Golden try

[legend]

Golden try should end the game immediately but if a team kicks a field goal or a penalty goal, play continues and if they are in front at the end of extra time, they win.

 

[Quidgybo]

Golden try should end the game immediately but if a team kicks a field goal or a penalty goal, play continues and if they are in front at the end of extra time, they win.

If the golden try ends the game with the current score and you've kicked three penalty goals or two penalty goals and a field goal, the last thing I want to go is score a try because that would end the game with you in front. I want to convince the ref to penalise you in front of your own posts so I can kick a goal first. Dropping a couple balls in three men tackles might do the trick. On the other hand if golden try wins the game regardless of the current score, are we going to have a situation where a team is happy to deliberately give away three or four penalty goals in front of their posts just to prevent tries and then come back and score a try to win despite having scored fewer points in extra time? I'd class that as premeditated cheating. IMHO golden try by itself just doesn't work given the nature of our game. A points target - first to score one (as we have currently), two, four or whatever number of points - does work. We just alter the existing target to encourage tries more than field goals. But we don't change the rules of the game such that it is no longer RL.

Leigh.

 

[Danish]

Buderus is having a whinge that golden point isnt fair? Saying that winning by a field goal isn't enough?


I wonder what his feelings were after SOO1?


If winning by a field goal isn't enough in extra time, why is it no problem in regular time? Winning in every sport is judged by who has the most points at the end of the game. If the NRL doesn't want 1 point margins in extra time then get rid of the 1 point scoring play.

And what of penalty goals? Will they no longer break the dead lock in golden try? Seems to be not much reason to stand 5m offside when under pressure in the dying seconds or take someones head off 5m out with 30 seconds to go....

What a dumb idea.

 

[The Engineers Room]

If they are going to do it make field goals worthless in extra time. Penalty goals have two points but only count if a try is not scored. If a try is scored they do not count and the game stops.

 

[Quidgybo]

So why wouldn't I give away as many penalties and goals as necessary to prevent the opposition scoring a try? Team A blantantly cheats to prevent team B scoring a try - giving them four penalty goals instead. Team B plays by the rules and conceeds a try to lose the game despite being ahead by four points. It'd create an abosolute farce far beyond anything that occurs under the current rules. Removing the worth of penalty goals in the event of a golden try penalises the team that plays fair. The point of this exercise is to improve the game, not create new controversies that the professional RL bashers can use to ridicule us.

Leigh.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Well most of us seem to be able to understand the rules of RL as they stand now - it's hardly more complicated than that. First to four points wins or the team in front at the end of five minutes each way.

And why four points. What's so special about scoring four points, why not three ot seven or 10? And if it's just whoever is in front at the end, that's not golden point is it? It's just regular extra time.

Or until they lose posession. And with no concerns about giving away shots at goal it'd be on for young and old in every tackle. You can't score a try if three blockes have just ripped the ball out or if your support players are all held back. Just as long as you prevent that try, sooner or later you'll get a break and come up with the ball.

Firstly the gutless refs almost never give penalties right in front in golden point because they know their decision will end the game.
Secondly I'm not saying scrap field goals. So if a side wants to give away a heap of penalties they'll end up down a couple of men and be back on their own goal line and the other side just has to slot the field goal.
And thirdly your plan to allow penalty goals that WOULD NOT end the game would also encourage more penalties. Teams would rather give away a penalty that won't lose them the game than concede a try that will.

The point is they have to answer three questions on this issue:
1) Do they want to have extra time after a draw?
2) Do they want golden point or regular extra time?
3) What forms of point scoring are allowed?

My answers to 1 and 2 would be:
1) Don't really care
2) Don't really care

But really if they are going to do it it has to be done properly. It can't be done for no good reason and there can't be bullsh*t, complicated rules as to what a side must do to win the game. Nominating an arbitrary score like four points to win the game doesn't make any sense. The decisive factor is not that a try is worth four points, it's because scoring a try is the ultimate goal of the game and it is this that some people see as the act that should be needed to break a deadlock, as opposed to a field goal or penalty goal.

 

[Quidgybo]

And why four points. What's so special about scoring four points, why not three ot seven or 10? And if it's just whoever is in front at the end, that's not golden point is it? It's just regular extra time.

Well exactly. Just like it's still a draw if no one scores under the present rules - ie. the current score stands as the result when time runs out. What's so special about four points? If it isn't obvious, that's the value of a try. With a try you can win the game in one (golden) score. Or if the other team insists on giving away penalties you can win in two scores on goals. If you make the target three points then you could also win in two scores with a penalty and a field goal. Both targets would serve to make giving away endless penalties an unproductive tactic.

And thirdly your plan to allow penalty goals that WOULD NOT end the game would also encourage more penalties. Teams would rather give away a penalty that won't lose them the game than concede a try that will.

See above, it'd only take two penalties to lose.

The point is they have to answer three questions on this issue:
1) Do they want to have extra time after a draw?
2) Do they want golden point or regular extra time?

No, you've got the question wrong. I don't want either golden point or regular extra time. I want first to four points (or three) played within the same time limit as present. First to four ends the game or the result at the end of five minutes each way stands.

3) What forms of point scoring are allowed?

My answers to 1 and 2 would be:
1) Don't really care
2) Don't really care

But really if they are going to do it it has to be done properly. It can't be done for no good reason and there can't be bullsh*t, complicated rules as to what a side must do to win the game. Nominating an arbitrary score like four points to win the game doesn't make any sense. The decisive factor is not that a try is worth four points, it's because scoring a try is the ultimate goal of the game and it is this that some people see as the act that should be needed to break a deadlock, as opposed to a field goal or penalty goal.

And as I've pointed out, that just penalises those who play fair and lets those who cheat get away with it (and even benefit from it). That's not RL. That's some different game with patterns of play and tactics more akin to touch football and AFL. If you think 11 a side would be a radical change, a game with no worth for penalty goals or field goals would be a hell of a lot bigger change.

This isn't a bullsh*t complicated set of rules. First to four wins or the result at the end of five minutes each way stands. There I've described it in complete detail in just one sentence (16 words). It really isn't any more complicated than the current rule - first to score wins or the draw stands at the end of five minutes each way (also 16 words).

Leigh.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

If you think first to a four-point lead is the way a game should be won you're f**king nuts.
Since when has it been necessary to win by four points or more to win a game. Down the track will all games have to be won by four or more even after 80 mins?
The idea that four points is the magic number is completely inconsistant with the philosophy of the game. You'r emissing the point completely.
The philosophy of regular extra time is that the team leading at the end wins - no problem there.
The philosophy of golden point/try is that the team who gains the lead at any time during extra time wins - some disagree with this but it's not overly objectionable.
But to win by a particular margin or better is ridiculous. For one penalty goal to be insuffiicent yet as soon as you kick two it is enough to win the game is completely random and inconsistant with the philosphy of the game.

 

[Quidgybo]

If you think first to a four-point lead is the way a game should be won you're f**king nuts.

I didn't say first to a four point *lead* or anything about the margin, I said first to score four points. Big difference. Just like the present rule is effectively first to score one point.

Leigh.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I didn't say first to a four point *lead*, I said first to score four points. Big difference. Just like the present rule is effectively first to score one point.

Leigh.

The current rule is first to score points. That's because leading by any amount will win the game, if it's 1 point or four. And you know why? Because the actual number of points is irrelevent, which is why setting an arbitrary goal like four points makes no sense.

 

[spider]

Sheens wants a golden try

By Stuart Honeysett
November 16, 2006
A PROPOSAL from Wests Tigers coach Tim Sheens to scrap golden point and replace it with golden try attracted widespread support at the NRL coaches and players meeting yesterday.

Newcastle hooker Danny Buderus said a golden-try scenario would spare fans from the scrappy play that is ruining the extra time period in matches.

If the scores are dead locked from the 70th minute - we see this so called "scrappy play" until the 80th minute anyway.

If they truely want to keep the game open and expansive for this reason - maybe they have to look at the big picture and not just the extra time period???

 

[Quidgybo]

The current rule is first to score points. That's because leading by any amount will win the game, if it's 1 point or four.

A spade or shovel, it's the same thing. First team to score 1 point wins.

And you know why? Because the actual number of points is irrelevent, which is why setting an arbitrary goal like four points makes no sense.

Of course it makes sense. You want tries (instead of field goal-a-thons)? Four points is the value of a try. It's not some arbitary figure plucked from thin air. It encourages you to score once with a "golden" match ending try but it doesn't corrupt the game by removing the value of penalties (both given and received). If you want to argue the philosophy of the game - Golden Try as the only scoring option corrupts the game and one of it's core philosophies (ie. that cheating is penalised, not rewarded).

Leigh.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

A spade or shovel, it's the same thing. First team to score 1 point wins.


Of course it makes sense. You want tries (instead of field goal-a-thons)? Four points is the value of a try. It's not some arbitary figure plucked from thin air. It encourages you to score once with a "golden" match ending try but it doesn't corrupt the game by removing the value of penalities (both given and received). If you want to argue the philosophy of the game - Golden Try as the only scoring option corrupts the game and one of it's core philosophies (ie. that cheating is penalised, not rewarded).

Leigh.

But it's not about scoring four points. The number of points is irrelevent. It's about the METHOD in which the game is won, not the NUMBER of points scored. There is no point bringing in a "golden try" rule if you don't have to score a try to win. It then becomes a "golden try but only if the other side doesn't kick two penalty goals first" rule.

 

[Quidgybo]

But it's not about scoring four points. The number of points is irrelevent. It's about the METHOD in which the game is won, not the NUMBER of points scored.

And that's the difference, the present rule isn't about the METHOD in which the game is won, it's about the NUMBER of points scored - 1 or more. There is no restriction on the METHOD. I'm just suggesting that NUMBER is changed. You're suggesting a much more radical change. Restricting the METHOD would corrupt the way the game is played and reward cheating - a point that you still are not addressing.

There is no point bringing in a "golden try" rule if you don't have to score a try to win. It then becomes a "golden try but only if the other side doesn't kick two penalty goals first" rule.

First to four wins or the result at the end of five minutes each way stands. It's still just 16 words, all in English, most of them four letters or less. Even the average prop forward should be able to understand it.

Leigh.

 

[East Coast Tiger]

And that's the difference, the present rule isn't about the METHOD in which the game is won, it's about the NUMBER of points scored - 1 or more. I'm just suggesting that number is changed. Your suggesting a much more radical change. Changing the METHOD would corrupt the way the game is played and reward cheating - a point that you still are not addressing.


First to four wins or the result at the end of five minutes each way stands. It's still just 16 words, all in English, most of them four letters or less. Even the average prop forward should be able to understand it.

Leigh.

The current rules isn't about the number of points though, because it doesn't matter how many points are scored. It's about the first team to score, whether that be a try or goal or field goal. They could make each worth 1 points or 100 points in extra time if they wanted and it wouldn't matter (except in for and against terms) because it's about scoring not about scoring a certain amount of points.

I can see where you're coming from but it's just not inkeeping with the way the game is played. You don't havw to win in 80 mins by four or more so why would you have to in extra time?

As I've said I don't even care if they scrap golden point because I don't think it's necessary. This is not my proposal, it's Tim Sheens'.

If penalty goals must stay they should look at which type of penalty is differential and which is not. Scrum penalties already are. Stripping, holding down, deliberately inside the 10/offside should remain because these are ploys defensive sides can use to prevent a try, professional fouls basically. But I think fouls, like high tackles etc could be made differential because they are not ploys designed to prevent tries. Usually they are just over agression or carelessness, not a deliberate act to slow the opposition down or steal possession or whatever.

The philosophy of penalty goals is to allow teams to kick points after the opposition has done something illegal in stopping them from scoring a try. I don't think fouls can be deemed the same as professional fouls so maybe you shouldn't be able to kick for goal after a foul.
I just don't like penalty goals. They need to be discouraged somehow and limiting the opportunity kick them by only allowing shots at goal following professional fouls might be a way to do it. The other option would be to reduce them to one point but that doesn't really allow them to serve their purpose, which is to punish defences that infringe to stop points being scored (ie tries).

 

[The Engineers Room]

I still think that the field goal should be not allowed in extra time. If you kick one it is play on, as if you kicked a punt kick through the posts.

The goals should only count if no try is scored. That way a try will win the game but a team that commits a professional foul is still punished.

Personally I think that a penalty goal should also end golden point and just make the field goal not count as above.

 

[Disco]

i think it should be Golden Try, but a field goal or Penalty goal, still counts

Then if at the end of extra time, if nobody has scored a try, the person with the highest points wins

Eg, Manly and Parra end the game at 20-20, they head into extra time with both teams looking for the try, but defense from both sides is strong, then Fui Fui commits a horrible high tackle on, say......Kite, Orford realises we may not score, and takes the two points. Extra time continues, with it still being golden try, but by the end the defense wins out, so Manly win the game 22-20


I think this is the way to go, as it will still punish dirty play (penalty kicks) and still provide excitement (golden try)
plus it brings tactics into it. Do you go for a field goal when you have an easy chance, hoping your defense will hold out, or do you look for the try and finsh it?

 

[spider]

Another view on the golden point from a coach/player perspective this year will be player fatigue.

With the time between one game to the next with the inclusion of Monday night games - a "golden try" concept could see 2 teams belt each other to the point of physical depletion with no result - then turn around in a short time to play again next week.

 

[panthersballboy]

What if they just take the field goal out of extra time. That way you can still win off a penalty kick so teams would be desperate not to give away a penalty. Also you can win by a try so the free flowing football would still remain in extra time.

 

[Sir Biffo]

Keep the field goal.

Scrap golden point!

We need to re-introduce "extra time" for games that matter - finals, SOO, tests. Keep the draw in a regular games and then have a 10 minute extra time period for deciders. If scores are still locked, then we go to a golden point situation.