In 2003 the NRL implemented arguably the biggest change to the rules in rugby league history by adopting the ‘golden point’ system to decide drawn games.
This change was sold as a way to ensure more games ended with a result rather than a draw and was designed to be a gift for fans who would have the opportunity to devour more high-stakes rugby league than ever before throughout the regular season.
There were few initial critics of golden point after its inception and even fewer critics in the media, who pushed (and continue to push) the company line about what a wonderful innovation it is and that rugby league is so much better because of it.
Ultimately, however, anyone with even a basic understanding of rugby league should see golden point for what it is: a sideshow that has systematically undermined the fabric of rugby league for the entirety of its history.
(Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
Arguments as to the truth of this comment are abundant and easily proven, but all are moot at this stage as golden point has spawned a ratings bonanza for broadcasters, created unlimited fodder for journalists and provided increased cash flor for the league, who have been able to leverage this ‘lucky dip’ method of deciding games in negotiating massive television and radio broadcast deals.
So entrenched is golden point now that media personalities and former NRL players can finally speak freely about the negative aspects of golden point without fear of it being removed. Cries by fans to have games end in draws will forever go unheard as the regulation-time te has permanently been relegated to the scrapyard of rugby league history, a remnant of a bygone era with unlimited tackle sets, three-point tries and a single referee.
As such, any argument for removing golden point is a fruitless one, with only two relevant considerations remaining: firstly, how can (or should) a team win in golden point and, secondly, what should a golden point win or loss be worth?
Both arguments are based on the fairness or unfairness of winning or losing in extra time. This fairness or unfairness impacts not only the teams competing in the match but also more broadly the entire competition ladder.
With respect to the consideration of how a team can win in golden point, there has been a multitude of opinions alluding to changes that should occur. Systems including golden try and ‘right of reply’ have been argued along with several of other possibilities and the various benefits or imperfections each system may have compared to the current field goal-a-thon golden point system.
There are so many possibilities that each option could be an article all to themselves, so I will leave that for others debate, although I have plenty of ideas.
For the second consideration, however, of what a golden point win or loss should be worth, there is only one fair solution. We have all heard the very legitimate questions asked about why teams winning in golden point get the same reward of two competition points as a team that can ice a game in regular time. Similarly teams that lose in golden point get the same big fat duck egg – zero competition points – as a team that gets 50 points put on them in regular time.
Simply put, the current point system is unfair and unworkable if golden point continues to be part of the game in whatever iteration it exists. Therefore the only workable solution is for the NRL to change the current pointscoring structure.
For the uninitiated, the current system is as follows.
- Win: two competition points.
- Draw: one competition point.
- Loss: zero two competition points.
For and against is calculated based on a team’s full-time score.
Instead of the above, the following system should be adopted by the NRL immediately to address the imbalance in the current scoring structure. This system would give maximum reward to those teams that win in regular time. Teams that win in golden point would also be significantly advantaged, yet it would reduce the imbalance for those teams not beaten in regular time.
- Win: four competition points.
- Golden point win: three competition points.
- Draw: two competition points.
- Golden point loss: one competition point.
- Loss: zero two competition points.
For and against would still be calculated using only a team’s full-time score.
If the NRL are serious about addressing the inequality caused by the golden point system, the first step they must take is implementing the above competition point structure. This is a walk-up start for the NRL and one that nobody could reasonably argue is unfair to any team.
As the NRL continues to strive for equality on and off the field it is time the imbalance caused by the introduction of golden point some 17 seasons ago is addressed. Adopting this competition pointscoring structure is as fair and as simple as it gets. Let’s hope they can get it done before a ball is kicked in 2020.
Paul
Roar Rookie
Golden Point wins make for great drama so I can see how some people value it. I think the basic philosophy of sport says there should be a winner and a loser, so from that perspective a win is a win. If we want to make a distinction between a good win and a by-the-skin-of-your teeth win then there's no need to reinvent the wheel, just use a bonus point system. 2 points for a win. A losing Bonus point for losing by less than a converted try, a winning bonus point for winning by scoring x points more than your opponent. Rugby Union recently shifted from scoring three converted tries to scoring 4 more tries than your opponent. That stops the losing team from throwing in the towel and encourages the winning team from taking their foot off the gas.
Dingo
Roar Rookie
A game of Rugby League goes for 80 minutes. Scrap golden points or golden tries. If a team is good enough to match you for 80 mintes or vice versa then good on you both. Both teams had 80 minutes to sow superiority. If golden point is used...scrap the 80 minutes and just have golden point games. It doesn't make sense. Scrap the golden point. Just sayin'.
Daniel Higgins
Roar Rookie
Maybe not ideal but I’d be much happier with that system then the current one.
Dogs Of War
Roar Guru
If we are changing the scoring system, I'd prefer it to be 3 points for a win. 2 points for a win in golden point. 1 for a loss or draw in golden point. It would make teams fight harder, and if you get a draw still, your not getting rewarded with extra points like the 4 point for a win system. I don't want to see extra points being acceptable in one game. Prefer to be less points available.
Tom G
Roar Rookie
Here's a better idea.. just get rid of golden point. If the game is a draw then it is a draw. Extra time is an unnecessary burden on players and increases the risk of injury.. Also I've never understood the attraction of seeing who has the only guy on the field who can kick a field goal.
Dan67B
Roar Rookie
Golden try sounds better to stop the embarrassing field goal a thon. Also takes the pressure on referees in regard to giving penalties in extra time in front of posts. If no try scored it is a draw and both get a point. Everyone happy.
Daniel Higgins
Roar Rookie
It’s basically a system that fixes the anomalies caused by the creation of golden point. Under the previous system there wouldn’t have been a loser, both teams would (rightfully) receive points. Golden Point changed that causing disadvantage to a team that any other time in history wouldn’t have had the option to lose (because the game would’ve ended in a draw). This system ensures each game is worth only 4 points and the only way to get maximum points is winning in regulation time. It’s about fairness to the entire competition not just the two teams playing.
Greg
Roar Pro
no one is suggesting you get more points for a golden point win than a regulation time win. In fact the suggestion is the opposite, less for a golden point win than a regulation win and more for a golden point loss than a regulation loss. It seems logical to me. Just a year to late for the Tigers unfortunately.
Nat
Roar Guru
I understand that but the point remains, the only beneficiary is the GP loser. Winning in GP is not of equal value to winning in normal time but losing in GP is worth more than losing in normal time. Unless I have missed something, I don't see the point.
Nat
Roar Guru
It's not limited to the 80min but you can bet on a draw after 80mins, just like you can bet on GP winner as another option.
Big Daddy
Guest
Once you start varying the point system for a golden point win against a normal win is where the problem lies. If you get 2 point for a normal win and 3 for a golden point teams will soon work it and possibly play time out so they can go to extra time to get the extra point. The old system worked well apparently it's all about what Greenberg likes and dislikes.
deluded pom?
Roar Rookie
Don’t the betting agencies in Australia limit the match betting to 80 minutes of play so still having the option of backing the draw? Or a losing bet if the punter has selected one or other team to win.
Mick Holland
Roar Rookie
I prefer a draw after 80 mins keep golden point in the Finals & State of Origin after extra time. During a regular game they could stop the clock when a try is scored & don't start the clock until the other team kicks off that should add an extra 12 minutes average to game time so there is your extra time without extra time no need for golden point (field goal a thon).
Justin Kearney
Roar Rookie
It affects ratings as more viewers stay glued to the screen for longer periods because of it. It may not mean more viewers in numbers. But it increases the average number who watch games for longer. That affects the overall ratings figure positively for a game. Games that are one sided will often have lower ratings for the reason viewers turn off early.
Daniel Higgins
Roar Rookie
Perhaps you misunderstood. Firstly I was referring to the entire history of the ‘Golden Point’ era and how it has undermined the fabric of the game. Secondly there is substantial evidence of increased profitability, most obviously the size of broadcasting deals. Also ratings improved as they are not only about tuning in, but also holding onto viewers. Golden point games keep viewers engaged longer, and will often also see viewers tuning into post game commentary instead of switching off. If you view this article as defending or supporting GP you should give it another read.
Daniel Higgins
Roar Rookie
Because the team that loses in normal time, loses in normal time. Any teams going to GP get an advantage of getting points as they would have done if they had a draw under the old system. The benchmark for success or failure should be what happens in regular time, that’s where the biggest reward for winning should happen, and the biggest disadvantage for losing.
Cigar Field Sobers
Roar Rookie
Good call Adam, I think during the home-and-away season a draw can be a fair indication that on that day, neither team was significantly better than the other. For mine, golden point and the excellent theatre it brings, should only be brought to bear once we enter the knockout finals series, where a result is vital, and in the Grand Final, where there has to be a winner. But for regular matches, no need.
short memory
Guest
What are you on? Where is the evidence that Golden Point has had any effect on ratings or profitability for the game? Are you suggesting punters tune in to a game knowing that it's going to be a golden point game? And how can something that was introduced in 2003 have affected the game for "the entirety of its history"??? Golden Point is rubbish. The solution is simple. Throw it out.
Paul
Roar Guru
Fair call, Nat and yoursuggestion makes sense. It concerns me though, that all team have guys who are making some serious money, but they can simply switch off, get 50 or more put on them and that's okay? We then get the platitudes " we're sorry for out fans", "we'll try harder next time", but what about trying really really hard to not be humiliated? Getting 30 or 40 put on you is not good, 50's pretty bad. We've both seen it, where sides simply stop trying and IMO that's just not good enough, but it happens regularly, so why not give some incentive to try just a tad harder?
Big Daddy
Guest
Boz, you hit the nail on the head. The NRL don't like to admit they make mistakes. Scrap golden point altogether and go back to a draw. But I'm sure they will come up with some long winded version to wiggle out of it. Forget all these extra points for bigger wins. The draw worked well for 100 years.