Golden point is the way forward.

Imagine our game against Saints at Cardiff or our game agains Leeds away going live on sky sports into extra time golden point. It would be a great advert for the game, people would hear about it on SSN and turn over.

Quote ="af"Draws are usually good, for 79 minutes and 59 seconds. But it's not just me who thinks there's a problem with them. If only I'd been born one hundred and ten years earlier, I would have suggested this at the George and you'd all be poo-pooing anyone who suggested getting rid of it. Born in the wrong century and the wrong country by the looks of it, the Seppos have the right idea - a tie is like kissing your sister ( I don't have a sister, I'll have to take their word for it). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tie_(draw) I don't doubt RL can survive keeping the draw. I think it could have survived not bring in the 40:20. But that's not a reason not to bring either of those rule changes in.'" I'm finding this hard to believe. Finally we have a forum moderator who appears to have more than 2 brain cells to rub together. I've thought for a long time that we should be getting rid of draws in our sport. Thank god finally someone else agrees with me.

Quote ="af"Draws are usually good, for 79 minutes and 59 seconds. But it's not just me who thinks there's a problem with them. If only I'd been born one hundred and ten years earlier, I would have suggested this at the George and you'd all be poo-pooing anyone who suggested getting rid of it. Born in the wrong century and the wrong country by the looks of it, the Seppos have the right idea - a tie is like kissing your sister ( I don't have a sister, I'll have to take their word for it). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tie_(draw) I don't doubt RL can survive keeping the draw. I think it could have survived not bring in the 40:20. But that's not a reason not to bring either of those rule changes in.'" I'm finding this hard to believe. Finally we have a forum moderator who appears to have more than 2 brain cells to rub together. I've thought for a long time that we should be getting rid of draws in our sport. Thank god finally someone else agrees with me.

" and after four tackles, you just... hand it over? You've not dropped it, you've not kicked it away, you have to give it to the opposition? Are you on crack?"

Stupid idea. What's wring with each team gaining a point? It also makes the league more exciting with draws gang teams a point.

No it isn't , if you want a drop goal fest , watch RU , league games don't need a definite result , cup games do

Have some sympathy but disagree having seen it in practice in the NRL. Fetishises the DG and is knackering for the players. Keep the game to 80 mins where at all possible.

Again - it's a non-result. Neither side is satisfied, each has to wait till the end of the season to know if it was a point gained or lost. We can one-up football here by having every game settled on the day without the need for extra time or shoot-outs.

I like draws

Agree 100%.

Away goals only applies to knock-out matches though. In League matches all teams should compete on as even footing as possible. If we move to a "no draws" model then it should be based solely on the idea of out-scoring the opposition via whatever medium.

I like the idea as a piece of innovative thinking but disagree on an ideological level.

I'd be interested in seeing some analysis of the teams that have drawn games over the course of SL (not that RL began with SL, but it's as good a period to analyse as any). I wonder if such a rule would be biased towards bigger teams - my theory being that draws are either between teams of equal footing or a stronger home team against a weaker away team.

What about increasing points for a win to 3 to reward a winning team significantly more than if they drew?

I'm actually happy with draws and because of the scoring system in rugby are usually exciting events unlike football

AF, the evidence on this thread shows that you - and the people you claim agree with you - are in a minority.

A draw IS a result. It's called 'a draw'.

Have you never been to see your team play, watch them claw their way back from a 24 point deficit and draw in the dying moments? When you have, then you will know why the draw has to stay. That is a 'result' by any definition that you care to come up with.

Stupid idea from start to finish.

Seen it or similar enough times, left me feeling 'meh'. Better than losing, not halfway to winning, and that's the point. And if you're calling me stupid, you're calling the people who run some of the most successful sports leagues (including THE most successful RL competition in the world) stupid as well. I may be in a minority here, but then so were a lot of people with good ideas when they started off - the Pankhursts, Martin Luther King, Jesus. Now I'm not saying I'm Jesus... [size=50I'll leave that to others to decide.[/size

Diavolo Rosso, cheers for engaging. I share your reservations about the artificiality to an extent, but in the end, it comes down to whether you feel it could be incorporated as part of the home advantage that we already accept as part of the game.

Quote ="af"Draws are usually good, for 79 minutes and 59 seconds. But it's not just me who thinks there's a problem with them. If only I'd been born one hundred and ten years earlier, I would have suggested this at the George and you'd all be poo-pooing anyone who suggested getting rid of it. Born in the wrong century and the wrong country by the looks of it, the Seppos have the right idea - a tie is like kissing your sister ( I don't have a sister, I'll have to take their word for it). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tie_(draw) I don't doubt RL can survive keeping the draw. I think it could have survived not bring in the 40:20. But that's not a reason not to bring either of those rule changes in.'" What the f**k are you on about?. Or what are you actually on?

Quote ="af"Draws are usually good, for 79 minutes and 59 seconds. But it's not just me who thinks there's a problem with them. If only I'd been born one hundred and ten years earlier, I would have suggested this at the George and you'd all be poo-pooing anyone who suggested getting rid of it. Born in the wrong century and the wrong country by the looks of it, the Seppos have the right idea - a tie is like kissing your sister ( I don't have a sister, I'll have to take their word for it). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tie_(draw) I don't doubt RL can survive keeping the draw. I think it could have survived not bring in the 40:20. But that's not a reason not to bring either of those rule changes in.'" What the f**k are you on about?. Or what are you actually on?

you're right, it's a poor post - here's a second draft.

###

Draws are usually good, for 79 minutes and 59 seconds. But's its the last second and its aftermath that are the problem and its not just me that thinks so.



I suspect that had since 1895 the convention been that an away side had to outscore their opponents in order to gain the competition points, few would have a problem with it and few would be calling for draws to be introduced as a concept.

I don't doubt RL can survive keeping the draw. I think it could have survived not bring in the 40:20, and a number of other tweaks of varying levels of significance that have been made to the game. But that's doesn't make for an argument against bringing any of those rule changes in.

Absolutely ridicules idea, with no merit at all. Also, there is nothin wrong with a draw

The objection I have is that if hoours are even after 80 minutes, then they deserve to be even. If the Bulls were to send the reserves to Saints and score a try in the last minute to tie the game with the kick, they would deserve their point. Under the 0.5 point system they couldn't win by then, because they'd be too far behind, despite only having scored 6 points less.

Most of the rest of the world want 20-20 cricket, instant gratification, and don't "get" draws. Stuff 'em. As well as RL, we have cricket, and we have boxing, and we get draws. Draws are fine. As for the Aussies ludicrous golden point, on the one hand we have players complaining about burn out, injuries due to fatigue etc., on the other hand teh Aussies are prepare to make them play overtime and risk their health just to see who can get in position to kick a field goal. I find that ludicrous, and grossly unfair on the "losing" team.

I don't know where the idea came from that everyone wants to see a win/lose outcome. Some do, but I'm sure the majority don't.

If we get it in RL, maybe we should move on to boxing. Draw after 12 rounds? Fight another 5, next knock-down wins.

Hate the idea, and really don't see the point of contriving a result that didn't actually happen. Might as well toss a coin.

You don't watch a lot of NRL do you?

The clue is in the name

'Golden POINT'


The concept isn't known as 'Golden field goal'


The 'point' can be any sort of score whether it's a penalty, a field goal or a try.


Back in your box

Instead of knackering the players out to artificially produce a win/lose result, perhaps the coaches of the two teams should be required to fill in a tie-breaker before the match, like "In the unlikely event of a draw, I think my team should win this match because..." (no more than 15 words, and the judges' decision is final). Special weight given to ones that rhyme or have clever word play ("The Giants should win this game because, Most of our players don't come from Oz"icon_wink.gif. There could be a panel of adjudicators who judge the merit of each coach's tie-breaker immediately after the game, like the Pools Panel in football. It would be like awaiting a video ref decision, only one that involves literary criticism. Imagine the tension!

Or leave it as a draw, which, after all, is a result.

No, only all the games broadcast


You don't say. We have a resident genius on board folks. Stephen Hawking, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, your deductive powers just took a helluva beating.

A draws a great result. Hypothetically say two teams finish 2nd and third on equal points (as last year), and there being 5 points difference between them (cant remember what it was but it was something close). Now say if that second placed team had scored those points in 5 minutes overtime, why on earth should they have been allowed 2165 minutes in their season to score them when the other side only had 2160?? Silly. As for your idea.. dont get me started, a team in a brutal sport being handed the points for.. well.. nothing, makes a mockery of the 80 minutes played previously.

As for 40/20s I dont like them either, rewards a poor team imo

Why?

Can you for once use your moderation powers correctly and either lock this thread as stupid , or ban him for a few days , please

Ohh questioning the moderation process, that gets you a warning.. well it does on your board. Anything other than what god preaches gets you threatened with a ban. Its amazing how I havent been banned with DP's ridiculous spam warnings but then he realised.. I havent done anything wrong.

To come from the Leigh board and question tbs moderation ski11zzz is out and out astonishing

Quite possibly one of the worst ideas I've seen on here, and I've seen a few bad ones.