Changing NRL points system worth a try because current ladder format is flawed

If you look at the NRL ladder as it stands, the Panthers are running third yet they’ve got a worse record than four of the teams listed below them on the competition table.

How is it so that the premiers are that many rungs higher than where they should be? The anachronistic system for deciding the ladder awards two arbitrary points for a bye.

That has never made sense. A team’s points tally is inflated because they the weekend off. 

There is literally no point so no points should be awarded.

CLICK HERE for a seven-day free trial for your favourite sport on KAYO

It’s not just because the Dolphins have been added to the competition and there is now an odd number of teams at 17. 

(Photo by Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)

Two byes were awarded to each team prior to this year because of the split rounds to fit in the representative schedule but this season they now get three in a 27-round season so that State of Origin can be run on three Wednesday nights after the standalone Sunday fixture was kyboshed. 

Irrespective of whether points are awarded for the bye or not, the only true way to see how each team is travelling is their win percentage, like we see in US sports where a three-digit percentage of a perfect 1000 record is listed in their standings. 

NRL ladder after Round 8

If that system was in operation in the NRL, the Rabbitohs, Storm, Dolphins, Warriors would be listed at 0.625 courtesy of their 5-3 record, ahead of the Panthers and Sharks, who have gone 4-3 in their seven outings. 

It would also show that the Dragons have the second-worst record and should be three slots lower in in 16th while it’s not as bad as it seems for the Raiders, who should be three spots the other way at 12th.

How a percentage-based ladder would look

Of course at the end of the season, the current ladder system finally becomes a true reflection of where each team is positioned based on their win-loss record but that’s not the point – for the first 26 rounds it’s inherently inaccurate.

And if any Wests Tigers fans are wondering, whichever system you use, they are stone, cold motherless last and the two points next to their name for the bye is the NRL equivalent of a participation ribbon. 

Should a team get a point for loss in extra time?

Another scoring system which has been floated on and off for several years but has re-entered the NRL’s endless debate recently is whether teams should be rewarded for a loss in extra time. 

It’s a relatively simplistic alternative to the current set-up. A winning team would get four points, they’d get three if they get up in extra time, each side receives two if they’re still deadlocked after the golden-point period, a team losing in extra time gets one while if you lose inside 80 minutes, you get nada. 

In theory it’s a fairer system in that for the first 80-plus years of the premiership, a team would at least get a point if they were level on the scoreboard after 80 minutes. 

It has been two decades since the golden-point system was introduced and there is no consensus – and never will be – on whether it’s an improvement or impediment. 

Nathan Cleary kicks the winning field goal in golden point to beat Newcastle in extra time in Round 7. (Photo by Brendon Thorne/Getty Images)

The argument against introducing a points system which gives a team a point if they lose in the golden-point period is that it rewards mediocrity. 

In most other sports if a team loses in extra time, they don’t get rewarded on the standings. 

If a team enters the extra 10 minutes of play knowing they have already earned a competition point, will they play more conservatively in trying to force a draw or would they throw more caution to the wind knowing that another two points are on offer, basically a 3-1 split of the available points, if they get the win?

It’s hard to predict either way until we see it in action but coaches generally err on the side of caution when confronted with a 50-50 scenario.

In the past few years teams have tended to be more conservative in the way they approach extra time.

Teams will often kick to the corners rather than risk a long-range field goal in the hope of forcing an error to win the field position battle and then trying their chances with a one-pointer. 

There is a lot of opposition to the golden-point system and this may be an unpopular opinion, but it’s better than settling for a draw. 

The helter-skelter of the extra 10 minutes is entertaining. It’s often not very skilful or well constructed but the all or nothing nature of it gets fans engaged and adds to the excitement value of the sport. 

So changing the system to one which rewards a team for “not losing” at the end of 80 minutes could have an unintended consequence of devaluing the importance and win at all costs nature which puts fans on the edge of their seats in extra time.

And the good folk at AAP crunched the numbers and found that over the past decade, even if the alternative system had been used, there would have been minimal impact to the end-of-season ladder positions. 

They found that the only changes of consequence would have been Cronulla moving from fourth to first in 2018, while South Sydney and Manly would have gone from second to first in 2013 and 2014 respectively.

The NRL has shown little inclination in altering the system so don’t expect change to happen any time soon.