Payten calls for Golden Point

[No4918]

The mungoes & reporters generally just see it as something else that is wrong with rugby.

 

[boyo]

Golden anything is fucking retarded unless you're in a knockout situation. The NRL sold itself like a dirty whore (because it is) when their fans became as stupid as Americans; people who fail to understand that there are three possible outcomes to any game because MATHEMATICS.

And Septics can't even spell maths.

 

[Scoey]

Win, lose or draw. They are all results.
There is a time limit for a reason. The argument that 10 mins of extra rugby can only be a good thing is ridiculously short sighted as it devalues the previous 80 minutes. If more Rugby, was better then why not just make the game go for 90 mins? No, fuck it, make a game of Rugby go for 3.5 hours. Or better yet, 5 day test matches like they do for cricket!

At the end of whatever time period is set to play the game, a draw is still possible. Why? Because it is a legitimate result.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

If we were getting draws every other week I could see an issue, but we don't so it's not. In a knockout situation it makes sense (obviously) to have one winner, but test matches are not played under those circumstances. All that would end up happening is jockeying for field position and then a drop goal -- whoop-de-fucking-do.

A draw is a valid result and they're fairly rare, so no real need for change. I hate edge-cases being the catalyst for significant changes to systems, especially in sporting codes.

 

[binga2014]

Game shouldn't be decided by 10 mins of pot luck.

Leave it as is.

 

[Slim 293]

To be fair to Payten, it was actually Channel Nine's Sunday morning sports show that brought up the idea first following the weekend's match..........

Obviously that debate featured such great sports minds as some block headed mungo journalist, and a blonde bimbo mungo journalist........... and Dave Dennis...........

 

[Omar Comin']

I think golden point is crap in the NRL so why would I want it replicated in rugby union?

I don't think it does generally create edge of your seat finishes. If anything it promotes conservatism because the percentage play is to try and work the ball downfield to try for a field goal.

In rugby that would involve kicking the ball into the opposition half every time you get it because there is a real risk of giving away a penalty when trying to play expansively in your own half.

The finish would be edge of your seat because of what's on the line, not because of how the 10 minutes gets played. Shaping up for a drop goal is much more difficult to do in rugby than it is in league, and it's also a lot more possible to stop. The penalty is obviously very possible but so too would tries, especially as the defence would be very aware of not going offside or infringing in any way at the ruck.

Basically I just see it as an extra 10 minutes of sudden death rugby. That to me would be entertaining. There is nothing wrong with having a draw as a result, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with doing a little more to try and find a winner and have a bit more drama.

 

[Scoey]

Basically I just see it as an extra 10 minutes of sudden death rugby. That to me would be entertaining. There is nothing wrong with having a draw as a result, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with doing a little more to try and find a winner and have a bit more drama.

If there's nothing wrong with a draw after 90 mins, why is there something wrong with one after 80mins? Or you could cut out the annoying 80 mins altogether and just make Rugby a 10 mins sudden death game? Sounds exciting!

The problem with it is that if it's true golden point then there is no way to do it without advantaging one side over the other and if it's not golden point and it's just 10mins extra time then a draw is still a likely possibility in which case there is zero point to it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pfitzy]

Might as well just ro-sham-bo for it.

 

[mst]

No fecking way. I've got to side with the Diveball advocates here. They see value, competition and tension in a 0-0 draw for a "regular" game.

This is not mungoball, or some other artificially manufactured for TV, caffine hit game where short attention spans of the viewers demand a result, or they are "unsatisfied".

The game is played for 80 minutes. If you can't score more points than the bad guys in that time, then the game is rightly equal, and should be considered a draw, as unsavoury as that may be to some punters.

I absolutely agree with you. IMO the draw has already upped the stakes and tension for the next game(s) and series. After round one the points are tight so wins now are even more important both for the Cup and Championship!

 

[Omar Comin']

The problem with it is that if it's true golden point then there is no way to do it without advantaging one side over the other and if it's not golden point and it's just 10mins extra time then a draw is still a likely possibility in which case there is zero point to it.

I don't think golden point does advantage one side over the other in rugby. The team kicking off can either kick it deep and hope to get the ball back, or they can kick short and contest. Either way, they get the territorial advantage to begin with. The receiving team, in most circumstances will get the first crack at possession.

And the point to any sort of extra time is to give more chance of getting a winner and adding some more entertainment to people that are watching. If there had been 10 minutes sudden death after the 80 minutes on Saturday there would have been literally zero people turning the game off before the start of it. Meanwhile there would have been thousands (receiving text messages, or seeing something on twitter or somewhere else on the internet) turning it on.

 

[Pfitzy]

And I don't think golden point does advantage one side over the other in rugby.

I agree with this: in League, the side forced to kick off is under the hammer because they won't have first crack with the ball.

The other side of it in rugby is that you have guys who can kick penalties from 55 metres out, or at least pin you back with attempts that go dead and force a 22 restart.

That doesn't have an easy solution.

 

[Omar Comin']

Maybe when it comes to a tournament like the RC you could have both teams awarded 2 points for the draw and then have golden point to give both teams the chance to get an extra competition point.

So you'd have a winner in the game, but the team that loses in golden point still gets awarded 2 competition points for drawing after 80.

 

[Scoey]

I don't think golden point does advantage one side over the other in rugby. The team kicking off can either kick it deep and hope to get the ball back, or they can kick short and contest. Either way, they get the territorial advantage to begin with. The receiving team, in most circumstances will get the first crack at possession.

If it's golden point then any team will want to be at least 50m from their own sticks. Simple. However you do it, one team gets to kick off and they have the advantage because they will kick deep and probably at worst have an attacking line out on about half way. So the game has a realistic chance of being decided by a fucking coin toss. How is a winner, decided by flipping a coin in any way shape or form better than a draw after 80 minutes of Rugby?

And the point to any sort of extra time is to give more chance of getting a winner and adding some more entertainment to people that are watching. If there had been 10 minutes sudden death after the 80 minutes on Saturday there would have been literally zero people turning the game off before the start of it. Meanwhile there would have been thousands (receiving text messages, or seeing something on twitter or somewhere else on the internet) turning it on.

This is just a ridiculous statement. If the preceding 80mins of Rugby didn't get people watching then 10 minutes of the most conservative rugby in the world isn't going to entertain anyone.
If we had the players wearing costumes from Mario Cart it could be more entertaining too! Doesn't make it a good idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Maybe when it comes to a tournament like the RC you could have both teams awarded 2 points for the draw and then have golden point to give both teams the chance to get an extra competition point.

So you'd have a winner in the game, but the team that loses in golden point still gets awarded 2 competition points for drawing after 80.

I could almost live with that, but it would especially work in the RWC. I think it's a variation of how the NHL points system works.

 

[p.Tah]

How about Golden jersey? If it's a draw, victory is given to the team wearing gold (or yellow)

 

[Omar Comin']

If it's golden point then any team will want to be at least 50m from their own sticks. Simple. However you do it, one team gets to kick off and they have the advantage because they will kick deep and probably at worst have an attacking line out on about half way. So the game has a realistic chance of being decided by a fucking coin toss. How is a winner, decided by flipping a coin in any way shape or form better than a draw after 80 minutes of Rugby?

Rubbish. If the other team kicks long you could kick it straight back down the middle and with a good chase the ball is in neutral territory. You don't have to kick it out. Then again, if you backed your lineout to win a steal maybe you would. You might also back your attack and run it out. If they give away a penalty you'll get prime attacking position. There are positives and negatives on both sides of the coin.

This is just a ridiculous statement. If the preceding 80mins of Rugby didn't get people watching then 10 minutes of the most conservative rugby in the world isn't going to entertain anyone.

How is it ridiculous? It's accurate. No one would switch off and thousands of people would switch on. I would bet you a lot of money that the viewing figures would peak in golden point for any major test match that went into it.

 

[Slim 293]

If there's a draw after 80 minutes, to determine a winner both teams have to:

a) renovate a house in Melbourne's inner suburbs.

b) make a crockenbush.

c) perform a Queen medley.

d) give each other a makeover.

Any of the above ideas will make for a better spectacle than "golden point", deliver rugby to new markets and drive up the ratings........

 

[Braveheart81]

If all you're after is some sort of theatre that is entirely designed to provide more entertainment go and watch WWE wrestling or something.

There's nothing wrong with a draw. Teams push for a win within the 80 minutes and the game ends. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The problem with a awarding points for the full time result and then having sudden death overtime like the NHL is that teams shut up shop late in the game if it is tied because the percentage play is to get to extra time.

When draws are so infrequent why bother changing things?

 

[Scoey]

Rubbish. If the other team kicks long you could kick it straight back down the middle and with a good chase the ball is in neutral territory. You don't have to kick it out. Then again, if you backed your lineout to win a steal maybe you would. You might also back your attack and run it out. If they give away a penalty you'll get prime attacking position. There are positives and negatives on both sides of the coin.

If that was your approach, you would lose 99% of golden point games, give or take 1%
The kicking team will kick deep. There is no debating this. The likely scenario is the one I gave you earlier. Your options of kicking up the middle of the field gives the oppo a wonderful counter attacking opportunity as they will have their back three and probably their 10 back there waiting. The majority of your team will be still retiring because they were in front of the kicker and you're in big trouble. As for your other option of running it off your own goal line in golden point rugby, I won't even respond to that. Kicking team has all of the advantage. Period.

How is it ridiculous? It's accurate. No one would switch off and thousands of people would switch on. I would bet you a lot of money that the viewing figures would peak in golden point for any major test match that went into it.

Any test match that didn't already have considerable ratings for the previous 80mins would have a nil to negligible increase in viewership for the extra time. The fanciful notion that a big ratings test like the bled would experience some sort of ratings explosion because people would drop everything to call/text/tweet everyone they know because the game had gone into extra time is ridiculous.
Anyone who wasn't interested in watching the 80 mins prior isn't going to be enthralled by 10 mins of extremely conservative rugby.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk