NFL Golden Point

[84 Baby]

Don't think this has been posted before.

The NFL used a new golden point system this year. Would easily work in NRL as well.

Basically, like in our finals games it's unlimited time, keep going till someone scores. In normal games, the same time limit applies to extra time.

The kicker is, if the team that starts with the ball first (Team A) scores a field goal on their opening set, then the opposition (Team B) gets one set to try and score (obviously rule of who kicks off after scoring would have to change).

Under these rules by sets I don't mean the written rule of set, because if the opposition gives a penalty away technically that set ends. So for the opening sets I mean opening period of continuously holding the ball.

If Team A scores a try on the opening set then that's game over, they win (see Denver/Pittsburgh playoff).
If they don't score at all, and Team B scores in anyway then Team B win. If Team A scores a field goal but then Team B scores a try on the ensuing set, Team B wins.
If scores are level after the opening sets, then it reverts to normal golden point rules.

Also to this I believe that in overtime, penalty shots at goal should be removed. Refs have been accused in the past of not giving penalties within kicking range because it will decide the game. So with no shots allowed then refs would be free to call normally.

I don't think this would be too difficult to implement in the NRL.

 

[Parra]

It is a common-sense system that would work well.

It will never be implemented in the NRL.

 

[Eels Dude]

Or we could just do something totally ridiculous and make a rule where if the scores are locked after 80 minutes the game just ends and the teams split the competition points. Just putting it out there.

 

[eozsmiles]

I think it's a bit different in the NFL because you can drive the length of the field and have unlimited downs. So in effect the team that recieves the ball can grind it upfield as slowly and carefully as they like until they are in kicking distance. If you start OT on defence you wont see the ball if the offence can execute. In RL we are obliged to kick away or give up the ball after six tackles regardless of how much ground has been made, giving the team that starts on defence a much better chance of scoring first.
The rule has definitely caused some excitement in NFL circles.

 

[joshie]

All we need is Golden Try and then a draw after 80. done and done.

 

[eozsmiles]

I think a good idea for golden point is the Bennett idea. 1 point each for the regular time draw and the winner of golden point gets another point.

 

[84 Baby]

Or we could just do something totally ridiculous and make a rule where if the scores are locked after 80 minutes the game just ends and the teams split the competition points. Just putting it out there.

Agreed but can't be done for finals

 

[El Diablo]

It is a common-sense system that would work well.

It will never be implemented in the NRL.

stupid Yawnion twat

did you miss this?

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...e-system-likely-to-linger-20111130-1o75u.html

Extra-time rule gets boot, but McIntyre system likely to linger
Greg Prichard
December 1, 2011

THE National Rugby League is set to change the extra-time rules for finals games next season, but it is still up in the air whether the McIntyre finals system will be retained or dumped in favour of a return to the system the AFL uses.

The league announced at the end of its annual conference yesterday it had formed a competition committee to review next year's finals series structure, extra time in finals games, player safety issues arising from new playing trends - including the controversial ''cannonball'' tackle - and any other suggestions related to match rules that are put forward by clubs.

The NRL asked the clubs for feedback on these issues two weeks ahead of the conference, and the committee is designed to discuss whatever matters the clubs consider to be priorities and make recommendations to the league. The NRL's independent commission will also have a say when it is finally in place, most likely by mid-December.

The Herald has learnt there is solid backing from the clubs for a change to the extra-time rules for the finals, largely as a result of the finals game between Brisbane and St George Illawarra last season, when Darren Lockyer kicked a field goal in the second minute of golden-point extra time to give the Broncos a thrilling 13-12 win.

It is felt finals games are too important to be decided so simply, and that teams should battle over a longer period before a golden-point extra time period comes into play - if there is not already a result.

The likelihood is that extra time in finals will begin with a guaranteed period, possibly five minutes each way, before the situation reverts to golden-point extra time if the scoring is still deadlocked.

There is almost annual debate over whether the McIntyre system should be replaced by the system that splits the top four teams from the bottom four in the first week of the finals. It has always survived, despite calls for it to be abandoned, but this time the push is likely to be stronger than ever.

The Herald understands that while some clubs would like to see the McIntyre system scrapped, there are others that are not fussed either way. It is known that the independent commission believes it is worth discussing.

The competition committee will comprise State of Origin coaches Ricky Stuart and Mal Meninga, former NRL coaches Daniel Anderson and John Lang, former NRL players Andrew Ryan and Trent Barrett, and the NRL director of football operations, Nathan McGuirk. Two current NRL coaches will also be appointed to the committee, and the NRL referees' coaches Bill Harrigan and Stuart Raper will advise on rules.

It is possible decisions on the finals system and extra time could be made this month, but since nothing would be final until the independent commission is in place decisions could be delayed until January.

''The process has begun with the clubs providing direct feedback,'' McGuirk said yesterday. ''The competition committee will be finalised shortly and will get together for the first time in the next seven to 10 days, when the feedback from the clubs will be considered.''

NRL chief executive David Gallop said one of the game's greatest strengths was its capacity to evolve, adding: ''There is little doubt that we are seeing the closest and the most skillful competitions in the game's history and we want to ensure that we are constantly monitoring and evaluating the way the game is played.''

 

[84 Baby]

I think it's a bit different in the NFL because you can drive the length of the field and have unlimited downs. So in effect the team that recieves the ball can grind it upfield as slowly and carefully as they like until they are in kicking distance. If you start OT on defence you wont see the ball if the offence can execute. In RL we are obliged to kick away or give up the ball after six tackles regardless of how much ground has been made, giving the team that starts on defence a much better chance of scoring first.
The rule has definitely caused some excitement in NFL circles.

This is the only issue with it. The receiving team essentially has to go 80-90m to even have a chance of scoring. The system would probably be a bit non-existent in most games as a lot of teams that receive the ball barely make it to halfway and have to kick away or chance a field goal. If the NRL were to go radical, then perhaps the overtime kick offs are from the 20m line

 

[yobbo84]

All we need is Golden Try and then a draw after 80. done and done.

Golden try is a stupid idea.

So say two teams are locked at 20-all after 80mins. Team A kicks three penalty goals in extra time. Team B then scores a try in the 90th minute and wins 24-26? Any system that allows for such a (unlikely as it is) scenario is dumb.

 

[El Diablo]

just ban dropgoals and shots at goal from penalties in finals if game is tied after 80 mins

 

[Eels Dude]

Golden try is a stupid idea.

So say two teams are locked at 20-all after 80mins. Team A kicks three penalty goals in extra time. Team B then scores a try in the 90th minute and wins 24-26? Any system that allows for such a (unlikely as it is) scenario is dumb.

That's the NRL's response and it's technically plausible. Simple solution is to make all penalties in extra time differencials.

 

[Honkiest_Honky]

That's the NRL's response and it's technically plausible. Simple solution is to make all penalties in extra time differencials.

I agree with the other person its Dumb! It changes the dynamic of the game. Then players will be forced to foul to prevent the try and if a penalty cant cost them the game the incentive to play by the rules will be lost.

If a field goal is ok to win the game in regular time it would be madness to scrap that rule in extra time.

 

[yobbo84]

I'm not a fan of being able to score one way after 79:55 and then not after 80:05.

If it's heading towards a draw teams will just have a field-goal shootout the last 5-10 mins of regular time anyway.

 

[Burwood]

Golden try is a stupid idea.

So say two teams are locked at 20-all after 80mins. Team A kicks three penalty goals in extra time. Team B then scores a try in the 90th minute and wins 24-26? Any system that allows for such a (unlikely as it is) scenario is dumb.

Lol, why would team A opt to take the shot at goal when there is no benefit, let alone do it three times??

 

[Haffa]

I agree with the other person its Dumb! It changes the dynamic of the game. Then players will be forced to foul to prevent the try and if a penalty cant cost them the game the incentive to play by the rules will be lost.

Sounds like the perfect description of a game of Rugby Union. I'd rather we avoided that.

 

[LineBall]

Personally not a fan of golden point/try.

If scores level at full time for regular season - then it stands as a draw and points are shared.

If scores level at full time during finals - play extra 10 minutes each way. If still even play again in 5 minute intervals until somebody is in front at the end of that time period.

 

[Parra]

Lol, why would team A opt to take the shot at goal when there is no benefit, let alone do it three times??

Because once both teams have had possession goals count. The NFL rule stops a "boring" procession where the receiving team marches down the field and scores a FG to win without the kicking side even getting a chance at possession.

If the receiving team scores a touch down on the first possession they get the win. If they only get a FG they don't. They kick off and their opponents can try and score anyway they want. First to get the lead after this wins.

 

[Parra]

The idea of golden try is different and is stupid.

 

[Parra]

...