Six Nations to Trial Bonus Points in 2017

[ncurd]

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

Only if the net gain over the history of home/5/6 nationsears we end with even more trophies than everyone else. Otherwise you can keep it.

 

[Ospreylian]

Only if the net gain over the history of home/5/6 nationsears we end with even more trophies than everyone else. Otherwise you can keep it.

If you're not that bothered I think we'll keep it thanks. Seeing as try-scoring and attacking play will be rewarded from now on, Wales are going to need as many past trophies and glories as possible

 

[RedruthRFC]

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.

Good post, this was my thinking. According to someone on another forum I read, the new system wouldn't have altered the pecking order in the last three tournaments. This was my reply:

Good point, this is a scenario that didn't occur to me in my previous post and is a good argument in favour of the TBP. I would however question how often this scenario is going to arise.


Quite a lot of people were annoyed by England kicking the ball dead as you describe in the England vs South Africa Autumn test, it might have been you that started a thread to question the decision. Interestingly enough, this bonus point system would have made no difference (England would already have had the TBP in the bag), but under the three or more tries more than the opposition system, England would have been encouraged to go for the try.


I don't have the statistics to hand or wherewithal to analyse them to be able to say whether one system is more likely to encourage a team to go for the try than the other, although my gut says that the "three or more" system would.
-----
After that, it was pointed out that it could encourage a team to play on and go for a try rather than kicking the ball out if they are winning comfortably but only have tree tries, to which I replied:

Good point, this is a scenario that didn't occur to me in my previous post and is a good argument in favour of the TBP. I would however question how often this scenario is going to arise.


Quite a lot of people were annoyed by England kicking the ball dead as you describe in the England vs South Africa Autumn test, it might have been you that started a thread to question the decision. Interestingly enough, this bonus point system would have made no difference (England would already have had the TBP in the bag), but under the three or more tries more than the opposition system, England would have been encouraged to go for the try.


I don't have the statistics to hand or wherewithal to analyse them to be able to say whether one system is more likely to encourage a team to go for the try than the other, although my gut says that the "three or more" system would.

 

[j'nuh]

The thing is that if one team has just one more win than another team, then there's a 4-point differential that the second team has to overcome via bonus points to affect the standings. You have to win 4 more bonus points than the team ahead of you in a 5-game series... just to get level. It's mathematically possible, but completely unfeasible. I suspect it has never happened in the history of the Six Nations.

The only difference it will make is where teams are equal on wins and need some kind of tiebreak system to solve the issue. But points already did the same thing - in a tight, final weekend, there was already an incentive to go out and score lots of points. It's what gave us the final weekend of the 2015 Six Nations.

The major flaw is that it can create dead rubbers. Under the points system, if three teams go into the final weekend with 3 wins, then the tournament is not decided until the whistle of the final game. Under the bonus points system, a team finishing earlier in the day may have put themselves out of reach.

I suppose it may also have an effect when there have been draws. A team with 3 wins and 1 draw may slip behind a team with just 3 wins if the second team had a couple extra bonus points. But it's such a niche situation to have a rule change for. I just don't understand what this does other than annoy everyone.

 

[RedruthRFC]

The only difference it will make is where teams are equal on wins and need some kind of tiebreak system to solve the issue. But points already did the same thing - in a tight, final weekend, there was already an incentive to go out and score lots of points. It's what gave us the final weekend of the 2015 Six Nations.

You're right in what you say, but IMO bonus points are a more equitable way of deciding who wins than giving the win to whoever played Italy last / on a hard pitch. Given that the winner has been decided on points difference three times in the last ten years, there's a good chance of bonus points being significant once teams factor them into their thinking.

The major flaw is that it can create dead rubbers. Under the points system, if three teams go into the final weekend with 3 wins, then the tournament is not decided until the whistle of the final game. Under the bonus points system, a team finishing earlier in the day may have put themselves out of reach.

Good point, but I'd have thought that that scenario is unlikely as it's likely that three teams that are evenly matches after 4 games will have racked up a similar number of bonus points.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

You're right in what you say, but IMO bonus points are a more equitable way of deciding who wins than giving the win to whoever played Italy last / on a hard pitch. Given that the winner has been decided on points difference three times in the last ten years, there's a good chance of bonus points being significant once teams factor them into their thinking.



Good point, but I'd have thought that that scenario is unlikely as it's likely that three teams that are evenly matches after 4 games will have racked up a similar number of bonus points.

Personally I think the reason for the decision is Ireland playing defensive rugby and winning the championship in 2014 and 2015. We played Italy in the 4th and 1st round respectively in those years, probably their strongest rounds off the top of my head.

This system only gives more advantage to the sideswho meet Italy in R2 and R5 if you ask me!

 

[welshglory]

Welcome addition imo. The standard of rugby in the 6 nations has been terrible for a while now

 

[smartcooky]

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

It has happened a lot more than you might think, 6 times in 17 years, just over 1/3 of the time

First team listed won 6N - next team(s) listed finished on the same table points
2001 - England - Ireland
2006 - France - Ireland
2007 - France - Ireland*
2013 - Wales - England
2014 - Ireland - England
2015 - Ireland - England - Wales

*In 2007 the result might have changed. Ireland would have got two 4 try bonus points and one close loss bonus point to France's single 4 try bonus point, so Ireland would probably have won the 6N in that year. I say "might" and "probably" because knowing that bonus points were needed, teams might have played differently.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Welcome addition imo. The standard of rugby in the 6 nations has been terrible for a while now

+1.

At least give it a go and see how if affects the quality of play. Some of the early matches last year were dire.

 

[Mike Rolls]

Bonus points in the 6 nations is a ridiculous idea. Points difference is bad enough - making beating Italy on your own turf on a mild day by two points a better result that going away to Wales, Ireland, England Scotland or France in a rainstorm and winning by one!
At the moment Italy are, relatively speaking, pushovers. Four tries against them - especially at the end of the 6N season when they tend to fall away due to injuries and having less depth than the others (apart perhaps from Scotland) will be a damn side easier than scoring four against Wales in Cardiff or Ireland in Dublin, etc. More sympathy - but still don't agree with, the losing bonus idea - a pat on the head for trying, but a bit condescending for all that. In a competition where you have two away games and three home one year, and the reverse the next, there is already enough of an imbalance,
Mike

 

[ncurd]

Mike you seam to have misinterpreted the intention.

Italy are pushovers but because they completely capitulated against Wales in the 2nd half of the 2015 6 nations on the last day. It meant because points difference was key Ireland had to smash Scotland (a harder prospect but they tried) and England had to smash France.

Both England and Ireland had Italy in the first two weeks and didn't run up as large of margins as Wales did but they only set benchmarks Wales knew what they had to do against the worst side.

Bonus points don't mean a hard fought win against France is worth less as everyone has to play France. Its an attempt to stop teams getting that sunny day in Rome in March having a greater impact in a close thought competition.

 

[Mike Rolls]

Building on the imbalance re home and away - since the 5N became the 6N, Italy have won only 23.8% of their home games and Scotland only 35.7%. The others have done much better - Wales 62.8%, France 74.4%, Ireland 74.4% and England 85.7%, so the year in which you get Scotland and Italy away and the rest at home is a much better prospect than when you get those two at home and the other three away!
Mike

- - - Updated - - -

Mike you seam to have misinterpreted the intention.

Italy are pushovers but because they completely capitulated against Wales in the 2nd half of the 2015 6 nations on the last day. It meant because points difference was key Ireland had to smash Scotland (a harder prospect but they tried) and England had to smash France.

Both England and Ireland had Italy in the first two weeks and didn't run up as large of margins as Wales did but they only set benchmarks Wales knew what they had to do against the worst side.

Bonus points don't mean a hard fought win against France is worth less as everyone has to play France. Its an attempt to stop teams getting that sunny day in Rome in March having a greater impact in a close thought competition.

But that is exactly my point - the sunny day in Rome will/can have an even greater impact than it does at present.
Mike

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

I'm never quite sure why tries and "attacking play" need to be encouraged. One of the great features of the game is that there are (were) so many different ways of skinning a cat. Contrasting styles, to me anyway, are always more interesting to watch.

Personally I hope this leads to interminable 5m line outs and driving mauls and is quickly dropped.

If you need to separate teams on equal match points, head to head seems the fairest way perhaps followed by tries scored if that doesn't do the trick.

 

[ncurd]

But that is exactly my point - the sunny day in Rome will/can have an even greater impact than it does at present.
Mike

No it won't.....how does it have a greater impact? Most top teams run in 4 try's against Italy. What it stops is when a team runs in 8 it has less of impact on who wins the championship.

 

[corny]

Quick scenario

Ireland V England in Dublin
Scotland V Italy in Edinburgh
Wales V France in Cardiff

Its ******* rain all across the British Isles. The first four teams mentioned have no chance of a 4 try bonus point. Wales and France will obviously agree to close the roof in Cardiff. That might happen with regularity and give Wales an advantage over time. Might have to be looked at.

 

[Which Tyler]

I'm never quite sure why tries and "attacking play" need to be encouraged. One of the great features of the game is that there are (were) so many different ways of skinning a cat. Contrasting styles, to me anyway, are always more interesting to watch.

Personally I hope this leads to interminable 5m line outs and driving mauls and is quickly dropped.

If you need to separate teams on equal match points, head to head seems the fairest way perhaps followed by tries scored if that doesn't do the trick.

 

[Mike Rolls]

Quick scenario

Ireland V England in Dublin
Scotland V Italy in Edinburgh
Wales V France in Cardiff

Its ******* rain all across the British Isles. The first four teams mentioned have no chance of a 4 try bonus point. Wales and France will obviously agree to close the roof in Cardiff. That might happen with regularity and give Wales an advantage over time. Might have to be looked at.

Very good point
Mike

- - - Updated - - -

No it won't.....how does it have a greater impact? Most top teams run in 4 try's against Italy. What it stops is when a team runs in 8 it has less of impact on who wins the championship.

OK, I'll try and get you to understand why I think that the whole concept is flawed. A hypothetical, but credible, scenario. No Grand Slam but two sides – A and B – win four each. Both have Ital away, both are even Stephen on their other three matches. Team A gets a lovely early spring day in Rome, firm ground, dry ball, perfect for running Rugby, win by not a lot – say 5-10 points, but do run in 4 tries. Bonus point. Team B get a foul day, pelting rain, muddy under foot, greasy ball. Running Rugby – forget it. Despite that, they master the conditions, smash Italy by 20+ points, but don't get 4 tries. Their reward for mastering the conditions and coping with Italy BETTER than team A? Second place – where's the logic in that?
Personally, I never agreed with using points difference anyway, for much the same reason
Mike

- - - Updated - - -

I'm never quite sure why tries and "attacking play" need to be encouraged. One of the great features of the game is that there are (were) so many different ways of skinning a cat. Contrasting styles, to me anyway, are always more interesting to watch.

Personally I hope this leads to interminable 5m line outs and driving mauls and is quickly dropped.

Me too!!
Mike

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

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

 

[corny]

OK, I'll try and get you to understand why I think that the whole concept is flawed. A hypothetical, but credible, scenario. No Grand Slam but two sides – A and B – win four each. Both have Ital away, both are even Stephen on their other three matches. Team A gets a lovely early spring day in Rome, firm ground, dry ball, perfect for running Rugby, win by not a lot – say 5-10 points, but do run in 4 tries. Bonus point. Team B get a foul day, pelting rain, muddy under foot, greasy ball. Running Rugby – forget it. Despite that, they master the conditions, smash Italy by 20+ points, but don't get 4 tries. Their reward for mastering the conditions and coping with Italy BETTER than team A? Second place – where's the logic in that?
Personally, I never agreed with using points difference anyway, for much the same reason
Mike

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.

 

[ncurd]

I understand now, you failed to say previously you don't like points difference either. All your arguements against BP's made it sound like you prefer PD. Yet all the points you bought up mitigate problems created by them using BP's over PD's.

Part of me says go back to sharing the trophy but that reduces people enjoyment in the trophy and we won't get last day thrillers if everyone playing to share the trophy.

Try's scored I feel has a similar problem to PD in that running in scores against poor teams has a greater impact than results.

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