Bonus Points Review?

[PaarlBok]

Look like they may review the bonus point system
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/super-rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=331&objectid=10690523

Rugby: Pointing to new system
By Gregor Paul 5:30 AM Sunday Nov 28, 2010 Share
Tweet
Email
Print

Expand Hika Elliot scores for the Chiefs. Photo / Getty ImagesSuper 15's format change is expected to include a new points structure that will see teams collect four points whenever they don't play.

Sanzar officials have been looking at competitions around the world to come up with a new system that breathes life into the current four-try, lose-by-less-than-seven bonus-points structure.

The concept of picking up four points on the weekend a team has a bye is thought to have already been agreed between the three Sanzar countries.

Other ideas are being discussed as part of the competition revamp that will see a conference-style championship.

The points-for-not-playing system has long been a feature of the NRL and, with next year's extended format meaning each team will have two bye rounds, the new system will guarantee every team eight points.

Sanzar officials are conscious that with the competition radically changing in terms of scheduling, they also needed to jazz up the way teams can pick up bonus points.

Arguments have long existed that the bonus-point culture is ultimately damaging to the psyche of players when they step into the test arena.

The current All Black coaches say they have to coach bad habits and attitudes out of their players every year as they make the transition from entertainment rugby to winning rugby.

Other competitions, such as the Top 14 in France, award only a try-scoring bonus point to the winning team - and only if they score three more tries than their opponent.

The system means the losing team can never pick up a bonus point for scoring tries but can if they lose by less than seven.

It also means it is rare - it has happened only twice - that both teams can pick up bonus points from the same match.

An announcement on the new points structure is expected soon.

Know you lot like mik en moer rugby , maybe a good idea to change the system to get Super Rugby even closer to top level test match rugby.

Your thoughts?

 

[qwerty51]

I like the current system. No need for it to be changed.

Why does it matter whether the team on the bye receives points or doesn't? It's the same thing if everyone has the same number of byes isn't it?

 

[Newb]

I like the current system. No need for it to be changed.

Why does it matter whether the team on the bye receives points or doesn't? It's the same thing if everyone has the same number of byes isn't it?

yeah, am i wrong in thinking that it would just be a free 8 points (two 4 point byes) for each team? since it's end of the year points that matter, i don't get it.

just makes the standings look closer throughout the year to people that don't understand the concept of a game in hand, no?

 

[liquor box]

yeah, am i wrong in thinking that it would just be a free 8 points (two 4 point byes) for each team? since it's end of the year points that matter, i don't get it.

just makes the standings look closer throughout the year to people that don't understand the concept of a game in hand, no?

I think it makes the competition look closer at first glance as there or no zeroes on the board.

The points-for-not-playing system has long been a feature of the NRL

I hope this is not the reason for the change.

I like the current system and think that it works well.

 

[Groucho]

By increasing the total number of competition points available in a season, it slightly reduces the effect of bonus points.

 

[#1 Tah]

just makes the standings look closer throughout the year to people that don't understand the concept of a game in hand, no?

The points-for-not-playing system has long been a feature of the NRL

hmmmmm......

 

[qwerty51]

By increasing the total number of competition points available in a season, it slightly reduces the effect of bonus points.

No, if everyone receives the same amount it doesn't change anything.

The only sense is to make the ladder look more even or "fair" throughout the season but who really cares? It's fine how it is.

 

[Lee Grant]

It's a bit harder to see how teams are going with two byes because you have to remember who has had 2 byes an who only 1. I suggested a system last year whereby teams were ranked by the number of possible points they had surrendered to date.


Presently a team can earn a possible 5 points per week. To do the ratings you would compare the points they earned with the possibe 5. If they won without the try BP they would have a minus of 1 for the week; if they lost but earned a losing BP point they would get a minus of 4; if they had the bye there would be no minus.


Once all teams have had their 2 byes it wouldn't matter, but if you wanted to know the more realistic standings when the byes were still going you could have another column in the table as an indicator. Naturally, the more realistic leader for the season to date would be the team with the fewest points foregone.


There is some kind of precedence for that in competition tables. Yonks ago they used to have the baseball standings in the papers in the US with an extra column which indicated the number of games a team was behind the divisional leaders. Maybe they still do. They did it because some teams had played heaps more games than others at any one time in the season.

I can't remember exactly how they did it but it was something like giving teams who had played fewer games, compared to the team who had played the most, a notional half win per game not yet played.

Sometimes the team the most wins to date would have a number in their extra "games behind the leader" column because they had played more games than the second placed team who had a zero in their extra column. Fans considered them the real leaders.


Or, it was something like that.


The French have the best system of those currently in place for rugby. As mentioned: to get a try bonus point you have to score 3 more tries than the other team does. This can be quite comical when a team has been drifting along having scored 3 tries and the other team suddenly scores, which forces the leaders to get off their bikes. It has a built in reward for good defence.


Do folks remember that Round 2 game in 2010 that was the worst advertisement ever for Super rugby? The Chiefs and the Lions both scored 9 tries in it. The Chiefs got 5 points from the match for winning with a try BP and the Lions earned 2 for a try BP and a losing BP (as they lost by 7). Under the Top14 system the Chiefs would have earned only 4 points for winning (no try BP) and the Lions would have earned 1 for losing by only 7 points (also no try BP).


That's a bit better in my eyes. It gives more value to the win and less to bonuses.

 

[MrTimms]

I have always liked the french system, x number of tries more. Much better way of allocating bonus points.

 

[rugbysmartarse]

Is the current system (open, try scoring rugby) weighted towards aus and NZ? If GH is talking about retraining players to be less entertaining, is there an advantage to aus (with our strength in open running rugby) in keeping this system?

 

[Groucho]

No, if everyone receives the same amount it doesn't change anything.

The only sense is to make the ladder look more even or "fair" throughout the season but who really cares? It's fine how it is.

It does have an effect. By adding 8 free points to each team, the percentage of the total pool of points that can result from bonus points falls.

It is mathematically equivalent to awarding 3.x for a win.

 

[inthestands]

I don't like the idea purely due to the fact that a dud team should not end up on eight points when they have earned zero.

 

[kiap]

It's a bit harder to see how teams are going with two byes because you have to remember who has had 2 byes an who only 1.

...The French have the best system of those currently in place for rugby. As mentioned: to get a try bonus point you have to score 3 more tries than the other team does. This can be quite comical when a team has been drifting along having scored 3 tries and the other team suddenly scores, which forces the leaders to get off their bikes. It has a built in reward for good defence.

...bit better in my eyes. It gives more value to the win and less to bonuses.

Agree with these 3 points.

OK, here's another idea which might overcome the objection to giving 'dud' teams eight free points, to make them earn their keep a bit more:

Whenever you award a bonus point for scoring 3 more tries than the opposition, you take it off the losing side.

e.g. Log* Points awarded for each match result as follows:

                                                                      A pts      B pts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Team A def. Team B by more than 7 points and scores 3 more tries:       5          -1
Team A def. Team B by more than 7 points                                4           0
Team A def. Team B by 7 points or less:                                 4           1
Team A and Team B Draw but Team A scores 3 more tries(**)               3           1
Team A and Team B Draw                                                  2           2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

* "Log" = clever ruse to keep the saffas happy
** Highly unlikely, but what the hey! (not impossible)....

This would tend to make both teams in a match fight to the end to secure maximum points, or to prevent losing points.

If a team is smacked by a 3 try margin eight times then they lose all 8 "free" points and go back to zero on the table (Teams can even be on negative points at times when beaten badly).

 

[qwerty51]

Is the current system (open, try scoring rugby) weighted towards aus and NZ? If GH is talking about retraining players to be less entertaining, is there an advantage to aus (with our strength in open running rugby) in keeping this system?

The Lions, Cheetahs and Stormers all play open rugby. Only the Bulls and Sharks don't but the Bulls score plenty of tries as it is. There's no advantage to anyone, everyone should be trying to score as many tries as possible.

 

[Utility Back]

It does have an effect. By adding 8 free points to each team, the percentage of the total pool of points that can result from bonus points falls.

It is mathematically equivalent to awarding 3.x for a win.

Not so sure on that Groucho, if you were to add another 8 points to every team in any competition ladder ever, the results will still be te same. Let me know if I missed something.

 

[qwerty51]

It does have an effect. By adding 8 free points to each team, the percentage of the total pool of points that can result from bonus points falls.

It is mathematically equivalent to awarding 3.x for a win.

Can you explain this better? If everyone eventually receives 8 points throughout the season isn't that the same as everyone starting on 8 points? Therefore there's no real impact?

 

[Scarfman]

Yeah Groucho, I don't think you've got that right. Sure, bonus points as a % decline, but win points also decline as a %. They each have to make way for bye points as a %. But the fact remains that it will make absolutely no difference to the standings, or importance of bonus points.

 

[Ishmael]

It does have an effect. By adding 8 free points to each team, the percentage of the total pool of points that can result from bonus points falls.

It is mathematically equivalent to awarding 3.x for a win.

Nah, that doesn't work. Because the percentage of total pool points that can be earned by winning or drawing a match also falls. By giving points for a Bye you're introducing a whole new set that has no effect on those already present.

 

[Lindommer]

Doesn't basketball present a table/log with teams listed according to the % of games won? Doesn't make any difference how many games any team's played. Might be a bit difficult loading in bonus points to a competition like SupeRugby using a percentage table/log.

I like the French system, this should be used as a starting point (excuse the pun) for any revision of the SupeRugby points allocation.

 

[Lindommer]

Was it 2009 the Saders picked up a losing bonus point sometime during the comp to the Clan(?) by going down 6-0 in a crap game? And they squeezed into the finals over the Tahs with a marginally better for and against? Apart from the Tahs not making the finals I'd like to see competition points never awarded for losing 6-0.