It isnt a fair representation of an 80 minute match when you prove you can kick a drop goal outside of that time limit. If you have a good drop goal specialist and get the ball from the kick off it can be all over in a few minutes.

And Cricket is a completely different paced sport, its comparing chalk and cheese.

Surely the whole point of sport is that the outcome is unknown, why try and influence that outcome? Aren't you taking away part of the excitement of the sport by giving the home team a points advantage?

Also from the excitement point of view, team A is trailing by 6 points with 10 seconds to go, do they chip over the top and chase? Nah, there's no point, they are 6.5 points behind. One of the most ridiculous ideas of read on here, and there has been a few.

80 minutes is more than enough time to win a game. If neither side is able to in that time then why should they be awarded any more? A lost point could make all the difference for both sides at the end of the season.

The point everyone seems to be missing is that 'golden point extra time' isn't simply about kicking a field goal

But that would be the easiest/quickest way of scoring a point wouldn't it?

Not necessarily.

So, the idea and myself have taken a hefty kicking in my absence over the past thirty-six hours. No worries, but a few points.

1. If in the play-offs a side was offered the half point start in return for surrendering home advantage and playing in a neutral venue, how many would take it? I wager none of them, which would imply every league game begins with a stacked deck, albeit one that is (a) necessary for the competition to financially viable and (b) as a result of that, standard in leagues of many team sports around the world. Giving the draw to the home side is in reality minor compared to letting the home side play at home! The level playing field is already compromised, and not just at Mount Pleasant.

2. Given that every team has as many home as away games, no team would be advantaged over the course of the year. And given that everyone would know the set up before each game, and the impossibility on sitting on a half point lead in RL, I don't see why a team that is able to match their opponents' scoring is so much less worthy of the league points than a side that scrambles one point more. There's greater injustice surely in Leeds' narrow win in Cardiff over Bradford being worth almost exactly the same on the league table as the demolition jobs done on the Bulls by Wigan, Huddersfield, Salford and Warrington.

3. I know exactly where the try came from. But without major changes since its inception, RL would be verging on unwatchable. Not that justifies any change suggested of course, but they shouldnt be dismissed out of hand.

Intrigued to hear of all the draw enthusiasts out there. Makes me and my three hundred million likeminds in the US feel pretty lonely. Like I said, the most convincing argument about requiring the away side to beat the home side to claim the points/point is the rage any attempt it induces in a vocal number of British fans. But I still hold that if that had been de rigeur since 1895, no one would be angling to get rid of it.

This whole thread is possibly one of the best attempts at 'angling' RL Fans has ever seen to be honest.

Cricket is boring, and that's nothing to do with draws!


There's your answer. RL is the best sport in the world, but if it went on for 5 days with a bit of action only every hour or so even I might get bored.

I totally disagree with you're statement that there should ALWAYS be a winning side. The aim of the game is to score the most points. If the final score is even then there isn't—and shouldn't be—a winner. The idea of some games lasting 80 minutes while others last 90, others last 84, and so on, is ludicrous, imo. ALL teams have 80 minutes to score as many points as they can in ALL games. Only then does a league table have any real meaning.

'Almost' being the operative word. You get the 2 points and the points for/against. Therefore, all other things being equal, a demolition win is is worth more than a close win.

If there was to be a scrap of a draw (which would ruin RL as a sport) how about golden point win gets you two points but the losing team still gets one?

If it had been a part of the rules since 1895 then you may have a point. Other than that, no you don't. It's not broke, so don't try and fix it.
As for the Americans having a 'must have a winner at all costs' mentality, then that is a part of their national psyche. It isn't a part of the psyche for the rest of the world - how many countries have no interest in American Football, and for that matter how many Americans would actually accept the concept of the draw if the NFL was to introduce it to the game? Without running a parallel thread to this on a major NFL forum, you can't make the assumption that most Americans are happy with the 'no draw' rule.
I'm guessing that like myself you have no idea either, and are just making an assumption based on the ruling body of what is - on a world wide basis - still a minority sport and it's traditions.

I agree in principle of getting rid of draws....especially in cup and play off matches.. I don't though agree that the home side should start on 0.5 points.

Personally think if the scores are level at FT then just do a 10/15 minute golden point period like the NRL...no reason why we can't.

Another thing that supposedly wasn't part of our psyche - Grand Finals. That ended up being accepted despite plenty on here saying "the team that tops the table is the best team", apparently ignorant that we used to have championship finals. We often mend things that aren't definitively broken, in order to improve the spectacle. Hence our differences to RU.

I'd wager that the people who were in favour of it welcomed it and those who thought the team who tops the table was the best still think it, rather than there being a collective change of heart. Either way, a win under your system would be a false win. As much as I dislike golden point, at least it produces an actual win, albeit a contrived one. Both systems are wrong though.

Golden point is a rubbish way of deciding a game. Our game is a running and passing game that values the try over the kick. Why change that after 80minutes?

At the very least it should be 'Golden Try' with each team getting possession at least once.

I agree, I was only using golden point to state that af's proposal is worse than a bad system already in existence. As well as drastically altering the nature of the game in "golden point time", any sort of extra time also creates an uneven playing field. Suppose a team wins by a golden try in 89 minutes. Another team, in a different game, who lost by, let's say, 2 points in 80 minutes might well wonder if they could have won had they also played for 89 minutes. It makes all the results incomparable, and that's the basis of a league!

Well that would be the rules of the league. Results anyway, for the most part arent comparable. Injuries, form, luck, many things play a part in a result. If the rules are we need a winner, im not sure there is an argument against a team then going on to win in the manner prescribed.

Im comfortable with a draw in the league, im not sure it adds to the spectacle to remove that but if we were to Id look at a way of implementing three point conversions to limit them before extra time. But if we went that way, golden try before golden point.

Well, none of those factors are constitutive of an unlevel playing field - they apply to everyone. Having a league in which some games were played for 80 minutes, whilst others were played for 80+ [iwould [/imake for an uneven playing field. For example, why should a team get to acquire additional points in extra time (which could prove crucial in points difference in the league,) just because [ithey weren't good enough to win in 80 minutes[/i? They are receiving an advantage over teams who managed to win in the prescribed time.


I don't see any reason to get rid of draws myself. Not sure how 3 point conversions would effect anything. Would teams simply draw with a higher scoreline?

I mean three point conversions for something more difficult to a standard conversion. So the scoring side would have the option of taking the three point or two point conversion.

So like, if a team scores to make it 22-24, they could opt for a 3 point "difficult" conversion to avoid the draw and win 25-24? Sounds interesting, but would it detract from the spectacle of a closely fought draw in which each team desperately tries to score again in the dying minutes? those nerve racking, edge of your seat closers are great for fans and neutrals alike, imo. Settling that with a conversion--albeit a diffcult one--just wouldn't be the same. Out of interest, how would you make the conversion difficult? I'm imagining Aussie rules style outer and inner posts.

Yes so they would have the opportunity between taking the safer option of a more likely kick for 2 which would draw the game, or a more difficult 3 point kick which could win the game, but alternatively could lose it.

I think you would get that same nerve racking closers, with the added interest of the decision to be made, and its execution. Can you imagine in the 4 nations final, England being 6 points behind Australia, going over for the four and Peacock and Sinfield having to decide whether to go for the win with a difficult 3 point conversion or take the draw and go to golden point with the two point kick? I think that would be a great spectacle.

Similarly, a team putting itself 4 points ahead with 4/5mins to go would need to make the decision whether to go for the 3 points and guarantee at the very least a draw almost certainly the win or the 2 and risk the loss.

Two ideas for the three point conversion, a ten yard one tackle play ala the all stars game in Australia or a kick lined up the same as now, but kicked from behind the half way line.

inner/outer posts would be interesting but I am always loathed to add more equipment to the game.

Hmm. Ok, let me say at this point I'm not entirely against it. Kicking from halfway is an interesting point, and would certainly make it difficult, but I was thinking more along the lines of encouraging pin-point accuracy, like a narrow target that would leave you with a 1-2 degree margin of error.

It would, as I said the only problem I have with inner/outer posts is it is another piece of equipment which, lets face it, would be used pretty rarely.