Maybe so, but the stuff you type does tend to throw up a lot of rubbish.

Golden point during the regular season = biggest farce the game has ever seen.

Why is a draw so unacceptable and should be avoided at all costs one minute, then 10 minutes later suddenly it's a perfectly acceptable result?

You know who you sound like don't you?

I reckon both teams should get a point each for drawing at full time.

Then play 10 minutes each way Golden Try if anyone scores they get 1 more point.

I'm not keen on Golden Point as it just degenerates in to a drop goal contest.

The Dalai Lama of RL?

Golden point would make our game much more exciting, that is good enough for me.
We cannot be bound to what is fair etc. we just have to make our product better to a new person.

An announcement like this would be live on sky sports news which would get good coverage and when a game goes to extra time it would get even bigger coverage.... fans watching the tele love drama, thats why they watch it.

Studies show that fans watch sport because of unpredicatability! That is the answer.

I thought the draw last night was quite exciting – I don’t understand why you would say that the last play of match to win would be much more exciting than the last second kick to snatch a draw?

By the very definition that the scores are even would suggest that a draw was a pretty exciting game?

like what i said earlier...


right how about this..

1point each for a draw

then another point for the winner in "golden TRY"

Saddam Hussein?

No Barry....Oh sorry, Dave.

Finally.

I was being sarcastic Bazza McPhippson.

Golden Point - AWFUL!

2 x 5 or 10 minutes of extra time should be installed in cup games only. Draws in a league match! Rarely happens.

unless you're a pie eater

So what is the favourite

Golden Point
Golden Try
5 Kicks at goal
No Change
or
Sum'ert else lad

I agree that a draw is an acceptable result for a regular league fixture, and so does the NRL! I don't think some posters on here understand that if 2 x 5min halves of Golden Point in the NRL bears no result, the match is drawn.

This is a spectator sport and without fans it is nothing. Golden Point is for the fans and for the good of the game. Can any of you against Golden Point tell me with a straight face that it doesn't excite you? Seriously? So you sit there with the sour face that you bring into these threads, completely unmoved, while everyone else watching the same thing you are goes bezerk? The intensity and emotion is turned up to 11 like in Spinal Tap. It's just good for the game.

But if there's no result after that, an agreeable draw is still decided. There's no sense in forcing the players to play with excessive risk to their health for a league game. That would be bad for the game. 2 x 5min halves is considerate of this danger.

I just don't see how changing the format like this negatively affects the integrity of the sport or competition. The only thing Golden Point breaks is convention. And we'd still be playing a primitive form of Union or worse if we always upheld convention.

I completely understand what you are saying, I agree it would be exciting. The problem is in the NRL, when they do go to golden point it becomes scrappy and people take pot shots at goal and are scared of giving penalties away. Maybe Golden Try would work? I still don't see any problem with a draw though, like a lot of people have said, if it's a draw-it's generally been an exciting game anyway.

Thats the idea of 'Golden point' you see jonny. The first team to score a 'point' in extra time are the winners. You get one point for a field goal so thats enough to win you the 2 competition points.

It's an exciting concept.

The team with the ball need to put enough metres in to get within range of a field goal. The defending teams put in big hits to stop them. We see some good offloads.

And then as we have seen in the past the attacking team can trick the defending team into THINKING they are going for the field goal only to pass it wide and send a player over for the 4 pointer.


'Golden try' is a silly idea.


But then I think you already knew that didn't you.

Seeing as though I am one of the posters on this thread who have argued against the golden point then I must be one of the sour faced individuals you refer to

I understand your point and it is well made. However, I don’t understand why, after 80 minutes of rugby, another 10 minutes has to be played to find a winner. Most of the draws I have seen in our sport over the past decade or so have been cracking games of rugby with intense, close finishes and as such they have been thoroughly enjoyable

In a play-off game or a cup competition where a winner has to be found then the golden point is a great spectacle as it is ‘all or nothing’ but the game of Rugby League is played over 80 minutes and in a league game, if the scores are tied over 80 minutes then both teams deserve to share the points – this isn’t just convention, it is also the right and proper end to a game

As I said earlier, if the GP is SO good, then just play up to 80 minutes, if neccessary and the first team to score wins.

It would be SO exciting for about 5 minutes

I'm with you Dunbar. Most draws are cracking games, just like the Wigan-Saints and Leeds-Wigan games this year.

My idea:
Similar to the half time challenges at various grounds, bring on a pole and get each goalkicker to spin 10 times, they then have to run 20 metres without stopping and go for the conversion. If both miss, then repeat the process. First one to kick a conversion wins.

Simple!

did the best challenge cup semi final of all time go to golden point?

golden point is not required in league games and should follow 20 mins extra time in cup and playoff games only if it remains a draw, keep the replays in CC finals please

I think thats the technique Mark Riddell was employing during last years grand final

Every year spud, every year you post his thread!

Leave the draw alone!

i'm gonna do it after ever draw now...lol