You are thinking Stuart Pearce too huh?

Leeds beat the Bulls on Friday fair & square why should the Dragons get extra time to do the same or vice versa?

So one of the teams gets the win.

You are aware that that doesn't actually answer the question?

Neither team could do it in 80 min why should teams not good enough be given extra time, if you cant do it in the alloted time you dont deserve the extra point, if the Rhinos beat the Bulls in 80 why should the Dragons get 90?

Golden point doesnt prove anything other than you can kick a drop goal. If you cant score more than the other team in the regulation 80 minutes then you shouldnt get 2 points. Simple.

Psst.
It doesn't need introducing as we already have it.

after years of watching english rl i would have agreed with most of you in the past,but having watched the golden point in the nrl it does make the finale exciting and you get a great finish..golden point for me

right.....


if its a draw after 80mins both sides get a point..but you play golden TRY extra time and the winner gets a bonus point

simples

Bradford vs Cats would still be going on now if that was the rule.

so......

Nope. A game is 80 mins long. It doesn't need to be any longer except when a winner is needed ie a knockout game. A winner is not needed in a league game.

....make it so it lasts for an extra 20 minutes, if no side scores, it's a draw.

I think it should be first 'score' wins.

As someone said the Catalans v Bradford game would still be going on now if it was golden try.


Just because it's golden point it doesnt mean the fixture will be settled by a one pointer though. Sometimes the defending side are expecting the attacking team to kick the field goal only for them to give away a try.

what about winning by 2 clear points?

I just think first point wins... whether it's one, two or four.