Golden Point

[jirskyr]

you can't play for 3 comp points when normal games are worth 2…

Just scrap it..it's not Rocket science

He's not saying 3 points, he is saying 2 points for the winner and 1 point for the loser, if it goes into extra time.

That's' 3 competition point for 1 game…It has been proposed before and knocked back ...

I can't see why it doesn't work to make all games 3 points, make GP 2/1.

Using a previous example, currently:
Team A wins 12 games, 4 in GP = 24 points.
Team B wins 12 games outright = 24 points.
Team C wins 8 games, loses 4 in GP = 16 points.

Teams losing in GP are hammered and teams who win every game outright have no advantage.

With the introduction of 3 points all games:
Team A wins 12 games, 4 in GP = 8*3 + 4*2 = 32 points.
Team B wins 12 games outright = 12*3 = 36 points.
Team C wins 8 games, loses 4 in GP = 8*3 + 4*1 = 28 points.

So when you hit FT at a draw, both teams get a point, and they play on for the last point. It means GP is not so demoralising, that you lose everything on one throw of the dice. Or more accurately, refs are not under such pressure to stop blowing penalties and it's not just the farce you get, like Friday night, when both teams do anything to stop open shots at FG.

Now NRL say teams should not be awarded less for winning in GP, but I disagree. If you can't win properly in 80 mins, why should you get extra extra time?

Certainly, a game can be won in regular time by any method, same as GP. Except in GP any score concludes the game, whereas in regular time, any score with time remaining on the clock still gives a chance to the opposition.

So a FG in the 79th minute, assuming you can get the ball back to halfway, is not the same as a FG in the 81st minute.

I see this as being entirely workable.

 

[balmain boy]

The NHL has been using a system for some time now where each team gets 1 point each for a draw at full time and the winner of overtime gets a second point. No collusion, no dramas, just a more accurate measure of performance.

The NRL has a prehistoric mind set if they can't get their heads around it. It's totally fair and very easy to administer. The score at full-time stands = draw. If the NRL want to play golden point then the winner gets an extra point.

How many golden points are there each season? Not that many. Maybe 10?

If your team is regualrly right in there and loses 2-3 games by golden point and they get acknowledged for the draw at full-time then that's an extra 2-3 points on their season total, which could have huge ramifications. How many times have the Tigers missed the finals on 2 points?

It would be the same boat for all clubs so it's totally fair. Every club would have the same opportunity to benefit from this scenario if they lose in GP. So there would be a handful who'd get an extra point. Fans can't complain if their team lost more games than another side.

**Shouldn't a team who earns a draw at fulltime get more of a reward than a team that loses?**

 

[Tony33]

The NHL has been using a system for some time now where each team gets 1 point each for a draw at full time and the winner of overtime gets a second point. No collusion, no dramas, just a more accurate measure of performance.

The NRL has a prehistoric mind set if they can't get their heads around it. It's totally fair and very easy to administer. The score at full-time stands = draw. If the NRL want to play golden point then the winner gets an extra point.

How many golden points are there each season? Not that many. Maybe 10?

If your team is regualrly right in there and loses 2-3 games by golden point and they get acknowledged for the draw at full-time then that's an extra 2-3 points on their season total, which could have huge ramifications. How many times have the Tigers missed the finals on 2 points?

It would be the same boat for all clubs so it's totally fair. Every club would have the same opportunity to benefit from this scenario if they lose in GP. So there would be a handful who'd get an extra point. Fans can't complain if their team lost more games than another side.

**Shouldn't a team who earns a draw at fulltime get more of a reward than a team that loses?**

I was against the whole idea until i read the last line. That has completely changed my perspective.

A team who finishes the 80 minutes level deserves at least one point more then a team who loses their game.

 

[foreveratiger]

I totally agree with the above there is no doubt we at least deserved something for our effort vs the Bulldogs , the kids busted there gut .

 

[Flippedy]

Great ideas being put forward from several posters above. I wish some of you guys were running the League instead of the boneheads we currently have making the rules - without any Tiger bias, of course :wink:

 

[pHyR3]

yea a draw and winner is pretty ridiculous

 

[Newtown]

Should not the players decide if they want to risk injury, fatigue etc if they want to continue playing for golden point. How about if there is a draw at the end of 80 minutes the captains are asked if they want to continue for golden point. If both or only one captain decides to leave it as a draw then each team is awarded only one point.

 

[TrueTiger]

Without receiving any harsh scrutiny on my reply to this thread,although there is a golden point period factored into the game schedule,don't you think that teams should be coached that you put your opposition away within the 80min period so as not to go into GP…..
There have been plenty of games that have gone into golden point because the wrong option was taken at a crucial time in the game,weather it be panic or immaturity or whatever,options must be factored into a game plan to stop going into GP where ever possible....just my opinion as little as it is worth......

 

[foreveratiger]

What i notice with WT is if our scores are locked with 10 to 15 minutes to go , we don't organise a field Goal early . Then the last 5 minutes it's panic stations and adds to our pressure of kicking a field goal to win a game .

 

[Tigermama]

I'am sure they are TT, but things don't always go to plan out on the field. I disagree about your opinion not been worth much…
Your opinion is very much valued on this forum.

 

[balmain boy]

Without receiving any harsh scrutiny on my reply to this thread,although there is a golden point period factored into the game schedule,don't you think that teams should be coached that you put your opposition away within the 80min period so as not to go into GP…..
There have been plenty of games that have gone into golden point because the wrong option was taken at a crucial time in the game,weather it be panic or immaturity or whatever,options must be factored into a game plan to stop going into GP where ever possible....just my opinion as little as it is worth......

Of course they are coached to win in 80…! And Something like 95% of games do!

But the rules provide for overtime, in which case it would be silly to take an unnecessarily large risk late on in regular time if it could gift your opponents a chance to win. The time is there as a bonus for the fans and tv so that every game has a winner.

The discussion is also based around the validity of, and alternatives to, the current points system. Not sure what coaching or players' decision making skills has to do with it.