RugbyRebels

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38157831

Last season it was two points for a win, but that will change to four points - plus a bonus point for scoring four or more tries.

A losing team will pick up a bonus point if they score four or more tries or lose by fewer than seven points.

A team that wins the Grand Slam - all five games - gets three extra points.

Teams that draw will now get two points each with a similar bonus point available for high scoring.

It was only a matter of time. Ireland and England even further ahead now unfortunately!!

As long as the team that wins all 5 finishes top of the table then I'm not too bothered. It would differentiate between 2 or more teams finishing equal top on points which has always felt a bit stale. It might prompt some more attacking rugby which isn't a bad thing and my only real objection to this was that whoever won all 5 games had to win overall, or else it was pointless. I think there was one example in the past decade or so where a high scoring team could have beaten the eventual GS winners on points, but as this is no longer the case.

As long as the team that wins all 5 finishes top of the table then I'm not too bothered. It would differentiate between 2 or more teams finishing equal top on points which has always felt a bit stale. It might prompt some more attacking rugby which isn't a bad thing and my only real objection to this was that whoever won all 5 games had to win overall, or else it was pointless. I think there was one example in the past decade or so where a high scoring team could have beaten the eventual GS winners on points, but as this is no longer the case.

Sandydragon wrote:As long as the team that wins all 5 finishes top of the table then I'm not too bothered. It would differentiate between 2 or more teams finishing equal top on points which has always felt a bit stale. It might prompt some more attacking rugby which isn't a bad thing and my only real objection to this was that whoever won all 5 games had to win overall, or else it was pointless. I think there was one example in the past decade or so where a high scoring team could have beaten the eventual GS winners on points, but as this is no longer the case.

If you win all your games you get 3 bonus points.

Numbers wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:As long as the team that wins all 5 finishes top of the table then I'm not too bothered. It would differentiate between 2 or more teams finishing equal top on points which has always felt a bit stale. It might prompt some more attacking rugby which isn't a bad thing and my only real objection to this was that whoever won all 5 games had to win overall, or else it was pointless. I think there was one example in the past decade or so where a high scoring team could have beaten the eventual GS winners on points, but as this is no longer the case.

If you win all your games you get 3 bonus points.

My point exactly, that removes my objection that you could not win all your games and still win the championship over a team that had completed the GS.

Four or more tries in a single game?! we'll be lucky to get that many the whole 6N

Wooden Spoon guaranteed

Disaster for Gatland/Howley's Wales teams. We don't score tries. England, Ireland and probably Scotland and France will out score us on tries.

wayneha50 wrote:Four or more tries in a single game?! we'll be lucky to get that many the whole 6N

Wooden Spoon guaranteed

We can only hope that this pessimism lasts until February and then we stun everyone when Howler weaves his magic and turns our donkeys into free flowing magicians who win the 6N with 28 points (four or tries per game).

Realistically we'll be lucky to get a losing bonus point against Italy. Wooden spoon inevitable.

I wouldn't make this change - I think the current system works ok. But I have no major objection to it either.

This would appear to be bad news for Wales and Gatball, but I suppose the management are making moves in the right direction (or they claim they are). They'll need to: other than against Italy, how often do we score 4 tries in a 6N match??

All the more reason to get Keelan Giles capped.

I've argued against this idea for years, and I haven't changed my mind.

Bonus points systems work well in season-long leagues, where they reflect long-term trends in play, and the failure to achieve one here or there is not usually disastrous. I could countenance using them in a longer, home-and-away tournament. But the 6N is already lopsided. It's not a level playing field, with some sides having three home games and some only two. The way fixtures fall already has a disproportionate effect on results. Bonus points exacerbate that IMO.

Now, whoever has the bad luck to come up against Italy on their one good day, is in big trouble even if they still win. Victories will be constantly haunted by anxiety over BPs. Teams could already be playing catch-up after a good away win on the first day. Imagine losing the title on the last day because Xland gave you a hard game last week but roll over for Yland this? The brevity of the tournament already gives no time to recover from a defeat, and that's fine. But now it will give no scope to recover from an "unconvincing" win. That's not.

You'd rather see a 36-12 game than 9-3 surely?

canta_brian wrote:You'd rather see a 36-12 game than 9-3 surely?

Of course.

But after Wales beat France 9-3 away and Ireland beat Italy 36-12 at home, I'd rather see us equal on points with Ireland.

Sourdust wrote:

canta_brian wrote:You'd rather see a 36-12 game than 9-3 surely?

Of course.

But after Wales beat France 9-3 away and Ireland beat Italy 36-12 at home, I'd rather see us equal on points with Ireland.

I'd love for this to be an issue.....


If everyone knows the system you can work to that.

Also, win all your matches 9-3 and you win the title regardless. Utter boredom is still a route to success.

canta_brian wrote:Also, win all your matches 9-3 and you win the title regardless. Utter boredom is still a route to success.

All true. Nothing in this system penalizes a team that always wins, and that's fair enough.

But the point of the system is to sort out ties. In my opinion, it will not always do so fairly.

And maybe I'm alone here, but I really, REALLY hate that feeling when your team has won a game, but you're not sure they've won by ENOUGH. Imagine coming back from Paris after that 9-3 win and being NERVOUS.

Sourdust wrote:And maybe I'm alone here, but I really, REALLY hate that feeling when your team has won a game, but you're not sure they've won by ENOUGH. Imagine coming back from Paris after that 9-3 win and being NERVOUS.

I do take your point, but I would like to see a season or three and see how it all works out.

canta_brian wrote:

Sourdust wrote:And maybe I'm alone here, but I really, REALLY hate that feeling when your team has won a game, but you're not sure they've won by ENOUGH. Imagine coming back from Paris after that 9-3 win and being NERVOUS.

I do take your point, but I would like to see a season or three and see how it all works out.

Perhaps; but as a BBC article on the subject points out, the powers that be are unlikely to admit a mistake.

Sourdust wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Sourdust wrote:And maybe I'm alone here, but I really, REALLY hate that feeling when your team has won a game, but you're not sure they've won by ENOUGH. Imagine coming back from Paris after that 9-3 win and being NERVOUS.

I do take your point, but I would like to see a season or three and see how it all works out.

Perhaps; but as a BBC article on the subject points out, the powers that be are unlikely to admit a mistake.

Maybe. But I think the change will be vindicated.

Sourdust wrote:I've argued against this idea for years, and I haven't changed my mind.

Bonus points systems work well in season-long leagues, where they reflect long-term trends in play, and the failure to achieve one here or there is not usually disastrous. I could countenance using them in a longer, home-and-away tournament. But the 6N is already lopsided. It's not a level playing field, with some sides having three home games and some only two. The way fixtures fall already has a disproportionate effect on results. Bonus points exacerbate that IMO.

Now, whoever has the bad luck to come up against Italy on their one good day, is in big trouble even if they still win. Victories will be constantly haunted by anxiety over BPs. Teams could already be playing catch-up after a good away win on the first day. Imagine losing the title on the last day because Xland gave you a hard game last week but roll over for Yland this? The brevity of the tournament already gives no time to recover from a defeat, and that's fine. But now it will give no scope to recover from an "unconvincing" win. That's not.

This would be a good point if we still shared the trophy on equal wins, but we don't. All the points you make are actually amplified with a points difference system, which is what we have.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: This would be a good point if we still shared the trophy on equal wins, but we don't. All the points you make are actually amplified with a points difference system, which is what we have.

I half agree!

You can recover bad PD; You can't recover a missed BP. At least before, if you struggled but still won against (say) Italy on Day 1 you had a chance to recover the situation by sticking enough points on Scotland, or Wales. Now, come away from Rome with 4 points and you're on the back foot for the rest of the tournament.

PD also annoys me, I admit. I'm perfectly happy to share championships, I wish we still did that.

One possible positive I can see, though, is that draws might become less of a damp squib, as it's possible to effectively "win" a draw with a BP. But that's not worth the rest for me.

Sourdust wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: This would be a good point if we still shared the trophy on equal wins, but we don't. All the points you make are actually amplified with a points difference system, which is what we have.

I half agree!

You can recover bad PD; You can't recover a missed BP. At least before, if you struggled but still won against (say) Italy on Day 1 you had a chance to recover the situation by sticking enough points on Scotland, or Wales. Now, come away from Rome with 4 points and you're on the back foot for the rest of the tournament.

PD also annoys me, I admit. I'm perfectly happy to share championships, I wish we still did that.

One possible positive I can see, though, is that draws might become less of a damp squib, as it's possible to effectively "win" a draw with a BP. But that's not worth the rest for me.

You can only recover bad points difference if you do unexpectedly and disproportionately well against another side. The same applies to bonus points, indeed it's easier to recover because you can deprive your competitors of losing bonus points.

Maybe best to move along, everyone, this post gets tedious...

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: You can only recover bad points difference if you do unexpectedly and disproportionately well against another side. The same applies to bonus points, indeed it's easier to recover because you can deprive your competitors of losing bonus points.

For the sake of argument, lets say Ireland and England go into the final 2 games on 2 from 3, with similar PD and with Scotland and Italy left to play. Ireland beat Scotland 27-19 at Murrayfield (3 tries to 1) then Italy 45-13 at Aviva (5 tries to 1). Under the current system the first result is a slight "underachievement" but the second "corrects" it, giving a combined margin of 40pts over the two games, which is about what might be expected.
Meanwhile England squeak past Italy in Rome by 24-17, then Scotland at Twickenham 25-22, on both occasions scoring 4 tries to 3.
Leaving aside my preference for a shared title, in this scenario Ireland are clearly the more "deserving" team but under BPs they will lose the title. They scored the same number of tries, conceded fewer, and won both games by higher margins, but they lose out because they didn't hammer Scotland hard enough, in Scotland, even though their rivals didn't either, at home. I don't see enterprising play being rewarded, I just see a dissatisfying sense of arbitrary injustice.

I do accept that PD can have that result too but BP will make these situations more frequent IMO.

And as I said, let's hope I'm wrong.

Sourdust wrote:Maybe best to move along, everyone, this post gets tedious...

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: You can only recover bad points difference if you do unexpectedly and disproportionately well against another side. The same applies to bonus points, indeed it's easier to recover because you can deprive your competitors of losing bonus points.

For the sake of argument, lets say Ireland and England go into the final 2 games on 2 from 3, with similar PD and with Scotland and Italy left to play. Ireland beat Scotland 27-19 at Murrayfield (3 tries to 1) then Italy 45-13 at Aviva (5 tries to 1). Under the current system the first result is a slight "underachievement" but the second "corrects" it, giving a combined margin of 40pts over the two games, which is about what might be expected.
Meanwhile England squeak past Italy in Rome by 24-17, then Scotland at Twickenham 25-22, on both occasions scoring 4 tries to 3.
Leaving aside my preference for a shared title, in this scenario Ireland are clearly the more "deserving" team but under BPs they will lose the title. They scored the same number of tries, conceded fewer, and won both games by higher margins, but they lose out because they didn't hammer Scotland hard enough, in Scotland, even though their rivals didn't either, at home. I don't see enterprising play being rewarded, I just see a dissatisfying sense of arbitrary injustice.

I do accept that PD can have that result too but BP will make these situations more frequent IMO.

And as I said, let's hope I'm wrong.

It would make more sense for there to be a bonus point for try difference, say for scoring 2* more tries than the opposition. That would only reward a match well won, rather than a close victory where you happen to have scored 4 tries. And it would keep the teams wanting to score tries throughout the match rather than switching off once the 4th try comes.

Obviously this isn't going to happen, since the 4-try bonus system is the norm.


* maybe 3... but that's probably too hard more most matchups in the 6N.

3 more is hte French model - which is , by far, the best model for bonus points (though LBPs are still too easy)