Sure was, this match. Perhaps there should be a point or try minimum to qualify for a a losing bonus point, say 10 points and 1 try.
Bonus Points Review?
- Thread starter PaarlBok
- Start date
- Status
en_force_er
Geoff Shaw (53)
Interesting thought.
It would work but it wouldn't be too spectator friendly. If a win is in theory worth 4 times as much as a bonus point you count a bonus point as 0.25 wins.
Rob42
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Lee makes a good point above about wanting to know how your team is going in its division/conference as opposed to the overall standings. Topping the conference will be all people will be interested in until that outcome becomes clear, then you'll want to know which teams are going to pick up the "wildcard" entry into the finals. If working out the finals pictures was complex before, it will be much more complex now.
I agree the French BP system sounds good. Always frustrating to see a team race ahead, score four tries and then take the foot off the pedal.
I agree the French BP system sounds good. Always frustrating to see a team race ahead, score four tries and then take the foot off the pedal.
Awesome idea, I reckon if we stick up a table we'll sort it in this order regardless (unless the Tahs have a late bye)..
stoff
Trevor Allan (34)
To use a percentage system you would need to rate it against total possible points. For example below, I have looked at some teams with similar positions on a theoretical ladder.
Using Points Method:
P W BP Pts
A 9 5 3 23
B 10 5 3 23
C 9 4 3 19
and Using the % System
P W BP %
A 9 5 3 51
B 10 5 3 46
C 9 4 3 42
This ranking system reflects the greater opportunity of the team who has played less games, and thus ranks them higher. Its awkward which ever way you do it really.
Using Points Method:
P W BP Pts
A 9 5 3 23
B 10 5 3 23
C 9 4 3 19
and Using the % System
P W BP %
A 9 5 3 51
B 10 5 3 46
C 9 4 3 42
This ranking system reflects the greater opportunity of the team who has played less games, and thus ranks them higher. Its awkward which ever way you do it really.
rugbysmartarse
Alan Cameron (40)
but dont we all watch rugby for the complexity? whats wrong with working out who has a game in hand? even english wendyball fans can do it
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
Geez, please don't remind me of that game. Was yet another one of the awful sleep inspiring Australian derby games, and it stands out by being particularly awful. Not to mention it was back when the Reds were adept at dragging other teams down to their level, and then adeptly losing a totally awful awful game.
<edit> I should add, the Reds did not deserve 1 point from that game, and the Brumbies didn't really deserve 4.
en_force_er
Geoff Shaw (53)
Well you're automatically not going to play yourself.
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
Gah, so many awful Reds games. I had wiped that from my mind too. Sharks scored a try at least in that game I think - score was 6 -5 to the Reds (which I had to unfortunately look up), but now vaguely remember it. You can mark that as another game not worth any points, and not worth the effort to stay up and watch it. The funny part about that is that the Reds v Sharks games were generally some of the more watchable dross the Reds served up in the mid-2000s.
Lee Grant
John Eales (66)
Maybe we could have conference standings based on a percentage but calculated as follows:
If team A has played 8 games and earned 25 points, that 25 could be compared with the possible of 40 (8 x 5 points possible) = 65%
If team B has played 7 games and earned 24 points that 24 could be compared with the possible of 35 = 69% (rounded)
Thus team B should be listed as the notional conference leader. Like other methods, including the one we have always used, it does not take into account the quality of teams already played, or yet to be played, but it has a higher level of rationality.
If team A has played 8 games and earned 25 points, that 25 could be compared with the possible of 40 (8 x 5 points possible) = 65%
If team B has played 7 games and earned 24 points that 24 could be compared with the possible of 35 = 69% (rounded)
Thus team B should be listed as the notional conference leader. Like other methods, including the one we have always used, it does not take into account the quality of teams already played, or yet to be played, but it has a higher level of rationality.
Timewise the Saffers' tours are longer but distancewise they're not. In the past SANZAR deliberately scheduled Australian and New Zealand teams to cross the Tasman at least four times to even out the disadvantage the Saffers felt with their long trips. This year the Tahs make two trips to NZ. Adding in a trip to SAf the Tahs will travel more distance than any Saffer team.
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
Think so, it was Lloyd's last year in 2007 for the Reds. And what a stinker it was, too. Didn't he get a two match ban out of it?
A
aussiecymraeg
Guest
If you get a bonus point for losing by 7 or less then isn't it logical to get a bonus point for winning by 8 or more. This way there is a bonus point allocated in every game. The teams compete for it like they do for a win. No more switching of 12 or 13 points up and handing out a soft losing bonus point in the last couple of minutes and less likelihood of the 6-0 games discussed here because the winning team is rewarded for extending that lead.
T
TOCC
Guest
This is what a the table would look like if we removed bonus points and place greater emphasis on the for/against, IMO its a accurate reflection of standings
Rank - Team - Pts - For/Against
1 stormers 66 20
2 crusaders 102 18
3 blues 24 18
4 reds 66 16
5 sharks 36 16
6 waratahs 39 12
7 bulls -4 12
8 highlanders -21 12
9 chiefs 10 8
10 rebels -105 8
11 hurricanes -43 6
12 force -51 6
13 lions -30 4
14 cheetahs -41 4
15 brumbies -48 4
Rank - Team - Pts - For/Against
1 stormers 66 20
2 crusaders 102 18
3 blues 24 18
4 reds 66 16
5 sharks 36 16
6 waratahs 39 12
7 bulls -4 12
8 highlanders -21 12
9 chiefs 10 8
10 rebels -105 8
11 hurricanes -43 6
12 force -51 6
13 lions -30 4
14 cheetahs -41 4
15 brumbies -48 4
- Status