Nah, Big Nige can count to 5.

[size=200WHOOSH![/size


* Introduce the Pace Man, who has to wear a large round yellow Paceman costume, with a 1 metre pink ribbon sewn on. Any team getting 20 points or more in front must nominate a Pace Man, like a Pace Car in Formula 1, and for 15 minutes any player on that team can only run forwards with the ball whilst holding the Pace Man's pink ribbon. The Paceman has a big gaping mouth and if he "eats" a defender then the defender must leave the field for the remainder of Paceman time.

* Introduce "Sumo Time". Any team getting 24 or more in front must make their backs all wear inflatable Sumo suits for 10 minutes

this is agreat example, i hate the system and have done since its inception, we got a bonus point on sunday at eagles despite never once being in the lead in the game.
Also some teams are now safe due to bonus points where under the old system they would not be ,against fev we took a pen in the last minute just to get a bonus point,its just wrong

I really like the idea. The practice seems to suck though.

Personally I have never been a fan of the bonus point as it is - don't think you should get a point for losing - Say if a side scores 5+ tries in victory they should get an extra point. Victory should be rewarded defeat should not....we lost to Fev at the weekend and were never in the game really if we had say scored again and lost 8-20 we would have got a point if Fev had won 4-40 they would have got nothing extra...

Apart from a better points For difference, as it has always been. And a psychological advantage.

Much as I dislike the bonus point, you are wrong, as a matter of simple arithmetic preventing one of your competitors from scoring 1 point means you are 1 point better off in the league than they are. It makes no odds whether YOU get 1 point or else they do NOT get 1 point, the result for your club is the same, the gap between the clubs is either reduced or increased by that point.

So as it stands in SL the winner takes the spoils and 2 points, the loser nothing. Draws are rare - less than 3% of the games this season so not really making much difference. To me if you where looking to inject additional excitement the bonus should go to the winner for say "x tries" or "x point" winning margin.

But to be honest it seems to me that a much simpler way of making games a better spectacle for the fans would be to referee the existing rules properly - how much better would Sunday's game potentially have been if the ptb and offside had been enforced as the rules say?

But the point of the bonus point is to try and make the leagues more competitive. You have a reason, once they've put twenty past you in the opening ten minutes, to keep on going. Having the better teams accelerate away even quicker defies the point of it.

That's why I like the idea of it. It just has some unintended consequences. Teams with more wins finishing lower than teams that never really lose but then again never really win either isn't really something we want.

Nah, FA's not Nigel Wood but with these ideas he'd be far more entitled to the £300k that Fat Nige!!!!

That seems to be the issue - what do you reward attack or defence. When you run onto the pitch both teams want to gain a points advantage on their opponents. If you give a bonus for winning big then the "better" team would go for it, whereas for the "defending" team it is to their advantage to restrict the scoring and their opponents getting an extra point. My problem with given a "losing" bonus point is that it reduces the net points advantage of winning.

But I would still come back to my point above - a much better way of improving the product would be to improve the referring - less offside, less interference at ptb - increase the speed and open the game up

The alleged interference at PTB or offside has negligible effect on the enjoyment of RL. I usually watch 2 or 3 games a week & virtually never is it an issue.

If I'm totally honest, I'm far from sure I think that encouraging a team who are winning by 40 points to go on and win by 60 or even 80 is doing anything to help the game either. For me, two points for the win and 1 for a draw with zippo for a loss is the right balance - points difference still applies when league points are level.

Three points for a win is also a nonsense in RL. It was brought in by soccer to try to discourage teams from playing for a draw; teams in RL do not enter games hoping for a draw so it is a solution to a non-existent problem and therefore has no place in rugby league.

This is the Aviva Premiership bonus point system work's


Rewards attack and defense.

That works for me.

The 'gap' and the number of tries would need amending, but I like the principle

It certainly made a difference to the game at Odsal last weekend, I don't think even a 5m gap was being enforced and some players were lying on so long at the tackle I thought they had fallen asleep. I guess to some extent it depends what facet of the game you most enjoy - the big men going hammer and tongs at close quarters or those fast open whole fields moves - I admit to being biased on that as I played in the backs - many moons ago when the rationing made it hard to put on enough weight to be a forward

I watch about 1 game of UK RL every two weeks if that. I watch 2 or 3 NRL games a week. The levels of interference at the PTB in SL is far higher than in NRL making it a much slower in comparison. As a result I can't be bothered with SL much. I am turning into AP.

Ironically, it was of course the selfsame NRL that first combined wrestling with rugby. Maybe we can follow whatever it is they have done to reduce it?

The dual ref system has cleaned up the ruck over there as one bloke can keep an eye on it while the other polices offside. The result is less milking by the tackled player and less deliberate slowing down of the PTB. It’s not perfect but it’s a sight better than over here where it’s much slower.

The wrestling side of things was first introduced in the modern game by Bellamy at the Storm and his protégé Maguire brought it over here. You can see how his protégés Wane and Harris are coaching it too. As a result watching Wigan defend is one of the most frustrating things ever. They’re incredibly well drilled and they’re very effective at what they do but to me it’s taken the game in a direction I don’t like. There’s too much emphasis on it. They get bodies in the tackle and peel off as slowly as possible leaving people just in the way enough to make it as awkward as possible for the attacking team. The referee is put in the position of being able to blow up every time but won’t for fear of reducing the game to chaos so he allows a level of offending that has a negative effect on the game as a spectacle. That’s happened for years but sides coached under the Bellamy ethos have taken it too far IMO. Obviously in Australia they’re tried to address it with the “pocket ref” and as a result Bellamy has been whinging a bit lately but the Storm are less effective now that the ruck is cleaned up to the benefit of the viewer.

Other rules they’ve brought in there I like are the seven tackles for the side taking a 20m tap after the ball has been kicked dead. It encourages better kicking. Also the rule about a second or third man in the tackle must tackle above the knee is a great one for player welfare.

They don’t always get it right. The quick tap for the side that’s just kicked a 40-20 has been controversial. I think it’s been dropped.

I believe it's still being used as the Eels were denied a try late in the game last week after a quick tap 40/20. The try was disallowed because the ball boy passed the winger the ball for the restart. The winger then passed to another player who raced away to score. The rule states that the ball must be placed on the sideline and picked up by the winger and then passed to the hooker for the restart.

Yeah the media’s been up in arms about it. It was a barmy rule since it involved potentially putting ball boys at a crucial point in the course of a game. TBF Chris Sandow didn’t even tap the ball correctly. You get enough advantage from kicking a 40-20 without having to get a quick tap too.

Best keeping the ball boys and girls out of it.

Just a few years back my 15 year-old nephew was a ball boy at the Bulls and a winger, playing for London called him an "F ing barsteward" [ or similar because the winger wanted him to throw the ball infield, to take a quick tap after a penalty. However, the Ball boys are trained to place the ball on the line which is what my nephew did. So the erudite, articulate and well spoken current Sky correspondent, who comes across as if butter wouldn't melt [yes, Jon Wells, I'm talking about you went into tirade mode.

I'm 100% certain my nephew will have heard far worse [and probably could have trumped him but it's not really the point.

Many moons ago I wrote to RL Express suggesting an alternative points system.
There would be 3 points available for each game. 1 for winning the game and one for winning each half.
So, the points distribution could be 3-0, 2-0 (if one half is drawn), 2-1 (if one team wins one half) or 1-1 for a draw.
Wakefield would have got a point last week for winning the 2nd half despite being 32-0 down at half-time. Rewarding making a game of the second half and punishing a team for taking their foot off the gas.

Had bonus points for a while now in our League, most championship fans like it. Certainly makes for some cracking last quarters in close games.

I would suggest that all Bulls fans wait and have a look how it works before writing it off as a bad idea.

Don't be ridiculous. Much better to have hysterical, knee-jerk reactions.