www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... ystem.html

www.superleaguefans.com/rugby-le ... ystem.html

It would make a mockery of the league. It is fine if all the teams are on a more equal footing, but as the top 6 will be the same every year no matter what, at the moment, then this sort of gimmick is just not needed.

Don't agree with it what so ever!
No No No No and NO.

A bonus point system shouldn't be needed at fully pro level. Rugby League is complicated enough anyway, the current points system is simple and works just fine.

No, no, no!

They introduced it in Union because point scoring is dominated by kicking and they wanted to incentivise try scoring. They also wanted games not to die on their backsides once a team got a couple of scores ahead.

You don't need to incentivise try scoring in league any more than it is at the moment - it's the only way to win a game.

Absolute cobblers.

+1

How else do we incentivise the SL regular season given that it died on it's backside several seasons ago?

Bag of e idea.

It would certainly complicate Leeds Rhinos efforts in calculating what is required to finish 5th.

Does anyone know if this would have made any meaningful difference to the league table last year?

Not really fussed either way, although I would only like to see a losing BP given for losing by 6 or less.

Definate no from me.

That would give a defeat by < 7 points equal value to a draw.

Wwwww.

Just about every other major sport in the world manages to run a league competition based on wins, losses and ties in one form or another, without throwing in unnecessary "bonus" points.

Why change?

It's not like rugby league players stop trying whenever they go two or three scores down and need to be incentivised to keep playing.

You tell me smart @r$e. You know as well as I do, that the playoff structure is the main way to manipulate the regular season. There are two options:
1. You have an end of season playoff that includes a large number of teams, theoretically maintaining interest with more fans for longer and potentially increasing revenue from an extended playoof series.
2. You have short series heavily weighted towards the top 1 and 2 finishers and only a small number of clubs participate - theoretically making closer, more competitive matches and having a higher quality series.

You know which one I prefer and I know which one you prefer - I believe we agree.

Of course, the underperforming "superleague rabble" as you call them, could always step up and offer stiffer competition during the regular season and shake things up a bit. But they won't so how will handing them "bonus points" for not getting completely thrashed improve the regular season?

Over to you.....

Well in theory when one of the bottom teams is facing one of the top teams and is trailing by 16+ points it makes some sense, as before they would sense they have little chance of overhauling that scoreline for a win. However it wouldn't really make the table too much different as when the top teams lose it's rarely by much so it would look silly if for example Wigan could still gain a point when losing at home to Warrington.

Personally don't think they should introduce any but if they did then perhaps if the losing bonus point was only applied for away games. You shouldn't pick up bonus points for losing at home no matter the scoreline.

IF this is for real then it smacks of dementia over at RFL HQ. I'm convinced that Red Hall used to be a retirement home and they forgot to move out the residents.

Go back to the top five and that play off system.

Had a look at this back in 2005 based on bonus points being awarded for four or more tries and the losing team staying within a converted score (6 points) at full-time.

26 - Bradford, Leeds
25 - St Helens
24 - Huddersfield, Warrington
23 - Hull, Wigan
22 - London
20 - Wakefield, Widnes
14 - Salford
11 - Leigh

The upshot of applying those bonus points to the comp points would have resulted in four clubs switching positions Wigan moving from 7 to 6 and into the final play-off place (London 6 to 7) and Wakefield moving from 10 to 9 (Salford 9 to 10) albeit purely a hypothetical example as although based on actual results, without the system being in operation the incentives were not there to have any possible effect on tries or margins.


It was also pretty apparent teams routinely scored the four tries or more required and for the bonus to be meaningful in League it would require a higher threshold than in Union.

The 2012 SL Table if Championship style scoring system used.
3 = win, 2 = draw, 1 = lost by 12pts or less.

1 - Wigan - 68
2 - Wire - 65
3 - Saints - 61
4 - Catalan - 58
5 - Hull - 52
6 - Leeds - 51
7 - Hudds - 47
8 - Hull KR - 45
.........................
9 - Wakey - 44
10 - Bradford - 39*
11 - Salford - 34
12 - London - 28
13 - Widnes - 24
14 - Castleford - 22

*Bradford deducted 6pts, originally on 45pts but behind HKR on points difference so would've finished 9th.

So the differences are Leeds & Hull swap places, as do Cas and Widnes (which if P/R ever returned would be crucial) and HKR jump up to 8th.
Should be noted that HKR only won 10 games last year compared to Wakey's 13 but would've made the playoffs.

As Tvoc stated in his example though, it's hypothetical as teams knew they weren't playing for bonus points therefore some scorelines would've been very different.

Breakdown on losing margins in 2012

lost by 12pts or less / 13-24pts / 25pts +

1 / 7 / 4 - BRADFORD
4 / =#FF00008 / 9 - CASTLEFORD
4 / 5 / 0 - CATALANS
5 / 5 / 3 - HUDDERSFIELD
3 / 3 / 4 - HULL
=#FF000011 / 3 / 2 - HKR
3 / 6 / 2 - LEEDS
7 / 4 / 9 - LONDON
6 / 1 / 1 - ST HELENS
8 / 4 / 6 - SALFORD
5 / 4 / 5 - WAKEFIELD
3 / 1 / 2 - WARRINGTON
6 / 3 / =#FF000012 - WIDNES
5 / 1 / 0 - WIGAN

TOTAL - 71 / 55 / 59

................................................

Also whilst looking at the results I noticed that out of Leeds' 11 losses that the team who beat us lost the previous week 8 times out of 11..............one eye on the champions perhaps???

Compare with others
TEAM (LOSSES) Opposition lost week before - Opposition won week before

LEEDS (L11) 8-3
............................
HULL (L10) 2-8
CATALANS (L9) 4-5
SAINTS (Licon_cool.gif 0-8
WIRE (L6) 1-5
WIGAN (L6) 2-3 (1 result not applicable as it happened in the 1st week)
TOTAL (L39) 9-29

*Wire's sole defeat when they put a weakened team out against Salford.
*One of Wigan's defeats when they rested key players against Widnes.

See people accuse Leeds of not trying during the regular season, I'd say the actual answer is teams try harder against Leeds than others and focus more on putting one over on us at the expense of the previous week's fixture.

Or Leeds' attitude towards the regular rounds affords opportunities for points that shouldn't really be there ?

Or Leeds drop their preparation/intensity when facing opposition coming off a loss ?

Leeds are a tough team to beat when they want to be ..... getting them to want to be more often appears the difficulty and rather than looking outside the camp for excuses I'd concentrate inside the camp more and look for reasons then implement solutions, if they are concerned.

Perhaps, if the likes of HUll didn't meekly surrender 12-56 when Wigan arrived at the KC but pulled off a 34-20 victory over Leeds 2 weeks later. Or Wakefield's half-hearted effort of losing 10-52 to Wigan but 2 Rounds later beating us at Belle Vue 38-18. Did the opposition they played play better? Most likely but it's clear by them scorelines that those teams weren't as 'up' for those games as they were Leeds, otherwise they wouldn't lose by such an amount at home.

Funny how people talk about Leeds being lazy towards the regular season....seems more like some peoples explaination of results "oh they must not give a toss" is the real lazy thing here.

A lot can happen in three weeks as per your Wakefield example above. All results are a combination of two efforts, one team being off can see a score blow-out as possession can be dominated after the restart with teams scoring back to back tries.

If Leeds had arrived at Belle Vue and the KC stadium as well prepared and with the same mentality as Wigan showed then perhaps they'd have pulled off equally emphatic wins. I'm minded to conclude those results had more to do with Wigan's attitude in those fixtures rather than their opponents looking ahead to facing Leeds.

Wigan also left Headingley with another of those emphatic wins in the regular season.

I still view Wigan as a scalp and I'd be surprised if the majority of teams didn't take the same view.