Why the NRL should change the points system

Here is my idea. If team A wins after 80 mins they get 2 points, team B gets 0 points. If its a draw after 80 mins both team A & B get 1 point and the Winner in golden point get an extra 1 point. Now before you go and say that is 3 point for a golden point game, the winner still only gets 2 points but the loser who fought for a draw after 80 gets 1 point. So the Maximum anytime can get for a win is 2 points its just the losing team gets 1 point for a draw after 80 mins.

A draw is always exciting and entertaining so there is no need to manufacture a false result for more entertainment. I assume when you say you're not a fan of the draw you mean for other teams as I can't believe you would prefer to see your team lose for the reason of providing cheap entertainment. A rule is no good if it should only apply to other teams.

Drawn games are always exciting and entertaining and there is no need to manufacture a false result to extend it. I assume when you say you're not a fan of the draw you are only talking about other teams or would you be one of Gallop's whingers who told him they would rather lose than draw. I can't believe anyone would want their own team to lose rather than draw so it's not a good rule if it should only be applied to other teams. The NRL are more interested in ratings than fair results otherwise they would dump golden point as the NFL did after Gallop saw it in their game. Did Gallop do anything else?

Just singing, Soccah, Soccah, Soccah is real football.

It’s looks broken to many fans .

True, it could be argued that all sport is arbitrary but that's a nihilistic rabbit hole I wasn't aiming for! My point was that NRL games have rules that dictate when they are completed and who won. Assigning competition points because you weren't losing at 80mins is arbitrary. The game isn't completed. Why not a reward for teams at half time? Or 79mins? or half way through golden point? All of these accomplishments - similarly achieved before the game is completed - are also being ignored.

I was talking about the NRL stopping after two 5 min periods. Understand the NBA keeps going until there is a winner. Obviously that can't happen in the NRL but they can have the same concept and just stop after 2 overtime periods.

Whilst no 100% in agreement tis has plenty of merit. My only difference would be a reduction to 12 players for the first half of extra time and then down to 11 players for the second half of extra time. I'm not a fan of the draw and this may open the field up a bit make it a little more entertaining.

We nearly do that already. Mediocre season? Finished well off the pace? Don't worry, it's finals time, none of that matters any more.

:thumbup: Boz, How simple can it be. 2 for a win 1 for a draw. But Todd likes golden point so it stays.

In the NBA, they absolutely keep having as many overtimes as required. You are misinformed with your current understanding. That's why sometimes you see the result and then (4OT) or (3OT) in next to it. they've once needed 6 to settle a match.

Um, you've just listed the exact reasons why Golden Point doesn't work "exactly as intended". So, therefore, it's not working. When it was initially implemented, they did not presume the match would descend into a farce where the referees disappeared from play, pot shots were taken, offsides/inside the 10's were absolutely rampant. They thought it would simply be a continuation of a tough fought, reasonably well-refereed game They were dead wrong. The fact that there is always chatter about the merits of golden point in the media (and i mean, TV, radio, podcasts, print, fan sites, the NRL site) is an indication it is not working "exactly as intended". Come back when you've got some consistency in view. it's very clear to me. Go back to settling for a draw. If not, then golden point losses/victories need to be reflected differently. You should be rewarded for finishing the game in 80 minutes.

what does rugby league in this country stand to gain by your suggestion? Will this change bring more fans and more sponsorship dollars into the game? I’m pretty sure that won’t happen? Using the rationale posited by offshore leagues the idea is that in sudden death the teams and officials behave differently because the value of each “possession” became disproportionate. This same behaviour has been observed in the NRL and highlighted ad nauseam on the Roar. The idea is that by taking away the penalty of the risk, and just having reward on offer, you should encourage behaviours that are better spectacles at the time. The “fairness” of getting the point is a secondary aspect from the entertainment perspective. Will this cause sides to try and contrive results? If a team needs 4 points to make the finals, will they try and draw a game, then try and win it in extra time? I'm pretty sure the suggestion was they just get the 3 points under his summary. So it would be equivalent of a South African duckworth lewis calculation to try and contrive a 4 pt match.

By that rationale the entire system of organised sport is arbitrary and should be ignored.

Golden point is not unworkable. It works exactly as intended, you just don't like it. I don't much either for the reasons I listed. But even if we accepted the premise that it is broken, you're still barking up the wrong tree. Golden point would still be there, and teams would still ignore the rules, and refs would still be too chicken to blow the whistle, and a winner would still be chosen by an effective lucky dip. Only now, we'd also have a complex points system that people can complain about as well.

hi TIGER, first of all, thanks for throwing your hat in the ring and submitting an article. I enjoy reading pieces from new authors. One of the key issues you need to address with a piece like this is to answer a simple question - what does rugby league in this country stand to gain by your suggestion? It won't gain a closer competition table - we only have to go back 2 seasons where 8 teams were separated by two competition points. Detractors would say sides who win by huge margins should be also rewarded, yet you're advocating sides who lose games being rewarded? Will this cause sides to try and contrive results? If a team needs 4 points to make the finals, will they try and draw a game, then try and win it in extra time? Will this change bring more fans and more sponsorship dollars into the game? I'm pretty sure that won't happen? On the surface, I think you're trying to fix a problem that's not there. For example, I'd rather the NRL came up with a way to have an equitable draw, so teams don't get to play weaker teams more than other sides. I hope, if you're keen on this, you pass it on to the NRL. Who knows, maybe we might be playing under the TIGER point system in a year or two!!

It's also completely arbitrary. Might as well state: Teams that are not losing after the 1st half should get a point. It just makes sense. A regular game of NRL, under the current rules, is completed under one of the following conditions: - Leading after 80 minutes. - A team has scored in golden point - No teams score in 10 minutes of golden point. The achievement of 'Not being behind' at any interim point is not worth of competition points.

Not only is it unfair to the team that loses in golden point it is unfair to all the other teams in the competition. There is no need for extra time unless the game is an elimination game. A draw is a valid result and the NRL should see this and reinstate the draw to it's historical place in the game.