What's the point of giving 2 points during a bye?

[lucablight]

Just looking at the congested ladder I realised that some teams may be doing slightly better or worse than the ladder reads due to some teams having the bye and others yet to do so. Does anyone know the point of rewarding teams with 2 points during the bye for doing nothing? I think it just lessens the accuracy of the ladder and I can't see any reasonable purpose for it. Anyone know why the NRL does it this way?

 

[Carlito]

If it were the other way around, and you didn't get points for a bye, it would feel unfair to drop down on the ladder compared to other teams around you just because you didn't play that week.

Either way it's a moot point because it all evens out in the end.

 

[imp3rf3ction]

I guess it's just tradition.

 

[Utey]

It's sh*t. Although Carlito makes a good point.

 

[*Paul*]

Although Carlito makes a good point.

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with it. If teams have differing numbers of byes, it's fairer to give points. Except the NRL doesn't, so it's pointless. Funny how they can piss about with stripping rules, knock-on rules and golden point when they were fine as they were, yet can't fix an actual anomaly (albeit a minor one)

 

[wittyfan]

It's ridiculous that teams even have byes when there's an even number of teams.

 

[Bobby DIGital]

If we didn't have byes, we'd have to go back to split rounds during origin time, which would lengthen the season.

 

[The_Savage_1]

it's better to have the two points awarded for the bye IMO. it more correctly represents the top of the ladder (in effect by assuming the team that had the bye won). whereas if you didn't get the two points for the bye it would more correctly represent the bottom of the ladder (as the lower teams that had the bye probably wouldn't have won anyway). it's the top of the ladder that counts, so i'm in favour of keeping it as is.

 

[strewth_mate]

Feels a bit like the illusion you get from track races as the runners come around the bend. Gives a false representation on the surface of where everyone really stands until they hit the straight. It's unnecessary but at the very least makes it kind of interesting - perhaps they should award 10 points for the bye :sarcasm:

 

[TITAN1]

If we didn't have byes, we'd have to go back to split rounds during origin time, which would lengthen the season.

IMO,have no games the weekend before the SOO,would stop teams whinging about having players out.

 

[Tom Shines]

Mogsheen Jadwat.

 

[adamkungl]

Biggest non-issue in the game. Even more pointless than Gus' whining about packing scrums early to stop the clock. DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFRENENCE

 

[RL1908]

It is of no consequence in the NRL today whether they give 2 points for the bye or not - the only reason it exists is tradition. In various football comps since the 1880s some teams had more byes than others in a season (including in the NSWRL premiership in 1920). Full story here: Why 2 Points For The Bye?

 

[johns_reds]

Biggest non-issue in the game. Even more pointless than Gus' whining about packing scrums early to stop the clock. DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFRENENCE

i actually agree with gus on this, i think that who ever packs the scurm should stay in the scrum, whether it be the fullback or winger, if he hops in there he should stay in there, let the front rower defend out on the wing for the next play, be quite interesting

 

[johns_reds]

back on the topic though, i can't see the point in awarding 2pts unless the amount of byes teams get aren't even, but in this case they are so there is no point to give 2 pts, they might as well start everyone off at 2 rather then 0.

 

[KeepingTheFaith]

back on the topic though, i can't see the point in awarding 2pts unless the amount of byes teams get aren't even, but in this case they are so there is no point to give 2 pts, they might as well start everyone off at 2 rather then 0.

But then when a team has a bye and other teams play and win the table isn't accurate because of the extra game played. Fans confuse themselves with the bye because they try and get an accurate reading by adding the bye points onto the table without taking into account the extra games teams play during those bye rounds. Then when things don't work out they go "huh?" get confused, frustrated, and start threads like this.

 

[Eels Dude]

I think 2 points in fair enough. Otherwise if a side has the in the early weeks of the season then they have to play catch up point wise until every other club has had their bye. May not technically make a difference, but no-one wants to look at the table and see their side lower than everyone else.

 

[The Engineers Room]

But by giving the points some teams are inflated and the teams that get the bye last look in the worse position.

 

[Phil McGrawhan]

Easily fixed. Before rd 1 give every team their 2 pts .

 

[SpaceMonkey]

it's better to have the two points awarded for the bye IMO. it more correctly represents the top of the ladder (in effect by assuming the team that had the bye won). whereas if you didn't get the two points for the bye it would more correctly represent the bottom of the ladder (as the lower teams that had the bye probably wouldn't have won anyway). it's the top of the ladder that counts, so i'm in favour of keeping it as is.

I'm glad SOMEBODY gets this. Pretty obvious IMO.