What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Golden Point.........again

Should Golden Point Stay

  • YES - Entertaining

    Votes: 29 46.0%
  • NO - Fulltime = shared points.

    Votes: 26 41.3%
  • How about that goal kicking idea

    Votes: 3 4.8%
  • There is a better to determine winner.

    Votes: 5 7.9%

  • Total voters
    63

bails

Juniors
Messages
58
No, its not a radical thought at all, its just a dumb idea. Nothing more.

The entire point of the game itself is to win and gain competition points

NO. TEAM. SHOULD. EARN. A. POINT. FOR. LOSING.

I agree with the first bolded statement,but strongly disagree with the next.IMO if two teams battle it out for 80 mins without a result then why dont they at least share 1 point each for not winning the game but being equal.But because nearly everyone wants to see a result,the two teams who have both been rewarded for the 80min effort they have displayed with 1 competiton points are now given the oppotunity to settle the score/get a result with 8 mins of golden try and 1min or 1 set of golden point. I would like to hear why this could/would not work as i would love to see it
 

Jose93

Juniors
Messages
44
Why?

The NHL is fine with it.

Yes, it is known as the loser point. Much like NHL players know the match could take 65 minutes and possibly a shoot-out, NRL players know the match could take 90 minutes. Therefore, losing, deserves nothing.

Golden point does exactly what it should. Good percentage of finding a winner within the 10 minute time limit, simple and uncomplicated.

And both the Knights and Sharks had their chance to win the game in extra time so how unfair is Golden Point, really?
 

Eion

First Grade
Messages
7,795
Three points for a win in normal time

Two points for a golden point win, one for the loss

Ten minutes extra time for semi's played in full

How fargen hard is it?
On the assumption they keep golden point, it really is this simple.
 

Mr Angry

Not a Referee
Messages
51,811
2 Points for a win

0 Points for a loss

1 point for a draw.

that is after 80.

If in the next ten minutes, one team scores. (Prefer try)

That team gets another point.

Under this Tigers and Saints get 2 points, Newy and Sharks 1 point.
 

hrundi99

First Grade
Messages
8,401
Let's send Steve Matai out with a stick this Friday then.

I'm talking about a scoring system, not the way the game is played, but then you know that don't you?

Every game has to have the same amount of points up for grabs otherwise anomalies within the draw and table may occur which will cause a bigger shitfight than the GP debate itself.

What anomalies? That you play teams that you're more likely to go to GP against? I don't see it.

Unless you want it to become like the Stuper 15.

No it's not as complicated as that.
 

hrundi99

First Grade
Messages
8,401
2 Points for a win

0 Points for a loss

1 point for a draw.

that is after 80.

If in the next ten minutes, one team scores. (Prefer try)

That team gets another point.

Under this Tigers and Saints get 2 points, Newy and Sharks 1 point.

Exactly what I'm describing - the NHL system.
 

no name

Coach
Messages
19,773
I'm talking about a scoring system, not the way the game is played, but then you know that don't you?



What anomalies? That you play teams that you're more likely to go to GP against? I don't see it.



No it's not as complicated as that.

Say Manly win 10 games, have 4 GP losses and 10 regular losses. (14 losses total)
Parra have 11 wins and and 13 regular losses.

Manly have lost more games and won less games yet have more points then Parra.
That is why each game needs the same amount of points on offer.
 

Bluebags1908

Juniors
Messages
1,258
How's this for an idea?

After 80 minutes, the referee calls full time and both teams go home with a well-deserved one point each.

It worked for 95 years from 1908-2002. Instead of wasting our time with all these other alternatives.
 

firechild

First Grade
Messages
7,890
Say Manly win 10 games, have 4 GP losses and 10 regular losses. (14 losses total)
Parra have 11 wins and and 13 regular losses.

Manly have lost more games and won less games yet have more points then Parra.
That is why each game needs the same amount of points on offer.

The first flaw in that argument is that for 95 years (and in many sports) if a team had 10 wins and 4 draws they would finish above a team with 11 wins and no draws.
The second is that you suggested Parra might win 11 games. :D
 

hrundi99

First Grade
Messages
8,401
Say Manly win 10 games, have 4 GP losses and 10 regular losses. (14 losses total)
Parra have 11 wins and and 13 regular losses.

Manly have lost more games and won less games yet have more points then Parra.
That is why each game needs the same amount of points on offer.

So Manly lost in "regulation time" in 10 games, as opposed to Parra, who lost in regulation time 13 times. Therefore, Manly should have the advantage.
 

hrundi99

First Grade
Messages
8,401
No, its not a radical thought at all, its just a dumb idea. Nothing more.

The entire point of the game itself is to win and gain competition points

NO. TEAM. SHOULD. EARN. A. POINT. FOR. LOSING.

As they say in the classics, "in your opinion".
 

Raider_69

Post Whore
Messages
61,174
how about in regular season, if scores are level at the end of 80 minutes we call the match a draw and give each team a point

i know, its revolutionary. Im a real out of the box thinker.
But what is wrong with the draw? It seemed to work fine for us fine before GP.
 

CC_Roosters

First Grade
Messages
5,221
No golden point. Draw after regulation time will do me.

In the finals though, i would say golden point as it is will do.
 

DC_fan

Coach
Messages
11,980
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...point-extra-time/story-e6frexnr-1226422947044


A POWERFUL NRL committee will lobby for golden point to be dumped in 2013 amid growing fury over dour football and timid officiating.

No sudden-death tries have been scored since the 2010 finals, with Monday night's Sharks-Roosters clash the 19th consecutive golden-point match to be consumed by incessant and speculative field-goal attempts. Of equal concern is that just four penalties have been blown in 110 minutes of that period of extra time, lending weight to claims referees are afraid of deciding matches.

The agonising 10 minutes at Toyota Park - which ended without a result - now shapes as the killer blow after members of the NRL's rules and innovation sub-committee yesterday vowed to have the concept overhauled.

The most vocal critic was Roosters coach Brian Smith - until recently a "staunch supporter" of golden point.

"We need to come up with a better way of adjudicating the game," Smith said.

"You know the refs aren't going to give a penalty, so that means players stand offside. "And that stifles any attacking opportunities.

"Everything about the situation produces negative football and that's not what the concept was designed to encourage.

"It's definitely wearing away at my staunch support. It's no longer a spectacle - it's a lucky dip. And that's not what it's supposed to be.

"It should be a fairly high-agenda item to look at when the season is over. It's time to take a good, hard look at it."

Smith and Penrith's Ivan Cleary are the only two coaches on the committee, which was established last year to submit proposals to evolve the game's rulebook.

Cleary branded golden point a "lottery" after his team's loss to Parramatta in round 16 and echoed Smith's sentiments about inconsistent refereeing.

"The referees are absolutely not going to do anything in golden point, which means it's not a game anymore," Cleary said at the time.

The Daily Telegraph contacted referees bosses Bill Harrigan and Stuart Raper after Cleary's remark and both were comfortable with their whistleblowers' performance in golden point.

But NSW Origin coach Ricky Stuart - another member of the committee - agrees with Cleary and Smith.

"Once the game gets interpreted differently in regards to the last 10 minutes and the previous 80 minutes, there's no use having it," Stuart said. "Why can't teams be rewarded with a draw?

"God help the next two teams that play golden point after this story.The first team standing offside will be penalised because of reaction to this pressure."

Smith accepted some responsibility for the number of drop-goal attempts on Monday night, most of which were taken from halfway with little chance of success.
 
Last edited:

Quidgybo

Bench
Messages
3,054
The solution to the problems created by Golden Point is easy, and it's not simply to say Golden Try. It's first to score four points wins or the result after five minutes each way. So scoring a try (four points) ends the game instantly - effectively a Golden Try. But other forms of scoring still count and a single penalty given by the ref doesn't end it. Try scoring is encouraged, other forms of scoring are still useful to build towards four points or get your nose in front if it goes to a result after five minutes each way, and the refs don't have a reason not to call penalties as normal.

Leigh
 

DC_fan

Coach
Messages
11,980
I have no problem with having a system in place to decide a winner after a match finishes drawn at fulltime. Having extra time to possibly decide a winner can add excitement. If we find the right system.

It shouldn't just be playing for an extra ten minutes either. Where we hope that one team scores a try to win the game. That last happened in 2010. Most Games going in to extra time are won by a field goal. Usually after both teams have had numerous unsuccessful attempts. Their is no real excitement in watching teams try and set themselves up for a field goal attempt that usually misses.
 

Latest posts

Top