Golden Point in Super League

[deluded pom?]

We may as well do away with proper games and just have ten minute golden point matches instead :roll:

 

[deluded pom?]

Sorry yr but I don't like the college football way either. I assume they spin a coin to decide who goes first. So on the spin of a coin you could get the advantage of going second and then knowing exactly what you have to do to either win the game or to stay in the game. What is "go for 2" ?

 

[Evil Homer]

I honestly can't believe how some people don't like golden point. :crazy:

A nil-all draw = boring

The 10 minute golden point period = the most exciting 10 minutes you will see in RL.

EVERY hit up can make or break the game. EVERY tackle, every kick. I'm on the edge of my seat.

If I'm doing something else and not watching the entire game live... and someone tells me the game is going into golden point im running straight to the TV to watch.

That can happen anyway. Nil-all draws, or at least games where it has been 0-0 at half time, have been some of the best games I have ever seen.

Golden point is a stupid concept that is unfair on the players.

 

[ExiledWool]

Just to throw a real spanner in, why not give it to the team who has scored the most tries, then if that can't separate, go for the golden try rather than golden point.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I have no problem with golden point to settle games that need settling, like finals. But the inconsistency of the NRL rule is strange. It's not okay for a draw after 80 mins but after 90 it's fine? I think it's pretty clear the motive behind it in the NRL is to give a few more minutes of exciting footy for TV audiences. That's fine but ban penalty goals, if it's still tied at 90 mins keep going and give the losers a point and the winners two.

 

[bartman]

I've got no problem with an 80 minute draw. Essentially the final 10 minutes of a game where scores are level is just as exciting as the golden point thing, if not more so. Golden try would be a better display of league skills if you had to have it at all.

If they persist with golden point for the TV coverage or the fans or whatever, then they should adjust the points for the table - 3 points for a win, 1 point each for a draw, and then an extra point on top of that for a team that only wins in the extra time. But of course that can only work fairly where you have a fair an even competition draw, with each team playing the other teams an equal amount of times.

If there is no golden point/try, then you don't need to change the competition points system. Personally I feel empty after NRL golden point, because the draw and point each would have been the more accurate result than an all or nothing drop goal contest.

 

[The Clan]

I don't mind the golden point idea but I'd preclude drop goals from winning in extra time.

If a teams stupid enough to give a penalty away within kickable distance then thats fair enough.

If a teams good enough to score a try then thats what the games all about but I don't think a drop goal is a fair way of winning a Golden Point game.

 

[Evil Homer]

Golden try would be even more pointless than golden goal, IMO.

The whole concept is flawed. It reminds me in a way of that 'extra time multiball' advert for Budweiser that was on in this country a few years ago.

 

[deluded pom?]

If a teams stupid enough to give a penalty away within kickable distance then thats fair enough.

But that could be at the whim of a ref or TJ.

 

[The Observer]

Golden Point gives the best of both worlds - exciting extra time options, but the opportunity for a draw after 10 mins. However, a team that loses GP should be rewarded for getting so close. I'd recommend a new points system for the competition ladder, similar to the National League system (and for Aussies/NZers, similar to the Super 14 RU scoring system).

Win - 4 points
Draw - 2 points
Loss by 6 points of less - 1 point

6 points amounts to a converted try. This would allow for a reward whether there was golden point or not, and could encourage games to be even closer.

 

[NK Arsenal]

Golden point is awful - get rid of it.

The Super League fans here are lucky that they don't have a ridiculous rule like we do.

 

[langpark]

I agree. Draws are legit results, and in many drawn games, the fairest possible outcome.

 

[Evil Homer]

Golden Point gives the best of both worlds - exciting extra time options, but the opportunity for a draw after 10 mins. However, a team that loses GP should be rewarded for getting so close. I'd recommend a new points system for the competition ladder, similar to the National League system (and for Aussies/NZers, similar to the Super 14 RU scoring system).

Win - 4 points
Draw - 2 points
Loss by 6 points of less - 1 point

6 points amounts to a converted try. This would allow for a reward whether there was golden point or not, and could encourage games to be even closer.

I hate the idea of bonus points just as much as golden point. I do not understand why people contrive to make the game more 'exciting' by adding meaningless bonus points into the league ladder and making the whole thing into a farce. It's not as if there is a lack of excitement in the games and it just devalues the whole thing to see a team chucking the ball around when 16 points behind in National League games in the hope that they can get a bonus point.

A win is a win, a loss is a loss and a draw is a draw. What's the problem with that system?