Six Nations to Trial Bonus Points in 2017

[Mike Rolls]

Thats a very precise and very unlikely set of circumstances and even if it wasn't, its irrelevant.

The conditions regularly win and lose tournaments for teams. England lost the 2014 6 nations on a crappy day in Murrayfield. They lost it under the old system and they'd lose it under the new system.

Actually under what I see as the 'old system' it would have been a shared championship.
And my scenario isn't irrelevant - why should it be? At the moment, unless there is Grand Slam, the championship is highly likely to be decided by who hands out the biggest hiding to Italy (and possibly Scotland). How satisfactory is that?
Mike

 

[gaston le gaff]

the problem for me is that if a team scores 4 tries they have the bonus point, using the French system, the difference of 3tries the game is never over. Team A score 3 tries to zero and in the last couple of mins the Team B scores their only try. The bonus point is lost unless team A score another try, much more exciting and the game and bonus point is never secured until the final whistle, yes i know we use it in France but that is not the reason, the reason is, it's just so much more interesting, and you could lose the Tournament on the final day in the last minute, the other system it's not possible.

 

[RedruthRFC]

the problem for me is that if a team scores 4 tries they have the bonus point, using the French system, the difference of 3tries the game is never over. Team A score 3 tries to zero and in the last couple of mins the Team B scores their only try. The bonus point is lost unless team A score another try, much more exciting and the game and bonus point is never secured until the final whistle, yes i know we use it in France but that is not the reason, the reason is, it's just so much more interesting, and you could lose the Tournament on the final day in the last minute, the other system it's not possible.

I've said this already - I just can't see why the 4TBP system is ever better than the 3+ More system. I'm tempted to go so far as to suggest that the 4TBP is instrumental in killing one sided games deader than they would have been without bonus point in place as it creates a "game over" focal point in players and coaches' psyches and encourages rafts of substitutions.

I also like the fact that it denies the losing side a TBP, which can end up being awarded to teams who have been beaten out of sight so badly that a Super Rugby game breaks out, but denies them to more competitive losers who keep their opposition on their toes until the end of the game.

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder if Haskell has ever seen that picture...

Someone should Tweet it at him. I'd expect a frosty reception though, I recently read or heard him saying that he still gets plenty of ribbing about it, it didn't sound like he finds it too amusing!

 

[Which Tyler]

I wonder if Haskell has ever seen that picture...

Someone with twitter should use it at him next time he tweets something worth reading.


Could be a while then.

Ultimately H2H should always matter most it's just three way ties I wonder about.

Yup, I've always favoured head-to-head as the first tie breaker; with tries scored coming next - Like Mike though, I've never been a fan of BPs, and after all these years, I remain to be convinced they make much difference to the entertainment available in matches (as opposed to highlights reels, where tries are all that matters).

If we HAVE to use bonus points; then the French system of 3 MORE tries than your oponent is the better system IMO. I'd also reduce the requirement for LBP to 5 points.

Someone should Tweet it at him. I'd expect a frosty reception though, I recently read or heard him saying that he still gets plenty of ribbing about it, it didn't sound like he finds it too amusing!

It should definitely be tweeted to him in responce for him complaining about receiving banter* about it.


* Sorry, "bants", it IS Haskell after all.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Yup, I've always favoured head-to-head as the first tie breaker; with tries scored coming next - Like Mike though, I've never been a fan of BPs, and after all these years, I remain to be convinced they make much difference to the entertainment available in matches (as opposed to highlights reels, where tries are all that matters).

+1 on using head to heads being the first decider.

It should definitely be tweeted to him in responce for him complaining about receiving banter* about it.


* Sorry, "bants", it IS Haskell after all.

Lol, I couldn't bring myself to use the word banter so went with ribbing. It did occur to me that "bants" would be the appropriate vernacular in that instance.

 

[Car]

the problem for me is that if a team scores 4 tries they have the bonus point, using the French system, the difference of 3tries the game is never over. Team A score 3 tries to zero and in the last couple of mins the Team B scores their only try. The bonus point is lost unless team A score another try, much more exciting and the game and bonus point is never secured until the final whistle, yes i know we use it in France but that is not the reason, the reason is, it's just so much more interesting, and you could lose the Tournament on the final day in the last minute, the other system it's not possible.

Agreed, the French system is so much better. Considering the rather poor past Six Nations, it makes sense to try to improve it with changes, but I don't get why they didn't opt for the French system.

 

[Ospreylian]

Someone with twitter should use it at him next time he tweets something worth reading.


Could be a while then.

I've just got this image of Haskell logging onto his Rugby Forum account, seeing your comment and just sobbing uncontrollably into a tissue.

 

[Lé Ddanno]

I've just got this image of Haskell logging onto his Rugby Forum account, seeing your comment and just sobbing uncontrollably into a tissue.

Or careering headlong into the nearest post be it rugby, gate or lamp.

 

[Mike Rolls]

If we MUST mess about with the scoring regime, why not something that just might be useful? Like - all scrum offences to be free kicks, not penalties? And talking of penalties, why not reduce their value? Say, three points for an offence in the offenders 22, 2 points if the offence occurs between the 22 and the 10 metre line, one point if it occurs further away than the 10 metre line? Less incentive for front rows to try had fool the ref, less incentive to spend/waste time taking a kick at goal 40/50 metres out?
Mike

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I've just got this image of Haskell logging onto his Rugby Forum account, seeing your comment and just sobbing uncontrollably into a tissue.

I imagine he is one of those guys that has a hanky with little flowers sewn into it for his sobbing.

Also possible career change for Haskell, postman

If we MUST mess about with the scoring regime, why not something that just might be useful? Like - all scrum offences to be free kicks, not penalties? And talking of penalties, why not reduce their value? Say, three points for an offence in the offenders 22, 2 points if the offence occurs between the 22 and the 10 metre line, one point if it occurs further away than the 10 metre line? Less incentive for front rows to try had fool the ref, less incentive to spend/waste time taking a kick at goal 40/50 metres out?
Mike

More time going to the TMO to work out whether a penalty is worth x or y points. Plus the thing that is often overlooked with reducing the value of penalties is it causes infringements to be more likely, until suddenly it is yellow card territory. It would shift from not being much punishment at all to being a heavy punishment. After a yellow card it gets worse, do you reset the "team penalty" count or do you keep giving out yellows? The only change is I'd like scrum penalties to not be kicks at goal. Lineout or tap and go only.

 

[Mike Rolls]

I imagine he is one of those guys that has a hanky with little flowers sewn into it for his sobbing.

Also possible career change for Haskell, postman



More time going to the TMO to work out whether a penalty is worth x or y points. Plus the thing that is often overlooked with reducing the value of penalties is it causes infringements to be more likely, until suddenly it is yellow card territory. It would shift from not being much punishment at all to being a heavy punishment. After a yellow card it gets worse, do you reset the "team penalty" count or do you keep giving out yellows? The only change is I'd like scrum penalties to not be kicks at goal. Lineout or tap and go only.

I reckon most refs and linesmen can work out where an offence has occurred - those painted lines tend to be a giveaway. Why would infringements become more common much more probable is that the long distance kicks at goal, which even in this day and age have a fairly low success rate and take up valuable time - especially when it is the likes of Biggar involved - will be seen as less preferably to going for a line-out. OTOH - I like your idea of scrum penalties not to be kicks at goal. Too often they are the reward for fooling the ref and getting three undeserved points
Mike

 

[ALJ]

If we MUST mess about with the scoring regime, why not something that just might be useful? Like - all scrum offences to be free kicks, not penalties? And talking of penalties, why not reduce their value? Say, three points for an offence in the offenders 22, 2 points if the offence occurs between the 22 and the 10 metre line, one point if it occurs further away than the 10 metre line? Less incentive for front rows to try had fool the ref, less incentive to spend/waste time taking a kick at goal 40/50 metres out?
Mike

I am with you on all the bonus point stuff but this is a little bit close to the old ELVs for me.

IMHO, if you want to fix scrummaging, make props wear jerseys that can be gripped properly (or even just a strip that can be gripped).

To my mind, there's not much wrong with the game (lack of rucking aside), it's the never ending quest for more paying fans both at grounds and (especially) on TV that screws things up.

 

[Mike Rolls]

I am with you on all the bonus point stuff but this is a little bit close to the old ELVs for me.

IMHO, if you want to fix scrummaging, make props wear jerseys that can be gripped properly (or even just a strip that can be gripped).

To my mind, there's not much wrong with the game (lack of rucking aside), it's the never ending quest for more paying fans both at grounds and (especially) on TV that screws things up.

Good point
Mike

 

[Lancashire Nick]

Ridiculous idea. Nothing wrong with the current points system. Rugby Union isn't just about scoring tries, it's far more complex than that. Originally, when the game was first played, scoring (what we now call) a try didn't even earn you points. The Northern Hemisphere must stop following every namby pamby idea that the Southern Hemisphere has, or we'll end up with a glorified game of 7s

 

[Mike Rolls]

Hopefully, the results from Saturday will see a hurried end to the silly idea of bonus points in the 6 Nations. One of the advantages claimed for it was that it would encourage more attacking, and therefore more entertaining, Rugby. Really? Ireland ran in 9 tries against the hapless Italians, England and Wales scored only three between them, but that was a far more entertaining and positively gripping match. The game in Rome was embarrassing to watch and a total mismatch, yet Ireland benefitted more from it in terms of Championship points than England – or had they won – Wales - receive. Madness. Apart from enjoying the massacre of Italy –if that is what one enjoys – there was no enjoyment and precious little entertainment to be had from the Rome match.
The idea of points differential is bad enough, but bonus points are a step too far, much too far. As it is, unless there is a Grand Slam, the ***le tends to get decided on who can put most points on the Italians. The imbalance created by having three home games one year, two the next, is bad enough. Of the 9 Grand Slams so far recorded since 5 became 6, only three – Wales in 2005, Ireland in 2009, and England in 2016, have gone to a team only playing 2 home games.
Make no mistake – playing at home is a big advantage. The figures tell it all, the win percentages being:-
England 86% Home 57% Away
France 74% Home 51% Away
Ireland 74% Home 55% Away
Scotland 36% Home 16% Away
Wales 61% Home 48% Away
Italy 23% home 5% Away

Mike

 

[The Jones Boy]

Brilliant, loving the bonus points.
Keep it coming.
A minimal reward for outright attacking, and for not giving up in the darkest hour keeps games active when they would otherwise go to sleep.
Love it.

 

[Lé Ddanno]

Eh? They've only had the slightest relevance to Ireland so far and I don't imagine they gave a **** about BPs, they were going to run them over with a bus whatever happened.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Eh? They've only had the slightest relevance to Ireland so far and I don't imagine they gave a **** about BPs, they were going to run them over with a bus whatever happened.

Wales are pretty much out of the running now one would suspect even if they win their remaining games.

 

[ncurd]

I wouldn't put it past Wales not having a flyer against Scotland or France

But if you look at the table BP's are not making a jot of difference so far in reality.

 

[Mike Rolls]

I wouldn't put it past Wales not having a flyer against Scotland or France

But if you look at the table BP's are not making a jot of difference so far in reality.

So where's the point of them? The only try bonus point so far is the awful mismatch in Rome. IIRC they achieved the 4th try after about 30 minutes? The press on for five more was driven by points differential, not BP
Mike