Golden Point

I'd be happy for each team to take 1 point if they are tied after 80 mins.

Then you could play 10 mins Golden Point with another 1 point up for grabs.

So if you win in Golden Point you get 2 points, but the other team still gets 1 point for drawings after the 80 mins.

Not hard to implement, and you wouldn't need to restructure the entire points system.
 
That won’t work. For golden point games there would be 3 points up for grabs. Two for the winner and 1 for the loser. If the game only goes for 80mins then there are only two points up for grabs. 2 for the winner and none for the loser. It disadvantages the winner in normal time.
 
As it is, the winner in normal time gets the same points as the winner in Golden Point.

What's the problem with 3 points being up for grabs in the event of Golden Point ? Its not like the winner gets all three points. Just a reward for the losing team being level after 80 mins.
 
Wow, we're by far the worst at it. Definitely some issues there I think.. Can't be that unlucky surely.
 
@Abraham said:
As it is, the winner in normal time gets the same points as the winner in Golden Point.
Click to expand...

Because a loser in normal time gets 0 points..you are advantaging the loser in a golden point game…we have had games where a point hasn't decided the outcome and both teams got a point..the comp didn't implode..

Why complicate stuff..Draw at normal time 1 point each..the end..worked well for nearly 100 years of Rugby League
 
Yeah, I hate golden point too. Almost as bad as a 1st grade team not having a top notch goal kicker! Should never, ever have come down to that. Pat Richards is there. Get him to have Marsters work his butt off at it to improve. :roll_eyes:
 
Actually I believe the NRL are looking at changing GP - 2 points to the winner and 1 point to the losing side. Would be fairer I reckon considering the teams are equal in normal time. However about 10 years too late to make up for all the heartbreak we’ve suffered over the years lol.
 
The NRL has already said that Golden Point is here to stay.

I'd rather make the system fairer, since its not going anywhere, then keep it as it is and have a team that draws after 80 minutes get the same points as a team that loses after 80 mins.

For the record i don't like Golden Point, but wishing something away doesn't make it so.
 
If you can't win a game in 80mins of football there's something wrong.

They should have left it at a point each after 80\.

I'm not interested in the rules going out the window in golden point and watching teams fumble their way down field to set up for a field goal competition.

If you can't kick a field goal somewhere between the 1st minute and the 80th to win the game why are we extending time for one.
 
Yeah system needs an overhaul. I think it's ordinary to play to level points after 80 and then have winner takes all after that which I why I suggested a 3 point system. If neither team are good enough to win after GP, then the third point goes begging. In football a draw is only worth one point to both teams when 3 comp points are on offer for the win.

Obviously the key difference is that in football the only time it goes to extra time is when a winner must be determined. I'm suggesting that if we must have GP, that we bridge the difference with the missing point be on offer for an extra time winner.
 
@Abraham said:
I’d be happy for each team to take 1 point if they are tied after 80 mins.

Then you could play 10 mins Golden Point with another 1 point up for grabs.

So if you win in Golden Point you get 2 points, but the other team still gets 1 point for drawings after the 80 mins.

Not hard to implement, and you wouldn’t need to restructure the entire points system.
Click to expand...

Though I don't want it in the regular competition at all, I would be happy enough with this simple repair to what I have always considered a broken concept. The only concern is that which another raised in a previous conversation, with a scenario that a pair of opponents could both benefit from a late season sham match to ensure each a finals berth.

Due to the mathematical improbability of that occurrence unfolding in the first place and the normal ability to influence a result week on week, I don't see any real problem. Others have an issue with more points being available from a golden point game, but the maximum result is the same two points.

Seeing deflated players that probably more often than not have been the best for seventy minutes or more of the contest, to then get nothing from their effort, is not my idea of fair.
 
Why don't we just do the same as soccer and have a goal kicking penalty shoot out. That'd be fair.

Oh wait…..:sob:
 
No, you can't have 3 points coming out of GP games and 2 points for everything standard victory. It would be like saying the best player can have 4 Dally M points if his team wins in GP that week.

If you are going down that route, it's 3 points for outright win, 2 points for GP win and 1 pt for GP loss. So you get something out of it but not all. Bearing in mind that this penalises regular losers more heavily (3 points differential) even if they lose by a field goal in the 79th minute.

What I do like about this is when you hit FT with a draw, you don't have the "kissing your sister" feeling that Warren Ryan talked about, but you also don't have the all-or-nothing nonsense we have now. At least both sides could pocket the point and then play on for the extra point. And if you lose, you go home not totally demoralised that you picked up nil points, same as the other team that got hammered.

There's also a very good argument to be made for making it a 4-point system like rugby, where you reward sides who lose by a close margin vs getting lapped.
 
I still don't understand this argument.

If the Golden Point winner still gets 2 points, then why cant a Golden Point loser get 1? Who cares if they distribute 3 points, its not like they are all going to the one team.

Your Dally M analogy is flawed because the Golden Point winner still only gets the same maximum points as a regular time winner.
 
There should be an additional benefit to winning the game in regular time than going to GP. That's why I think a 3 point system is fairest. Regular time winners snag all three, drawn games after full time both sides walk away with at least one point and the opportunity to grab another.
 
I understand where your suggestion is coming from. I dont have an issue with it.

I just don't get the logic of the 'but there is three points up for grabs' arguement. As long as the winner can only get 2 of those three points, like already happens, it don't see the fuss.
 
It's pretty simple..you are rewarding losing..that does not happen in games decided in regular time..

An example would be if scores are level with 30 seconds to go and a team kicks a FG to win winner gets 2 point Loser 0….or if score are level at FT and a team kicks a FG 30 seconds into GP why should the loser get a point..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 397 (members: 3, guests: 394)
Back
Top