Golden Point
-
- Recent Topics
Re: Golden Point
I like that idea Gary. We got out of jail yesterday
I used to hate golden point because we never seemed to win them. Our winning percentage for gp in the last few years has been pretty good.
My thoughts are similar to most on here.
Changes to include
All NRL games are worth 3 points
Win in Normal time = 3 points
Draw at normal time - 1 point for both sides
Game to continue for another 10 minutes
Field goal does not end the match however a Try will end extra time early.
That way sides can still win off a field goal but they then need to keep the other side scoreless. Golden Try wins the match.
Both sides come away with 1 point at 80 minutes. Extra time determines the extra point.
If at the end of 10 minutes its still a draw then the extra point is lost.
Changes to include
All NRL games are worth 3 points
Win in Normal time = 3 points
Draw at normal time - 1 point for both sides
Game to continue for another 10 minutes
Field goal does not end the match however a Try will end extra time early.
That way sides can still win off a field goal but they then need to keep the other side scoreless. Golden Try wins the match.
Both sides come away with 1 point at 80 minutes. Extra time determines the extra point.
If at the end of 10 minutes its still a draw then the extra point is lost.
-
Tuiaki4life
- Member
- Posts: 159
- Joined: Thu 10 Mar, 2011 4:30 pm
What about 'golden try' but incorporating one of the rules tried out in this years All-Star game.
First half would be as normal, if you score the try, you win.
However if it's still level after the 1st period of 'golden try' then just like the 'power play' in the All-Stars game both teams would nominate 2 players each to come off making it 11 on 11.
This would obviously open up the field and would be the ultimate test of endurance. Also teams that love to throw the ball around would come to the fore (*cough* Tigers!).
If still not settled then a draw it is!
Either way I'm all for golden point or try.
Posted using RoarFEED 2012
First half would be as normal, if you score the try, you win.
However if it's still level after the 1st period of 'golden try' then just like the 'power play' in the All-Stars game both teams would nominate 2 players each to come off making it 11 on 11.
This would obviously open up the field and would be the ultimate test of endurance. Also teams that love to throw the ball around would come to the fore (*cough* Tigers!).
If still not settled then a draw it is!
Either way I'm all for golden point or try.
Posted using RoarFEED 2012
-
1/4 chicken,chips
- Member
- Posts: 1635
- Joined: Sat 30 Jul, 2011 10:28 am
What about we stop changing all the rules that made our the great game it was .two refs , they still get it wrong , a ref upstairs looking at replays , they still get it wrong .no challenge in the play the ball. if they keep going we wont call it rugby league anymore , cause it wont be rugby league.If the game finishes in a draw at the 80 minute mark both sides get a point simple as that.The only reason we have golden point is to keep the punter and the tab and the punting agencies happy , no other reason.
o and SAME OLD SOUTHS , GOTTA LOVE THAT .
o and SAME OLD SOUTHS , GOTTA LOVE THAT .
-
innsaneink
- Member
- Posts: 29307
- Joined: Fri 10 Jul, 2009 9:49 pm
- Location: ...ahead of you....
Dont like it
A simple knock on or dodgy penalty can cost you the game
A simple knock on or dodgy penalty can cost you the game
-
tigergirl00
OVERHAULED!!!
Whilst I agree with some of the arguments about golden point making the game more exciting, I also agree with the views that golden point has become too predictable.
As such what's wrong with giving both teams a point and calling it square?? At the end of golden point time if nothing is scored it remains a draw, making golden point a redundant practice!!!
When the scores are close generally its fair to say neither team has the edge or 'deserves' to win (taking crappy refereeing out of the equation here). So many times the game is decided by a field goal; I always think its unfair that one team comes away with nothing to show for it.
Obviously for finals we would need golden point or something similar, however its totally unnecessary for regular season matches.
Golden try - now there's an idea with some merit. If part of the original reasoning behind introducing golden point was to create more excitement/boost ratings, then why not make it golden try! So much more fair on the teams.
Whilst I agree with some of the arguments about golden point making the game more exciting, I also agree with the views that golden point has become too predictable.
As such what's wrong with giving both teams a point and calling it square?? At the end of golden point time if nothing is scored it remains a draw, making golden point a redundant practice!!!
When the scores are close generally its fair to say neither team has the edge or 'deserves' to win (taking crappy refereeing out of the equation here). So many times the game is decided by a field goal; I always think its unfair that one team comes away with nothing to show for it.
Obviously for finals we would need golden point or something similar, however its totally unnecessary for regular season matches.
Golden try - now there's an idea with some merit. If part of the original reasoning behind introducing golden point was to create more excitement/boost ratings, then why not make it golden try! So much more fair on the teams.
-
TigersFan4Life
- Member
- Posts: 646
- Joined: Mon 13 Jul, 2009 12:39 pm
It's not rocket science. You either don't have it (and settle for a drawn result) or you just have a set ten minutes of extra time, with no golden point. Whatever the score is at the end, that's the result. It's fairer to both teams as they both get a chance to score. All these stupid suggestions about "golden try" and having players come off the field are idiotic, because they make the period of extra time different to how the game was played for the first eighty minutes.
-
paulgeorge
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sun 29 May, 2011 6:39 pm
The Golden point rule needs to be abolished in the normal rounds and bring it back for the finals. I believe a team who can make a comeback and level the score after 80 minutes deserves a hard earn point.
I agree. There is nothing wrong with a draw in normal rounds. Finals footy is a different matter, and they should play out the extra time.paulgeorge wrote:The Golden point rule needs to be abolished in the normal rounds and bring it back for the finals. I believe a team who can make a comeback and level the score after 80 minutes deserves a hard earn point.
I dunno. Golden point has its merits and if it wasn't a field goal-a-thon, would be a great showcase for the game. Hence why we should go to golden try & we still reward teams that take matches to golden try extra time.
Posted using RoarFEED 2012
Posted using RoarFEED 2012
-
Tiger Watto
- Member
- Posts: 10560
- Joined: Mon 08 Mar, 2010 7:12 pm
- Location: Maroochydore Qld
I hate Golden Point... Not just because we have lost the most (7), but it goes against the ethics of the game. I would accept Extra-Time as both teams are allowed the same opportunities, but this Field Goal a Thon is simply rediculous. You only have to look at Cronulla on Sunday. The moment Extra Time started, Wade Graham came straight on to replace a Hooker...
Its stagering to believe St George have had 7 Golden Point games for only 1 win!!!
Its stagering to believe St George have had 7 Golden Point games for only 1 win!!!
"Did someone buy you the internet hero play book for Christmas and you've only just started reading it?" - Nelson 21/04/2017
The NRL's take on Golden Point:
The NRL has received a number of emails and feedback questioning the use of golden point.
We have received a lot of feedback from fans regarding Golden Point extra-time in regular season games. People are suggesting a Golden Try to replace Golden Point in extra-time, and also that both teams need to get awarded points, amongst other things.
The first thing to note about Golden Point is that it is actually a continuation of the existing game. A field goal will determine the outcome of a game immediately before full-time and therefore has to be able to determine the outcome of a game immediately after full-time.
One of the fundamental things to remember in all of this is the workload on the players. Player workload is one of the key issues in the game. When the NRL first looked at having an extended time period, the point that was made strongly by people close to clubs and players is that extending the game by five or 10 minutes on a mandatory basis risked too much pressure on the players themselves over a season.
The nature of Golden Point is that it is meant to help produce a result in the shortest possible time frame. By nature, Golden Point games are games in which tries are not going to be easily produced. The concept of not determining the match until a try is scored could mean that a team is ahead on the scoreboard by having kicked a number of penalties or field goals but still loses the game.
The NRL has looked at this issue in consultation with the clubs many times over. It does not favour altering the nature of the game by removing players from the field nor does it favour fixed time periods. The Golden Point period is designed to play the game in the same circumstances as it is being played in previously and in those circumstances, a penalty or field goal immediately before full-time would produce the result.
The issue of creating extra points for drawn matches is one that causes an imbalance in the competition. Every match over the year should be for the same amount of competition points to give every team the same chance of making the finals. As such the idea of each team getting a point for a draw and then the Golden Point winner getting an additional point will unfairly impact on other clubs in the competition.
Also, the fact a match is won in extra time does not make a team more worthy of a competition point than a team who won convincingly in normal time.
If this concept is varied so that all matches are worth three points or four points (as some have suggested) and one of those goes to the defeated team, then it means that the winning side in a Golden Point gets a lesser reward in the competition than the team that wins in normal time. The circumstances that can lead to a match going into extra time are too varied to allow a determination that the winner is either more or less deserving of competition points than other winners in that round.
Ultimately this debate comes down to whether you accept a draw is a preferable result to a period of ‘sudden death’ extra-time.
What is hard to escape is that Golden Point has provided some memorable moments, whether it be Chris Sandow’s drop kick from halfway against the Roosters last season or Darren Lockyer during last year’s Finals Series. Few could forget Wayne Bennett’s reaction when the Broncos defeated Melbourne some years ago.
These are the moments that are more memorable than where two teams walked away on equal points.
http://www.nrl.com/nrl-mailbox-golden-p ... fault.aspx
The NRL has received a number of emails and feedback questioning the use of golden point.
We have received a lot of feedback from fans regarding Golden Point extra-time in regular season games. People are suggesting a Golden Try to replace Golden Point in extra-time, and also that both teams need to get awarded points, amongst other things.
The first thing to note about Golden Point is that it is actually a continuation of the existing game. A field goal will determine the outcome of a game immediately before full-time and therefore has to be able to determine the outcome of a game immediately after full-time.
One of the fundamental things to remember in all of this is the workload on the players. Player workload is one of the key issues in the game. When the NRL first looked at having an extended time period, the point that was made strongly by people close to clubs and players is that extending the game by five or 10 minutes on a mandatory basis risked too much pressure on the players themselves over a season.
The nature of Golden Point is that it is meant to help produce a result in the shortest possible time frame. By nature, Golden Point games are games in which tries are not going to be easily produced. The concept of not determining the match until a try is scored could mean that a team is ahead on the scoreboard by having kicked a number of penalties or field goals but still loses the game.
The NRL has looked at this issue in consultation with the clubs many times over. It does not favour altering the nature of the game by removing players from the field nor does it favour fixed time periods. The Golden Point period is designed to play the game in the same circumstances as it is being played in previously and in those circumstances, a penalty or field goal immediately before full-time would produce the result.
The issue of creating extra points for drawn matches is one that causes an imbalance in the competition. Every match over the year should be for the same amount of competition points to give every team the same chance of making the finals. As such the idea of each team getting a point for a draw and then the Golden Point winner getting an additional point will unfairly impact on other clubs in the competition.
Also, the fact a match is won in extra time does not make a team more worthy of a competition point than a team who won convincingly in normal time.
If this concept is varied so that all matches are worth three points or four points (as some have suggested) and one of those goes to the defeated team, then it means that the winning side in a Golden Point gets a lesser reward in the competition than the team that wins in normal time. The circumstances that can lead to a match going into extra time are too varied to allow a determination that the winner is either more or less deserving of competition points than other winners in that round.
Ultimately this debate comes down to whether you accept a draw is a preferable result to a period of ‘sudden death’ extra-time.
What is hard to escape is that Golden Point has provided some memorable moments, whether it be Chris Sandow’s drop kick from halfway against the Roosters last season or Darren Lockyer during last year’s Finals Series. Few could forget Wayne Bennett’s reaction when the Broncos defeated Melbourne some years ago.
These are the moments that are more memorable than where two teams walked away on equal points.
http://www.nrl.com/nrl-mailbox-golden-p ... fault.aspx
I dont like golden point, but then I hate the feeling the whole crowd gets when there is a draw. I prefer golden point over that.
And golden try doesnt work. If you are so close and there is a draw, what make you think it is going to happen in ten mins.
Think of the day they played in, some player lost 5 kg during 80 mina of footy, another 10 mins could have almost killed some one or seriously injured someone during a lazy tackle.
If you want a result and trying to keep the best team on the field each week, stick with what we have. One team wins, and few injuries during extra time.
Win win in my opinion.
Posted using RoarFEED 2012
And golden try doesnt work. If you are so close and there is a draw, what make you think it is going to happen in ten mins.
Think of the day they played in, some player lost 5 kg during 80 mina of footy, another 10 mins could have almost killed some one or seriously injured someone during a lazy tackle.
If you want a result and trying to keep the best team on the field each week, stick with what we have. One team wins, and few injuries during extra time.
Win win in my opinion.
Posted using RoarFEED 2012
Aye not a bad argument from the NRL.
I'm in favour of the fixed 10 minutes extra time, where either the team with the best score OR the next try scorer wins (i.e. you can kick a FG and hold on, but the first team to concede a try loses), like T-D-C elaborates above. But no points for the loser, the NRL is right that games shouldn't be worth more because they go to GP.
I don't buy the "we can't make golden point any different from normal time" because it is already different, by definition - it is an extension and it ends as soon as points are scored. Unless you kick a FG with 1 minute remaining in normal time, there is going to be time left on the clock for the opposition. Play does not stop at the 76th minute mark because you've slotted a FG, but it does stop at the 86 minute mark.
But I concede I have no idea about players being able to go 90 minutes. I would hope that for the number of golden point matches each year (a dozen or so?) this wouldn't be a huge impact.
I'm in favour of the fixed 10 minutes extra time, where either the team with the best score OR the next try scorer wins (i.e. you can kick a FG and hold on, but the first team to concede a try loses), like T-D-C elaborates above. But no points for the loser, the NRL is right that games shouldn't be worth more because they go to GP.
I don't buy the "we can't make golden point any different from normal time" because it is already different, by definition - it is an extension and it ends as soon as points are scored. Unless you kick a FG with 1 minute remaining in normal time, there is going to be time left on the clock for the opposition. Play does not stop at the 76th minute mark because you've slotted a FG, but it does stop at the 86 minute mark.
But I concede I have no idea about players being able to go 90 minutes. I would hope that for the number of golden point matches each year (a dozen or so?) this wouldn't be a huge impact.
My preference is for no extra time during regular season games. I can't see a problem with draws in the regular season.
For finals, obviously you need a definitive result. I'd be happy for the NRL to trial an extra ten minutes with golden try. It would add to the tension if a team did get a field goal or penalty goal and the other team had 3 minutes to equalize or score the try. It would also encourage teams to be more attacking, which is good for spectators.
For finals, obviously you need a definitive result. I'd be happy for the NRL to trial an extra ten minutes with golden try. It would add to the tension if a team did get a field goal or penalty goal and the other team had 3 minutes to equalize or score the try. It would also encourage teams to be more attacking, which is good for spectators.
I've been a member since 2012. We last played finals football in 2011. Just saying...
-
Frank the tank
- Member
- Posts: 610
- Joined: Sun 13 Nov, 2011 5:20 pm
- Location: Sydney boy living in NZ
Golden Point has one major draw back for me. There is no reward for effort. I believe if both teams are tied at full time they automatically get a competition point each. The team that wins in golden point gets a second competition point.
To me it seems right that there should be some reward for effort of getting a drawn result. It seems wrong that a team can draw and then lose in tight hard fought contest by the smallest of margins, and get the same result as a team that gives up and gets flogged by 50 points.
To me it seems right that there should be some reward for effort of getting a drawn result. It seems wrong that a team can draw and then lose in tight hard fought contest by the smallest of margins, and get the same result as a team that gives up and gets flogged by 50 points.
I'm not a complete idiot.............there are some pieces missing!
Truer words never spoken!Frank the tank wrote:Golden Point has one major draw back for me. There is no reward for effort. I believe if both teams are tied at full time they automatically get a competition point each. The team that wins in golden point gets a second competition point.
To me it seems right that there should be some reward for effort of getting a drawn result. It seems wrong that a team can draw and then lose in tight hard fought contest by the smallest of margins, and get the same result as a team that gives up and gets flogged by 50 points.
Teams like Newcastle and Cronulla (and us in the past amongst others) cop zero points the same as a team that gets flogged....sometimes just because they didn't luck out to get first crack at a field goal.
Golden point might be exciting - but it isn't fair.