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

[MILLWALL]

but it can still end up a draw anyway i reckon keep it

 

[Stomp]

60% of voters are saying yes.

I think just stick with the draw during normal NRL rounds, and Golden Point/Try in finals etc.

I think the season is long enough without having to play extra game time. Players who play 26 Rounds and then make the Grand Final, thats 29 weeks ... then go on and play International Football .. then there is State of Origin etc .. for example Andrew Ryan.


The length of the season is killing our elite players, look at Gorden Tallis for example, and Shane Webcke ... he could hang up the boots in 2005.

Stomp

Stomp

 

[Greenblooded]

Keep it, for all the reasons already mentioned.

I would like to try one modification though ... after the 80-minute siren goes off, just keep playing without any breaks. No coin-toss, no restart from halfway, just keep the play going exactly as it was. In a drawn game the last two or three minutes (or longer) are basically played as though it was golden point anyway, so it's not going to advantage any team one way or the other.

It would give the team a big advantage that was running with the wind at their back, I guess thats why they stop and have a toss.

 

[Bring it home Knights]

keep it

 

[*Paul*]

>This has been done a thousand times I know.

And the answers still the same: There was no point in introducing it, but now it's here - it makes no difference.

There was nothing wrong with a draw, but there's nothing wrong with a result either.

 

[AdamH]

the best rule introduced to RL... ever.

 

[bender]

Keep it, for all the reasons already mentioned.

I would like to try one modification though ... after the 80-minute siren goes off, just keep playing without any breaks. No coin-toss, no restart from halfway, just keep the play going exactly as it was. In a drawn game the last two or three minutes (or longer) are basically played as though it was golden point anyway, so it's not going to advantage any team one way or the other.

Actually, I think this modification should also be kept. The Players could still have a 1 minute break if the NRL insisted, but play should keep going from where it finished. this means that the teams keep their momentum and it does take away the lottery to a large extent. I think it would be a huge improvement and would stop a lot of the criticism.

 

[Front-Rower]

Golden point. What a waste of time in round football. How stupid to have it in finals as the first part of extra time (ie JF Grand Final).

Finals - Extra time 5 mins each way if no result then golden point.

Rounds - 80 minutes scores are level then teams recieve 1 point each.

 

[Iafeta]

Go back to a draw for round robin matches, eventually its going to lead to a false make up of the top 8 as the 7th, 8th, 9th team gets points unjustly awarded for performances beyond the minutes quoted for a normal match.

I saw the Warriors get done twice this year by golden point and be in the farcical situation of staring down the barrell of the wooden spoon. If the points system was the same, it would have been another 4 points difference between Warriors and Souths.

Speaking of those two clubs, I sat through a golden point game last year, magnificent field goal and ecstasy coming from that with Stacey Jones, then to turn around and see loyal South Sydney kids crying - its not worth it. Not by a long shot.

If we have to have golden anything, it should be golden try. Otherwise, give the golden point the golden shower it deserves.

 

[~bedsy~]

7-5 to keep it. I say keep it, it raises the bar, makes the players work harder, brilliant footy to watch.

Keep it... It is great to watch... I have been on the back end of a both a win and a loss and I think it has been good for the game.

 

[The Grouch]

If we are going to keep the golden point, why not still have the point each for the draw and make the golden point an extra point for the team that wins.

 

[lazza]

wat difference does it make if the game is 80 mins or 90 mins??

i mean.. who scientifically calculated that a game of rugby league is most effectively played over 80mins?

um ...they just made it up...

if it keeps everyone interested, why not... why would you care about what the players think from a spectators point of view? your not playing in it...

i think its just traditionalists who dont like change that keep wanting to keep everything the way it is.. even tho its crap.

 

[Iafeta]

wat difference does it make if the game is 80 mins or 90 mins??

i mean.. who scientifically calculated that a game of rugby league is most effectively played over 80mins?

um ...they just made it up...

if it keeps everyone interested, why not... why would you care about what the players think from a spectators point of view? your not playing in it...

i think its just traditionalists who dont like change that keep wanting to keep everything the way it is.. even tho its crap.

Because its something thats worked for 100 odd years. You don't fix what isn't broke. It worked fine.

You're taking one point from a team that deserves it, and giving it another team that doesn't deserve taking away what the other team has earnt in 80 minutes, in a couple of minutes of field goal attempts.

 

[DJ Raida]

Golden point is awesome

 

[Cammo]

You're taking one point from a team that deserves it, and giving it another team that doesn't deserve taking away what the other team has earnt in 80 minutes, in a couple of minutes of field goal attempts.

That is what I think. If a team has slugged it out for 80 minutes and ended up equal with the other team then they deserve a competition point. Imagine if that one point means making the semis or not, you would wonder why you bothered to slug it out for 80 mins after losing to a (possibly) lucky field goal after the game should have been over.

 

[lazza]

wat difference does it make if the game is 80 mins or 90 mins??

i mean.. who scientifically calculated that a game of rugby league is most effectively played over 80mins?

um ...they just made it up...

if it keeps everyone interested, why not... why would you care about what the players think from a spectators point of view? your not playing in it...

i think its just traditionalists who dont like change that keep wanting to keep everything the way it is.. even tho its crap.

Because its something thats worked for 100 odd years. You don't fix what isn't broke. It worked fine.

You're taking one point from a team that deserves it, and giving it another team that doesn't deserve taking away what the other team has earnt in 80 minutes, in a couple of minutes of field goal attempts.

This is what i mean by traditionalists... also remember that there was no professional sport 100 years ago,

they were not as fit or as skilled as our athletes of today.

so they can last longer than 80 mins these days.

also back then once u subbed off, you couldnt go back on.

 

[miketyson]

How about this!!

Change the points system to 3 points for a win.

If the the game is a draw , Each team gets one point , Then the first team to score in golden point wins the game but only gets only 2 points..

That way the team that loses the golden point section of the game gets the reward of at least 1 point for having a draw after 80 minutes!

That way there would be 3 points in every NRL game up for grabs so it's fair for every team!

 

[Timmah]

Current ladder:
Storm 36
Bulldogs 30
Brisbane 26
Dragons 26
Manly 24
Knights 24
Cowboys 22
Sharks 22
-----
Eels 22
Panthers 22
Raiders 22
Tigers 20
Roosters 18
Warriors 16
Rabbitohs 6

If Golden Point was non-existent:
Storm 35
Bulldogs 29
Dragons 27
Brisbane 26
Manly 24
Knights 24
Cowboys 23
Panthers 23
-----
Sharks 22
Eels 22
Wests 21
Raiders 19
Roosters 18
Warriors 17
Rabbitohs 6

 

[aids]

go play counter strike for a bit

 

[Dr Crane]

Now make one for if all games ended at half time.