Innovations like ensuring right from the off that the game is an uneven contest?
No, I'll stick with draws thanks.

I'm still struggling with drawing comparisons between himself and Pankhurst, King and Jesus.

A lot of other people have had ideas which at the time were considered 'stupid'. These ideas are still considered 'stupid'. This is because they are 'stupid' ideas.

This is one to add to that pile, and not to the 'saviour of mankind' one.

As for the comment about lots of the most sucessful sports using an equivelent.. Lets look at soccer. Undoubtedly the most sucessful sport in the world. This doesn't use it. Neither do most other sports. The only ones I can think of without having to do any research are American sports, but a draw isn't a part of their national psyche. It is an established part of UK sport.

Still a stupid idea
I love a well fought draw..

Definitely time for golden point extra time in the event of a draw.

Start half a point up? Just coach the team to play for a nil-nil and you win every home game. Guaranteed play-offs without scoring a try

I'd come on here and say you don't know the history of a "TRY at goal"

If two teams slog it out and end up with a draw,fair result.Where is the problem in that?
Think some folk come up with an idea just for the sake of it.

Why,what is wrong with two teams getting a point each? Its a LEAGUE game.
If you come second in the table by 1 point,then it has a bearing on the league
standings.

So, in essence, because the aussies and americans don't like draws we should get rid of them?

Sounds good to me as long as it's the same for both teams.

If the team at home get's 4 and a half tackles, then I reckon that would be a silly idea.

How about golden try?

At times it really is a wonder why anyone actually requires a game to be played on a field.

Why not bother, give all the home teams half a point and at the end of the season all have equal points, so decide the grand finalists on who has the prettiest seats and the best coloured shirt or something as arbitary.

Quite how you seperate them in a neutral venue is a challenge, but the people on here can usually come up with something.

I have a theory. Those that aren't bothered about draws will usually be happy to split an orange and share it with their mate. Those that don't like draws will peel it in their pocket and fake a cough for each segment they sneak down their gullet.

Yes, that is the point, and that's exactly why it's a draw! They've played well enough not to lose but not well enough to win. Both the league point and the "feeling" reflect this perfectly. Trying to artificially create a win out of what is, by any other definition, a draw is a bad idea, imo, and wouldn't change the essential result which is that neither team played well enough to win. In fact, all you're effectively proposing is to simply rename draws as home wins.

Anyone who thinks getting rid of draws in league games must be crazy! What's the point? Why is it so bad to draw? If your idea was to become reailty and hull won due to being at home, rugby league would be the biggest joke in the world!

no thanks, If one team cannot score more than the other then the points deserved to be shared.

Never do i come away from a draw in RL feeling disatisfied

If it aint broke, don't fix it, crackpot idea.

there a few things that could improve RL, getting rid of draws isn't one of them.

Crackpot idea. Plus the logic of it is reversed - if anything, the away team should start with 1/2 point; they're the ones at a natural disadvantage, exactly as away teams are rewarded in football. You can't start a sporting competition with an uneven scoreboard.

If you really want to do away with draws without reverting to the drop-goalathon of golden point, there I see only one option. At the end of 80 minutes you enter 'Golden Try' time. Each team removes a player from the field at 80 minutes, and then either at every stoppage in play or every 2 minutes, another player is removed.

Teams would only win by scoring a try, thus removing the ridiculousness of a drop-goal competition. With reduced numbers a try would come fairly quickly.

Personally, I don't love draws but it's part of sport and RL draws are usually thrilling, especially the last 10 mins or so.

There should ALWAYS be a winning side in any match.

Look at the disaster boreathon thats test cricket.

You can go 5 days and still not get a winner.


Golden point works well in the NRL and in my opinion it should be brought into superleague too.

It isnt a fair representation of an 80 minute match when you prove you can kick a drop goal outside of that time limit. If you have a good drop goal specialist and get the ball from the kick off it can be all over in a few minutes.

And Cricket is a completely different paced sport, its comparing chalk and cheese.

Surely the whole point of sport is that the outcome is unknown, why try and influence that outcome? Aren't you taking away part of the excitement of the sport by giving the home team a points advantage?

Also from the excitement point of view, team A is trailing by 6 points with 10 seconds to go, do they chip over the top and chase? Nah, there's no point, they are 6.5 points behind. One of the most ridiculous ideas of read on here, and there has been a few.

80 minutes is more than enough time to win a game. If neither side is able to in that time then why should they be awarded any more? A lost point could make all the difference for both sides at the end of the season.

The point everyone seems to be missing is that 'golden point extra time' isn't simply about kicking a field goal

But that would be the easiest/quickest way of scoring a point wouldn't it?

Not necessarily.