Golden try

[thickos]

What's wrong with keeping it as is, but giving 1 competition point to the team that loses in extra time? Reward sides for getting the match to ET in the first place.

It's not as if these games finish 30 seconds into ET with a quickly snapped field goal... the Raiders-Tigers was settled with only seconds to spare from almost halfway

 

[salivor]

Why have GOLDEN point in the first place ??? Play 10" e/w if the scores are locked at fulltime, and if neither team can score in the extra 20, it's a draw, 1 point each, no arguements. Done. :?

Then why have extra time at all? They've had 80 minutes to seperate themselves, why give them another 10.

Golden point is a joke and golden try while I think could be a slightly better option is far too flawed and open to abuse from players. I've said it a million times there is no need for extra time except in finals matches. It's nothing but the NRL's weird facsination with the NFL and imitating it, night time GF's, golden point, monday night football and even suggestions of a challenge system. League prides itself on it's speed and fluency while the NFL is a stop start dragged out game, why we'd want to model ourselves on that crap is beyond me.

 

[Redback71]

i like the sound of golden try

 

[innsaneink]

Nothing wrong with draws, I remember many times walking away from a game thanking my lucky stars that we scraped home with 1 point, while on other occasions cursing that lost point that really shoudlve been two.

 

[Marshall_magic]

it will become a professional foul-a-thon with golden try, players can get penalised all they want but the other team can't get a penalty goal.

 

[strewth_mate]

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

That's the way I'd like to see it.

I've got nothing against a draw at the end of 80 minutes, but if we've got to have golden point for whatever reason, I'd much rather have it not come down to running up through the middle and slotting it between the posts for game over then and there.

 

[Hass]

Firstly, any form of extra time in normal premiership games is farcical. It is unnecessary and artificial.

BUT

If we must have extra time in premiership games then Golden Try is far superior to Golden Point - especially when combined with the "first to 4" rule.

It's not difficult people. We play five minutes each way. The team on the most points at the end of this period wins.

If, however, a team scores a try it ends the match right there and then. If a team gets 4 points ahead then that should also end the match because it's the equivalent of a try.

This is not rocket science.

 

[Neatoboy]

I don't think there's anything wrong with a draw after 80 minutes and only think there should be golden point in major games such as semis and SOO. Although if they keep golden point, I do prefer the golden try idea.

 

[bobbis]

Get rid of golden point for normal preimership games its unecessary. Have extra time in finals and origin however not golden point, 10 minutes each way if no winner after that then golden point until a winner is found. Golden point is ridiculous it makes every form of scoring is equal, so inevitably given a field goal is the easiest method of scoring, golden point will degenerate into a field goal-athon. Theres a reason field goals are worth 1 point and trys 4-6 points.

 

[*Paul*]

It's odd scenario - first they dream up a solution to a problem that didn't exist, then the "solution" causes a problem - instead of then returning to the status quo, it gets more bootless fiddling.

 

[Quidgybo]

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?

Without beating the point to death, I'm not saying you have to "win by four", I'm saying you have to score four. If the other team scores three and then you score four (eg. by a try) then you win by one point. The golden try (trumping all other scores) isn't that different to what I'm proposing. The aim is to end the match with a try - ie. 4 points. And that's true in what I'm proposing too. In both arguments a try ends the match immediately - no ifs, no buts, no maybes. The only difference is that I'm asking that we not restrict the scoring so that tries are the only way to come up with those four points to win. Two penalty goals equals a try in normal play, why shouldn't it in extra time? If tries became a way to win the match regardless of penalty goals conceeded then I think the effects on the game's tactics and patterns of play thru excessive numbers of penalties and sin-bins would be absolutely farcial. And I really want those who are jumping behind golden try (trumping all other scoring methods) in this thread to give me a good reason why that won't be the case.

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'.

I recognise that. Personally I think the underlying reason for introducing golden point was as a way to leverage extra time into State of Origin over the Maroons objections. Had the Maroons accepted extra time up front I doubt we would have ever seen it in regular premiership matches. IMHO it makes perfect sense in one instance and only vague sense in the other.

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).

I largely agree with the sentiments in all the above (though not with the one point solution). But I don't think it's an argument or a solution that is specific to golden point / extra time. This is a question about the use of penalties in general within RL. And a worthwhile discussion too. But any changes we make to how penalties are awarded or taken should be uniform across the game, not specific to extra time to mitigate a flawed golden try implementation.

Leigh.

 

[Bengal]

Never been a fan of golden point, especially during regular season play.

A draw's good enough for me. Considering the workload the players continually complain about, it surprises me golden point ever made the light of day. Here's one easy peasy way of easing their workload - no golden point (during the regular season!)

.

 

[mepelthwack]

Never been a fan of golden point, especially during regular season play.

A draw's good enough for me. Considering the workload the players continually complain about, it surprises me golden point ever made the light of day. Here's one easy peasy way of easing their workload - no golden point (during the regular season!)

.

exactly.

They go on and on about how long and tough the season is.

Well if that is so why even have GP?

 

[Marshall_magic]

Never been a fan of golden point, especially during regular season play.

A draw's good enough for me. Considering the workload the players continually complain about, it surprises me golden point ever made the light of day. Here's one easy peasy way of easing their workload - no golden point (during the regular season!)

.

and 10 minutes MAX of footy is going to make a huge difference isn't it :roll:

 

[Frustrated Fan]

I think the field goal is a terrific aspect of the game and is underrated. Not just the kick itself but the whole scenario being played out…. Securing possession, working for field position, getting in position, getting kick away while under pressure. I find frustrating to see a team squander possession with a daring pass, when all they need is a field goal to win.

The purpose of the Golden Point rule is to encourage a winning result. Be it from a field goal, try or penalty goal. Referees failing to penalise off side players (charging down field goals) discourages a winning result. It would be a travesty to change a rule that has never been officiated properly.

I say let the coaches who accept field goals as a part of the game and train for the field goal scenario (i.e. Matthew Elliott) continue to win tight games, while those who don’t (Tim Sheens) continue to lose tight games.

Setting for field goal can be used as a dummy to create space elsewhere (an aspect that will be pointless in Tim Sheens’ “Golden Try” proposal). It will be even more difficult to score during “Golden Try” time resulting in more draws and defeating the purpose of having extra time in the first place.

Anyway, how is a try scored from a spilt bomb more exciting than a field goal?

 

[dowdz]

I would prefer to see a golden try if they want to break dead locks. I am still a fan of the draw though.

 

[Bengal]

and 10 minutes MAX of footy is going to make a huge difference isn't it :roll:

I betcha you wouldn't be singing this tune if your workplace increased your workload by 10 mins, and for what reward - sweet jack all. Oh, and add to that, the knowledge that your employer already knows you're overworked, but, no, no, no....that's not a problem to you is it sunshine. And given the monikor you go under, I'm sure your battle-hardened bod would just soooo love extra time.

 

[Quidgybo]

If my workplace increased my workload by ten minutes in every 1920 minutes (ie. 80 mins x 24 matches) or ten minutes in every 3120 minutes (ie. 80 mins x 39 matches - pretty much the theoretical maximum a player could play in any one season) I don't think I'd really give a toss. Plenty of people put in five or ten minutes unpaid here or there every week (I know I more than do). Seriously, how many extra minutes would any one player put in over the course a season because of golden point? Five minutes, maybe fifteen in an especially rough year. A trivial number compared to playing in City/Country, a trial match or even an intensive training session. The increased player workload as an argument against Golden Point just doesn't stand up IMHO. We're talking mere minutes per year per player. There are plenty of better reasons to argue.

Leigh.

 

[strewth_mate]

I think the field goal is a terrific aspect of the game and is underrated. Not just the kick itself but the whole scenario being played out…. Securing possession, working for field position, getting in position, getting kick away while under pressure. I find frustrating to see a team squander possession with a daring pass, when all they need is a field goal to win.

True, and usually I think it's quite enjoyable when the last 5-10 minutes of a game comes down to field goals because it gets the blood racing. But the problem with extra time as far as this is concerned, they have a short break, change sides, then continue pushing for field goals when some of the intensity has died off.

I don't like the idea of field goal scrambling for 15-20 minutes. I want to see a team earn their points through good play rather than sitting on their hands and establishing field position, which is much harder to stop. Otherwise it becomes more like union, where you can win a game simply by being at the right end of the field and not worrying about getting over the stripe.

That said, there was a great finish when Timmins kicked a winning field goal in SOO. I just prefer the try in the '97 grand final.

 

[wittyfan]

Golden Point was a joke to begin with and I hope this is the start of it being phased out for good.