A revolutionary idea?

[Timmah]

:lol:

 

[Lambretta]

A better idea would be if you could fly me to every game by space shuttle, and then proceed to get me extremely drunk.

Once completely arse faced, the game will begin and I will decide how many points each try is worth once it has been scored.

If I pass out, the teams have to keep playing until I wake up with a hangover and call you all a pack of bastards for the headache you gave me.

If I drown in my own vomit, every player shall be shot.

If games are played at the same time then some Harry Potteresque magic might be required so I can be in two places at the same time.

 

[The Engineers Room]

I would like a seperate knockout tournament (like AMCO Cup) where they trial some rule changes and start with 32 teams.

One thing I would love to see is teams nominate a ten minute period each as their "power play" and all points scored in this period is worth double.

 

[Slackboy72]

Well let's just apply that idea to the 2001 grand final:
NEW Try 0-4
NEW CON 0-6
NEW Try 0-9
NEW CON 0-11
NEW Try 0-14
NEW CON 0-16
NEW Try 0-19
NEW CON 0-21
PAR Try 5-21
PAR CON 7-21
NEW Try 7-24
PAR Try 12-24
PAR CON 14-24
NEW PEN 14-26
PAR Try 19-26
PAR CON 21-26
PAR Try 26-26
PAR CON 28-26

So here's an example of a team scoring more tries and goals losing. Does that sound like a good idea to you?

 

[simostorm]

Im going to pretend i never even read any of this.. haha..

 

[RockWheel]

Well let's just apply that idea to the 2001 grand final:
NEW Try 0-4
NEW CON 0-6
NEW Try 0-9
NEW CON 0-11
NEW Try 0-14
NEW CON 0-16
NEW Try 0-19
NEW CON 0-21
PAR Try 5-21
PAR CON 7-21
NEW Try 7-24
PAR Try 12-24
PAR CON 14-24
NEW PEN 14-26
PAR Try 19-26
PAR CON 21-26
PAR Try 26-26
PAR CON 28-26

So here's an example of a team scoring more tries and goals losing. Does that sound like a good idea to you?

That example seems pretty good to me.

 

[fourplay]

The motivation? Is it not obvious?

The leading team has to keep scoring to win, the trailing team has a better chance to get back into the game. This puts the onus on attacking football rather than clocking off at the 55 minute mark.

It would have the opposite effect. The winning team would just stop playing attacking football since it's not worth taking risks for only a 3 point try. They'd just play for field position and ball control. Every team in front would play a style even more conservative than an in front dragons team.

 

[Slackboy72]

I don't think Gus likes Cradle of Filth either...

 

[RWB]

sh*t idea why should the team who has fallen behind be rewarded?

Effectively a team could score less tries, convert less and still win the game...

 

[miguel de cervantes]

The people have spoken, but Einstein's ideas were also laughed at by all in the beginning...

The biggest critic is that teams scoring more tries/conversions should justly win the game. This is a very absolute point of view - this scoring system adopts a more relative view of the game. Could it not be argued that it is harder to score tries when you are losing (otherwise you probably wouldn't be losing in the first place)?

Why should principals of socialism be applied at inter-seasonal periods (salary cap) but not at micro levels of the game?

 

[Pete Cash]

Why not have tries worth zero points and the season decided by who has the most handsome props. (its the raiders)

 

[Willow]

The people have spoken, but Einstein's ideas were also laughed at by all in the beginning...

Why should principals of socialism be applied at inter-seasonal periods (salary cap) but not at micro levels of the game?

It's football miguel.

 

[Willow]

Why not have tries worth zero points and the season decided by who has the most handsome props. (its the raiders)

It's funny you should say that (the tries worth zero, not your lust attraction for prop forwards).

In the early versions of rugby football, there were no points for tries. The placement of the ball over the goal line merely allowed the scoring team to 'try' kicking a goal. The team was awarded points for the conversion, not the try.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

It would have the opposite effect. The winning team would just stop playing attacking football since it's not worth taking risks for only a 3 point try. They'd just play for field position and ball control. Every team in front would play a style even more conservative than an in front dragons team.

I disagree. If you go into defense mode then you will probably expend a larger amount of energy than the other team - who no longer has to worry about your attack. Hell, they could send two men off for a cup of milo inbetween sets.

There is still enough incentive in three points, and the fact your opposition will now be scoring five points, to keep the leading team in attack. In the 2001 GF example, it would appear that Newcastle clocked off at the 55 minutes. If they were playing under the Cervantes law and were good enough, they should have kept scoring.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

It's football miguel.

Not a very good response to a probing question.

 

[simmo1]

In the 2001 GF example, it would appear that Newcastle clocked off at the 55 minutes. If they were playing under the Cervantes law and were good enough, they should have kept scoring.

So the team that turned up for only the last 25 minutes should have won?

sh*t idea.

 

[Willow]

Not a very good response to a probing question.

I was trying to be kind. But OK...

Your 'probing question' was a pompous attempt to sound clever.

If you want to talk about the political machinations of sport and the history of contest onced referred to by George Orwell as 'War Without Bullets', then I'm up for it.

But all you did was try to justify an already silly notion that actually takes away much more than it gives to the great game.

As I said, it's the sort of rule that is made up by kids while playing backyard footy. Nothing sophisticated about it, despite your attempts.

Of course, you could be just taking the piss, and I'm still hoping that is the case.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Why should principals of socialism be applied at inter-seasonal periods (salary cap) but not at micro levels of the game?

Hang on. Socialism is about things being equal yet you advocate a scoring system that looks very much like an elitist class system.

 

[miguel de cervantes]

I was trying to be kind. But OK...

Your 'probing question' was a pompous attempt to sound clever.

If you want to talk about the political machinations of sport and the history of contest onced referred to by George Orwell as 'War Without Bullets', then I'm up for it.

But all you did was try to justify an already silly notion that actually takes away much more than it gives to the great game.

As I said, it's the sort of rule that is made up by kids while playing backyard footy. Nothing sophisticated about it, despite your attempts.

Of course, you could be just taking the piss, and I'm still hoping that is the case.

No need to quote Orwell or acuse one of being pompous. You do agree that the salary cap exists to attempt to keep the competition level over a long period of time? Similar mesures could be brought in over shorter time scales to keep a season points table level, for example, or in the extreme case a game more even. Why do we draw the line at the salary cap? Is it fair to say that modern day premierships are worth less than St George premierships of the 60s because of the introduction of the salary cap?

 

[Bring it home Knights]

Initially I thought this idea was produced as a joke, however after reading through 3 pages I see this is not the case. It really is a terrible idea... I remember 10 or so years ago I'd play mario cart on my nintendo 64. The bigger the lead I got, the faster the players behind me went. All in all, it meant that it was often more beneficial coming 3rd or 4th in the race.

Why penalise a team for getting a lead? I can see with your stupid system that teams would play in 2nd gear for the first 20 minutes of matches, as opposed to trying to set the momentum for the remainder of the match.

Worst - Idea - Ever