There has been an anomaly in the allocation of NRL competition points since the introduction of the golden-point win.
New game results were added – a golden-point win and a golden-point loss – but they were given the same points as a win or a loss.
Changes need to be made to reflect golden-point results, as there were changes following the introduction of limited-tackle rules.
St George won their 13th NSWRL premiership in 1966, the last year played under the unlimited tackle rules. The game had become predictable, with teams playing safe and not tryng anything that would result in losing possession. The match of the round, usually involving Saints, was moved to the SCG and these matches were well attended, while games played at Belmore, Cumberland and North Sydney Oval were struggling to get more than 5000 spectators.
The four-tackle rule, introduced in 1967 by packing a scrum on tackle four, resulted in a game dominated by scrums and the often-puzzling scrum penalties. Games were being decided by on-field events that couldn’t be seen by spectators.
Before long, the field goal became the best scoring option on the fourth tackle for teams who had obtained good field position. After three years, complaints that the field goal was being over used became too loud to ignore – fans wanted wanted to see three-point tries, not an easy two-point field goal, so the field goal was reduced to one point.
While the change resulted in fewer field goals, the crowds that had grown to make 1967 a record-breaking year started to fall. This trend continued for 15 years and may have been the reason the points for a try was changed to four in 1983.
David Gallop gave us golden point by extending a drawn game by playing an extra time of five minutes each way, terminated by one team scoring any points.
The problem with golden point is at the end of all the other games, the result is determined by the scores at the end of 80 minutes. A team that wins should get more points than a team that draws and therefore the table is not a true reflection of the results.
Giving teams two points for a draw in the 80 minutes is not a true reflection of the game.
To give the distinct results their own individual values, points should be distributed as:
Four points for a win.
Three points for a golden-point win.
Two points for a draw.
One point for a golden-point loss.
Zero points for a loss.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Yes, a draw is not a win and it should be worth half of the points for a win, so that teams would share the points. It is a system fault that should be corrected. If your team finished 9th beaten by a team scoring a golden point win would you still be a fan of the NRL sideshow?
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
You say we don’t give a team that has drawn at full-time the same points as a team that has won but we do and that is my objection to GP.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Those are the rules for all teams : Yes but a team that scores more points than their opponents at full-time deserves more than a team that doesn't no matter what happens during the sideshow. What is wrong with rewarding winners? We have done it for a long time?
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
It’s not a new result : The point I was trying to make was that it should be a new result.
Andrew01
Roar Rookie
It's not a new result. The game is played over 80 minutes UNLESS scores are tied at that point in which case extra time is played etc.. Those are the rules for all teams. You say: "It is wrong to give a team that has drawn at full-time the same points as a team that has won". We don't. We never have. But by that logic, if you draw at full time you haven't won, so why are you given any points? Are draw is not a win, therefore it should be worth zero.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
As there are new results that come with Golden Point there should be a corresponding change in the ranking. There are just two more results that need to be allocated a score. The 4, 3, 2, 1, 0 is the simplest solution. It is wrong to give a team that has drawn at full-time the same points as a team that has won. It is a system fault that should be corrected.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
When I say Golden Point isn't fair I mean it isn't fair to other teams that win games in the eighty minutes. You may like Golden Point but if your team missed out on the finals because of it you would not. Gallop was mislead by fans who were disappointed after a draw and told him they would've preferred a result. I find it hard to believe that any fan would prefer their team lose than draw. Would you prefer to lose than draw?
Andrew01
Roar Rookie
Why should a team that scores an amazing try in the corner have a tougher shot at goal than a team who scores push over try under the posts? The better team can score more tries but have no goals kicked and lose. Is that fair? If two teams play a neck and neck game one has a field goal that hits the post and misses, one hits the post and goes through, is one team really better than the other and "deserving" of more competition points? No. It is a game. If you are determined the winner by the rules you get 2 points, if you are the loser based on the rules, you get zero.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
For a team to win a game they had to score more points than their opponents, it was a draw if scores were equal and it was a loss if they scored less. A golden point win is not a real win it is a draw with the game extended until one team scores. Why should a team who doesn't win get as many points as a team who does win? It makes sense to award more points for a win than a Golden Point win which is awarded with more than a draw. Why should a team that doesn't win in the normal time get the same rewards as a team that does win?
Andrew01
Roar Rookie
That's all fine and I agree we don't have to follow the US. But you are basically saying if a team kicks a field goal in the 80th minute the win is worth 'x' points, but if they kick the field goal in the 81st minute they get 'x-1'. IMO, If there are rules by which a team can win a game, then the same number of points should be awarded regardless of how the team wins. As the old saying goes "a win is a win".
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
"A win’s a win, whether the winning point was scored in minute one, minute eighty, or minute eighty-five." ... No, A win in the eighty-sixth minute is a Golden Point win. It is clearly not the same as a real win so Golden Point winners should not receive the same reward.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
I don't want to complicate the points table, I want it to show each team record as it has been done since 1908. When Golden Point was added there was no change in the table as a Golden Point win was worth the same as a real win. I proposed adding a Golden Point win and loss because a Golden Point win should not be worth as much as a real win but more than a draw. It's a matter of displaying correct information in the points table by adding two extra columns. We don't need to follow the USA in matters of football.
Andrew01
Roar Rookie
I don't see why it matters whether they play extra time or golden point for the purpose of your desire to complicate the points table. But Yes. In the NFL it is 10 minutes of extra time. If you score a touchdown - end of game. if you score a field goal it is end of game, (and the other team is yet to have the ball in extra time), then they get one last possession to try and level the score or win. If time expires with no extra points scored - it is a draw (like in the NRL) You can still have a detailed table with points for and against (you need tie breakers after all) but you absolutely keep it simple at the base term. Far more people follow the game as fringe supporters than die hard tragic. They are fundamental to the survival of the game and making it harder to follow, only makes it easier for fringe fans to walk away.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
Do they play Golden Point or extra time? What if they are equal after extra time? So you would prefer less information such as {Team, Wins/Played} rather than {Team, Played, Wins, GP Wins, Draws, GP Losses, Losses, For, Against, Points}? The competition table is to provide information and I don’t see the reason to keep it simple.
Andrew01
Roar Rookie
Look at sports like the NBA and NFL. Those games go to extra time and it doesnt change the teams record. If anything we should be working in the opposite direction and just have winning percentage as the identifier of positions on the table
mushi
Roar Guru
Hell I'd go F/A with +/- 5 points for wins/losses.
The Barry
Roar Guru
Tim - go through the season results and substitute your proposed points table before you tell me it makes a diffference... it doesn’t You’re proposing that there’s five different results and therefore we need five different scores. You’re literally creating the problem you’re trying to solve
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
It makes a difference to the table if you get two points for a draw and this win is often decided by the toss of a coin. GP is a sideshow to boost ratings.
Tim Buck 3
Roar Rookie
I am using the correct terminology for what I was proposing. That is five results, Win, GP win, draw, GP loss & loss. They are clearly different and it is a change to correct a fault, a very good reason to change. It does make a difference to the table if you get winning points for a draw or get zero points for a draw. Gallop gave us Golden Point because he spoke to a few fans who sold him some rubbish about how they would prefer to lose than draw. Maybe PVL spoke to the same jokers.
The Barry
Roar Guru
It’s not full time if scores a even at 80 minutes and it’s not a draw You keep using incorrect terminology to describe the situation There are still only three results. Win, loss, draw Besides that it doesn’t make a squirt of difference to the competition table, so it’s literally a change for no reason Besides that the NRL has announced six rule changes - based on “what fans want” (supposedly) and this isn’t one of them...