Sheens's suggestion for points allocation

[stryker]

its a crap idea.

e.g.
team 1 wins 24 games of the season - all of them within 80 minutes. they finish on 48 points.

team 2 wins 24 games of the season - 10 of them in extra time. they finish on 58 points.

the best thing would be to scrap golden point and simply make it extra time. then we would see exciting footy, not a whole heap of attempted field goals and controversial penalty goals.

You didn't do maths at school did ya?

 

[BornBlack_amp_Gold]

Sheens has suggested this a number of times regarding golden point matches.

Instead of a win being worth 2 points, make it worth 3.

If a game is drawn at 80mins, both teams get a point. Game goes into extra time and the team that wins in extra time gets the other point, so they get 2 for the win and the losing team gets 1\. After all, the teams were level at the conclusion of the 80mins.

I think this is a great idea and would leave fans and players feeling less gutted after a golden point loss.

Thoughts?

In the words of some idiot that makes noise on the moving picture box every weekend:
NO NO NO NO NO!

There MUST be the same amount of compitition points available in EVERY game, no matter the circumstances,we cant have more compitition points magically becoming available in a game because it goes into golden point.

 

[innsaneink]

lol, ive suggested the exact same thing on here and was boo'd for it, now everyone likes the idea. :laughing:

It makes perfect sense. Soccer have 3 points for a win so why cant we? It makes it so much fairer when destributing the points in a draw/golden point scenerio.

I misunderstood the initial post as others here have, I probably misunderstood yours too.

BB&G- read alex's post….all games ARE worth three.

In essence, winning straight out more valuable (1pt more) than winning in GP

Maybe some clever person here that understands whats being discussed could calculate how the current ladder would look under this format

 

[BornBlack_amp_Gold]

Sheens has suggested this a number of times regarding golden point matches.

Instead of a win being worth 2 points, make it worth 3.

If a game is drawn at 80mins, both teams get a point. Game goes into extra time and the team that wins in extra time gets the other point, so they get 2 for the win and the losing team gets 1\. After all, the teams were level at the conclusion of the 80mins.

I think this is a great idea and would leave fans and players feeling less gutted after a golden point loss.

Thoughts?

In the words of some idiot that makes noise on the moving picture box every weekend:
NO NO NO NO NO!

There MUST be the same amount of compitition points available in EVERY game, no matter the circumstances,we cant have more compitition points magically becoming available in a game because it goes into golden point.

ah , just seen how ive misread the original post.

however there is still a problem here, we arent going to have teams getting 1.5 points if it ends in a draw after golden point are we? or does golden point last until someone finally scores - no time limit?

 

[AusTigers]

Sheens has suggested this a number of times regarding golden point matches.

Instead of a win being worth 2 points, make it worth 3.

If a game is drawn at 80mins, both teams get a point. Game goes into extra time and the team that wins in extra time gets the other point, so they get 2 for the win and the losing team gets 1\. After all, the teams were level at the conclusion of the 80mins.

I think this is a great idea and would leave fans and players feeling less gutted after a golden point loss.

Thoughts?

In the words of some idiot that makes noise on the moving picture box every weekend:
NO NO NO NO NO!

There MUST be the same amount of compitition points available in EVERY game, no matter the circumstances,we cant have more compitition points magically becoming available in a game because it goes into golden point.

TO fix that

4 Points on offer every comp game

4 points = Win after 80 minutes
3 points = Win in Golden Point
2 points = Draw after Golden Point
1 point = Loss after Golden Point
0 points = total Loss
\
\
That way every game will have on offer and use 4 comp points

 

[tigh]

Sheens has suggested this a number of times regarding golden point matches.

Instead of a win being worth 2 points, make it worth 3.

If a game is drawn at 80mins, both teams get a point. Game goes into extra time and the team that wins in extra time gets the other point, so they get 2 for the win and the losing team gets 1\. After all, the teams were level at the conclusion of the 80mins.

I think this is a great idea and would leave fans and players feeling less gutted after a golden point loss.

Thoughts?

In the words of some idiot that makes noise on the moving picture box every weekend:
NO NO NO NO NO!

There MUST be the same amount of compitition points available in EVERY game, no matter the circumstances,we cant have more compitition points magically becoming available in a game because it goes into golden point.

A standard game would have 3 points for the win.

A golden point game would have 2 points for the eventual winner, and 1 point for the eventual loser - 3 points in total.

 

[alex]

Because there's way too many posts to quote I'll say it in one big general message.

All NRL games must be worth the same competition points.

You can't have some games being worth three points and some being worth two because an away team wins some and a home team wins others.

In the system I suggested ALL GAMES ARE WORTH THREE POINTS rather than 2.

You can't have a game that finishes at 80mins being worth 2 points but suddenly it's worth three points if it's won in the 81st minute.

If a team wins after 80mins, they get 3 points. If they win in the 81st minute, they get 2 and the other team gets 1, because after 80mins, both teams were still level.

 

[Juro]

I like the idea, if its still level after 90 minutes, just keep it to one point each then.

I really think the NRL could make the comp more interesting with the points systems, I wouldnt mind seeing a bonus point system implemented like the Super 14 Rugby.

eg: 5 tries = 1 bonus pt
10 tries = 2 bonus pts

If you lose by less then 6 pts, you get one bonus pt (Okay maybe im suggesting that one because of our tight losses this year :wink: )

By having these systems implemented, it really keeps teams interested in the contest and imagine heading into the final round all the different scenario's that teams will face! Add to that it could result in more attacking football to get those bonus points and reward teams for it.

We already have a better system. The for-and-against rewards teams for scoring more points, but it also rewards them for defending better. Virtually every year, you have 2 or more teams in the finals series whose position is affected by for-and-against. How is that not exciting???

The same thing was done in cricket with the Australian one day series. In the old days, the points table was decided by games won and then net run rate. Now they have bonus points if you win by more than 20%. To me, that doesn't add anything useful to the game…

 

[alex]

I think instead of For and Against we should use the percentage method that AFL uses.

If you're unclear of how it works, it basically goes as follow.

If a team has scored 10 points and conceeded 5 … their percentage is 200% but under F/A it's +5.
If a team has scored 200 points and conceeded 195 ... their percentage is 102.5% but under F/A it's +5.

I just think it's a more fair assessment of a team's peformance to be rewarded for let's say doubling your opponents score rather than a number value.

 

[Juro]

I can see some merit in that. Like you say, it favours the teams with the better defense.

It is probably more important in the AFL where even the worst teams get on the scoreboard. In a lopsided game the score could be something like 150-50 whereas in the NRL a lopsided score is more like 50-4.

 

[alex]

Yeah I worked out the ladder using the %'age method and it wasnt all too different.

But yeah, like I said, just analyses the performance of the team more accurately.

 

[farahs_tigers]

I agree with Sheens, 2 points for a golden point win and 1 point fr golden point loss. Have wanted it that way since they first announced golden point. Its what they do in some American sports eg NHL. Aside from that I wouldnt change the point system. Not a fan of more points for scoring certain amount of tries.

 

[Yossarian]

I like the idea, if its still level after 90 minutes, just keep it to one point each then.

I really think the NRL could make the comp more interesting with the points systems, I wouldnt mind seeing a bonus point system implemented like the Super 14 Rugby.

eg: 5 tries = 1 bonus pt
10 tries = 2 bonus pts

If you lose by less then 6 pts, you get one bonus pt (Okay maybe im suggesting that one because of our tight losses this year :wink: )

By having these systems implemented, it really keeps teams interested in the contest and imagine heading into the final round all the different scenario's that teams will face! Add to that it could result in more attacking football to get those bonus points and reward teams for it.

I don't think it would be a great look to see teams desperately trying to score a 10th try when they are 50 points up against some poor team… The Super 14 bonus points sound okay in theory but really rewards poor defence more than good attack.

We normally see that anyway, like when the Broncos smashed Penrith. There could be some tweaks to it, maybe penalise a side for conceding that many tries as well, etc.

I just think it could add a new twist to the comp, really get the fans more involved because of all the different scenarios, keep teams interested, and if there is more attacking footy, then that'll be great in attracting young fans to the game, it may just be a good way to boost the "product" as they say, it wont happen though.

That has more to do with Brisbane being knobs than anything else. You see plenty of teams ease off rather than running up a score. As I said I'm not a big fan of bonus points for tries because I don't think they really reward attacking play and would favour someone like the Cowboys who play a lot of games in hot conditions (likely to have more points) and work against someone like the Warriors who play in torrential rain every second week.

Beside 3 tries from 6 line breaks is more entertaining than 4 tries from kicks.

 

[Jazza]

I don't think it would be a great look to see teams desperately trying to score a 10th try when they are 50 points up against some poor team… The Super 14 bonus points sound okay in theory but really rewards poor defence more than good attack.

We normally see that anyway, like when the Broncos smashed Penrith. There could be some tweaks to it, maybe penalise a side for conceding that many tries as well, etc.

I just think it could add a new twist to the comp, really get the fans more involved because of all the different scenarios, keep teams interested, and if there is more attacking footy, then that'll be great in attracting young fans to the game, it may just be a good way to boost the "product" as they say, it wont happen though.

That has more to do with Brisbane being knobs than anything else. You see plenty of teams ease off rather than running up a score. As I said I'm not a big fan of bonus points for tries because I don't think they really reward attacking play and would favour someone like the Cowboys who play a lot of games in hot conditions (likely to have more points) and work against someone like the Warriors who play in torrential rain every second week.

Beside 3 tries from 6 line breaks is more entertaining than 4 tries from kicks.

Yep thats true, I cant disagree with that mate, you make a good point about the Warriors and Cowboys there. It will make things unfair, even when you consider the scheduling of matches, there are only 2 day games pre round, which does make it unfair when Ch 9 always wants the best rating and performing teams on a Friday night with Fox Sports wanting the next best teams on a Monday Night too.

 

[mtd]

its a crap idea.

e.g.
team 1 wins 24 games of the season - all of them within 80 minutes. they finish on 48 points.

team 2 wins 24 games of the season - 10 of them in extra time. they finish on 58 points.

the best thing would be to scrap golden point and simply make it extra time. then we would see exciting footy, not a whole heap of attempted field goals and controversial penalty goals.

ahh … no ...

team 1 wins 24 games all within 80mins and gets 72 points. (3 points for each win)
team 2 wins 24 games - 10 of them in extra time and gets 62 points... (10games x 2points + 14games x 3points)

ah yeah… i misread the original idea... thought it said 3 for a win in extra time and only 2 for a regular win, so therefore i was right (in my head)

team 1
24 x 2 = 48 (they only get 2 points for a regular win)

team 2
10 x 3 = 30 (the extra time wins) + 14 x 2 = 28 (regular wins) = a total of 58...

its still a crap idea. why do we have to keep changing the game? extra time is much better than golden point.

 

[alex]

majority of the changes in the game recently have been received negatively by fans. this is one i believe would be generally well accepted.