Six Nations to Trial Bonus Points in 2017

[MojoPin]

Well, this is interesting.

http://www.rbs6nations.com/en/news/30434.php#8qg3Z1iuJrlBFSH7.97

Competition points will be awarded in all matches on the following basis:

(i) The Union that wins the Match shall be awarded four Match Points or (if it scores four tries or more in the process) five Match Points.

(ii) The Union that loses the Match shall be awarded no Match Points or (if it scores four tries or more in the process or loses by a margin of seven points or fewer) one Match Point or (if it scores four tries or more in the process and loses by a margin of seven points or fewer) two Match Points.

(iii) Unions that draw a Match shall each be awarded two Match Points and any of them that scores four tries or more in the process shall be awarded a further one Match Point.

(iv) A Union that wins all five of its Matches (a "Grand Slam") shall be awarded a further three Match Points.

Read more at http://www.rbs6nations.com/en/news/30434.php#TLjkXueocksAzAwj.99

Thoughts?

 

[ncurd]

Does quick Math's

5wins*@4pts = 20
+3 for Grand Slam = 23
4wins*5pts = 20
+2 losing = 22

Okay good the grand slam bonus is purely to stop a strange mathematical thing where a team obtains the grand slam but looses the championship.
Honestly the best thing from this is while try's are important it stops the "who can beat Italy & Scotland by the most" that sometimes comes up.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I don't see the need whatsoever, these are test matches, making teams try to run in 4 tries dilutes that a bit if you ask me.

 

[AzaMatt]

im all for attacking rugby so this is welcome news but some of the best six nations games have been with very little tries IMO.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Honestly the best thing from this is while try's are important it stops the "who can beat Italy & Scotland by the most" that sometimes comes up.

That is why I support it. In close championships it means the ***le is more likely to be decided by contests between top teams than by points difference versus Italy. Given Italy's current level I was very concerned about this at the next 6N as we'd see more results like 67-14 by Wales. It means ***le contenders don't have to put out their full first choice against weaker sides and therefore those games might not be quite so monumentally one sided.

Personally I prefer the more simple Romanian BP system. Which i understand of he just one bonus point per game. If the points difference is less than 8 it goes to the loser. If it is 8 or more it goes to the winner.

The problem with a more complex system is you can have a scenario that confuses everyone, like at the end of the PRO Rugby season in the US when TV awarded the championship to the wrong team before quickly correcting it. I'm not a complete dunce with arithmetic but i was completely lost watching the end of that season.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Don't see the need in it, to be honest.
The main thing i take from this is that they're looking at changes in the 6N so hopefully a look at the Italy/Georgia situation is on the cards

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

The thing is would this have impacted any of the results? Teams tend to go for tries when they are already winning but will take the 3 in a tight game, I can't see that changing because the cost of losing is greater than the extra point for scoring 4 tries. In a tight game you would still take the 3 and I don't know any team that doesn't try to score tries in open play...

When I get home and if I can be bothered I'll go back through the 6N and see if this would have changed anything.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Can only assume the SH has infiltrated the 6N board. What next, uncontested scrums and forward passes all round?

It's an artificial incentive that isn't needed. The 6N is unique with fantastic history, tamper with it at your peril. And for those that say its outdated and not conducive to winning rugby, I don't think Eng and Ire are doing so badly at the moment....

 

[Which Tyler]

Absolutely no need for this; it's a serious of 5 test matches; not a league of 20+ matches.
Winning is the only thing that matters; and if you can overhaul a loss with bonues points, then it'd make a mockery of things.
The system wasn't broken, so no need to try to fix it IMO.

The only time when winning 3 test matches is better than winning 4, is when they're the last 3 of a RWC, rather than 4 pools, then losing the QF.


ETA:

 

[SelimNiai]

The thing is would this have impacted any of the results? Teams tend to go for tries when they are already winning but will take the 3 in a tight game, I can't see that changing because the cost of losing is greater than the extra point for scoring 4 tries. In a tight game you would still take the 3 and I don't know any team that doesn't try to score tries in open play...

When I get home and if I can be bothered I'll go back through the 6N and see if this would have changed anything.

The only major difference it would have made last season is it would have separated Scotland and France, Scotland would have managed a couple of bonus points finishing on 10 to Frances' 8

Its noted to be a trial so lets see what changes

 

[Which Tyler]

The only major difference it would have made last season is it would have separated Scotland and France, Scotland would have managed a couple of bonus points finishing on 10 to Frances' 8

Its noted to be a trial so lets see what changes

I suspect that there's the odd wooden spoon that may have changed hands with bonus points. It's almost like loosing a close match is better than winning a match

 

[ncurd]

I though the world cup was a series of 4 matches played by a bunch of groups define by their relative status. Then everyone goes home for tea and crumpets. Did something happen after the series of games?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

I can't wait for the inevitable **** storm when a team finishes above another despite having fewer wins

 

[SelimNiai]

I suspect that there's the odd wooden spoon that may have changed hands with bonus points. It's almost like loosing a close match is better than winning a match

Yeah most likey. I cant remember off the top of my head when a 6N Championship was won by Points Difference or something, I think France did it one year. Its those that bonus points would meddle with.

I think the closest comparison we have is with European Games given the number of group games they have, would be interesting to see if there are teams, especially ones that went far, who would/wouldnt have qualified withput BP's

 

[Saint4805]

I can't wait for the inevitable **** storm when a team finishes above another despite having fewer wins

It's clearly an attempt to enhance the 6N brand and to reward those teams who play attacking and entertaining rugby as opposed to those sides who set out to suffocate the opposition and win ugly. There shouldn't be a storm if everyone knows about the revised points system months in advance.

 

[profitius]

Good move. Last years 6 nations was very dull.

 

[j'nuh]

Terrible idea. It won't make much of a difference unless teams are tied on wins, at which point, why should what happens in individual games override the aggregate picture? If two teams have 4 wins, 1 loss, team A scores 15 tries (3 per game) and gets one LBP, team B scores 8 tries (4 in one game, 2 in two others) and gets a LBP, then team B wins the Championship which is totally counter-intuitive. They should just change the rules so that in a tie, the team with the most tries overall goes ahead, rather than it being on points difference.

 

[Which Tyler]

I prefer head to head deciding ties; followed by tries scored.

 

[Ospreylian]

Does this mean we have to give our 2013 trophy to England?

 

[duncanb]

Nothing wrong with a trial.
We can debate till cows come about BP.
As no one seems to care about all other comps,why complain about 6N.
BP has improved all others or are you all old enough to go back to 3 points for a try era and hate change then again I played in 1970.