roar Rookie
Its a personal preference. I concede everyone is different. When a game is drawn , there is no victory celebration, no losing devastation just a numb feeling of unease. For me sport needs a binary result. Draws are way too much like real life. There is no ambiguity in a win or a loss. I would make an awful soccer fan.
Greg
Roar Pro
Captains/coaches challenges dont work in rugby league because to many of the decisions are genuinely 50-50. The best example of such is when there is a loose carry ANd a defender is playing at the ball in a 2 man tackle. It has been trialled a couple times and quickly abandoned each time. I dont mind stopping the clock to eliminate time wasting. Id prefer time is stopped whenever a penalty is awarded and started when the foot touches the ball for tap/goal kick/ kick for touch. This way the fake committee meetings where players are pretending to decide what to do whilst their real objective is to waste time or the 3 minutes off the clock to kick a penalty goal from right in front either wont happen or wont impact the clock.
Greg
Roar Pro
I dont disagree but the reason is ratings increase during golden point and hence the tv execs insist its part of the game and contributes to value of tv rights
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Are you saying that you could watch an exciting last 5 minutes of a game and then if the last play was a missed field goal you would say I hated that. Draws are always exciting and I don't understand why anyone hates them?
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Golden Point favours the team winning the toss getting the 2 points not the best team. Given that points are equal it would be debateable as to which team was better. That is why both teams always got one point each and there was no need to prolong the spectacle and change the result after 80 minutes that decided all the other games in the round. GP should only be used in elimination games after two periods of extra time each way.
Mick Holland
Roar Rookie
I personally prefer a draw after 80 minutes, 1 point each during the regular season opens the ladder up & shows the real closeness of the competition, keep over time & golden point to the finals & state of origin when the game needs a result. Also like to add if the clock stops after a try is scored & doesn’t start until the other team kicks off then you could save up to 10 minutes average, there is your extra time without extra time & if the result is the same after real 80 minutes of play instead of time getting wasted going for conversions however a penalty goal is different because if the kicker misses & the other team catch it it’s play on (I think) So stopping the clock for wasted play time could be looked at. Off the topic but with referees making some dubious calls this year & people getting frustrated I would suggest a coaches challenge maybe 2 a half however it might slow the game up so just a thought for the day.
Big Daddy
Guest
First comment that makes sense. Must play each other twice. Only downside is a drain on players and maybe you have to make salary cap bigger to accommodate as more matches means more wear and tear and maybe larger roster. But only the strongest will survive.