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.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.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.
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 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.
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.
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
Welcome addition imo. The standard of rugby in the 6 nations has been terrible for a while now
But that is exactly my point - the sunny day in Rome will/can have an even greater impact than it does at present.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.
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.But that is exactly my point - the sunny day in Rome will/can have an even greater impact than it does at present.
Mike
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.
Very good pointQuick 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.
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?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.
Me too!!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.
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