Yes, it would be an unearned advantage, but no more of one than being at home in the first place (I'm sure that's worth more than half a point). We're happy to wear that in the league because each side benefits equally I've the course of the year. We're even prepared to allow it in the cup where there is no chance for redress that season.

If the home side began at 0.5-nil up then we'd have more home wins which would be good for the competition and every game would have a positive result on the day, which would also be good for the competition. The away side would have to work just that little bit harder to get something out of the game. And unlike golden point, no need for added time.

The problem would be the fans. But if we'd never had conversions, and I came on here saying "How about after each try, you get a chance to kick a penalty in line with where you scored it?" there'd be plenty telling me it was the stupidest thing they'd ever heard.

Last time I brought this issue up, I think I started by suggesting Golden Point. Well I saw that in the NRL when I was in Aus and was underwhelmed. The home half point is the way to go.

When pigs fly.....

Wouldnt it make more sense to allow the away team the extra point? If they have a harder job to do?

Dont think it would ever happen anyway. Why does nobody like draws? Was a great game today and a draw was a fair result overall. Dont think its worth the hassle.

Just because it won't happen doesn't mean it shouldn't.

Home side should get the half point because the home side winning is a better result for the competition, given the positive impact home wins have on the majority of the crowd's enjoyment of the game.

I can prove that people don't like draws - it's the only time the hooter at the end of a close game is met with a groan from all sides of the ground. People came to see a result on the day, and this would guarantee them one.

As predicted.

The crazy thing is appealing to tradition in a game that brought in limited tackles within living memory. We are the innovators, let's keep innovating.

What's wrong with a draw for the competition?! A draw can be really entertaining. Wigan have been involved in a couple this year and I didn't think at the end of those "Ooh that's a bad result for the competition"

The draw today with Hull and Saints was very entertaining to watch and having Hull win by 0.5 wouldn't have made it a better match to watch.

Maybe I'm just not understanding when you say "better for the competition" because if you say it makes it a better spectacle, therefore making the competition seem more attractive I don't think it will make it more attractive than a draw would personally. And if you mean gifting the home team 2 points for the win instead of dropping 1 point for the league standings, I don't think gifting points to teams would increase the competition either.

I dont think that draws are causing attendances to drop. They happen rarely anyway and if you have equal points scored on the day, then surely you should take an half of the points.

The excitement that can be caused when a team are chasing the game to try and get back points could be lost, because they knew even if they were to score, they wouldnt get anything anyway.

It couldn't be used at the Magic Weekend or some internationals due to neutral venues.

And if it can't be used for every game in the season it won't be used at all.

Personally I like draws anyway

Or the way round where you could score a 6.5 point try at home ?!

I agree with Starbug.

What is this obsession with desperately needing a winner? Both teams have 80 mins to score points. If one team can't score more than the other then neither deserve the win. A draw is a fair result.

See my post above. but I can prove that people enjoy them too.

Leeds vs Wigan this year - I definitely didn't walk away from the ground groaning because we drew the match.

Hull vs Saints - when Foster kicked that penalty not many Saints fans looked like they were groaning because they'd just drawn level and would probably take a point from the match.

You might get fans groaning because they hadn't won the match after being in front (which would be exactly the same if they'd lost the match as well by the way) but the fans of the team that have equalised to get the draw wouldn't be moaning.

What's wrong with a draw? While the game itself may be entertaining, the conclusion is unsatisfying for many. I don't think it has a big impact on attendances, but given that this solution is free to implement, I don't think the size of the impact has to be great for the change to be worth making.

Really, this is an equivalent to the away goals rule in soccer, a rule introduced for entertainment driven purposes and one seldom if ever questioned now. You might not like it being term as half a point so let's put it another way. The home side starts with the points. The away side has to get them off them by beating them. If they can't do that, the points stay with the home side. Of course, I say points, we would only need a point a win in this system.

If a fan buys a ticket for a game, they are entitled to see a result that day. We are missing a trick when we fail to market our games as one-off contests as well as contributing to the league campaign.

Not a total fruit loop on this - the ockers obviously see what I see, they just haven't thought of as good a solution. MM is a problem though - lowest placed finishing side designated as home team perhaps? Especially if it remains the opening round. Then the advantage of drawing a lower placed side than you in the extra fixture is partially negated.

Just what have people got against draws? A RL game is 80 minutes. If you can't win in that time then you don't deserve to. You might as well play first to 40 wins or something.

I understand the limited tackle, even remember the 4 tackle option but what you are suggesting is just 4ckin daft.

Not so daft. Soccer uses an effective half goal for the side that scored the most away goals, cricket similar with the Ashes - Strauss's side only had to match Australia to keep the trophy, thanks to the achievements of Vaughan and a number of different players. If this is such a daft idea, we'd be seeing better arguments against it. Only one I can see is that too many fans will irrationally hate it because they're Luddites.

there is no risk/reward issue with it. That would be my issue. It requires no skill, no ability, nothing.

I think we would be better looking at opportunities for more/less points to reduce the number of draws, For example 3 point conversions than 0.5pt handicap for the away side.

The difference is football only uses away goals for a tie over 2 legs when there has to be a winner because it's a knockout competition. Regular league matches never have this condition to them. I mean I can't remember Spurs beating nal a couple of weeks ago because in the fixture before they scored more. They got a draw. you know, that thing you're trying to make out that football doesn't have?!

For knockout competitions where football would use the away goal or extra time rules Rugby League already use the golden point so there are no draws. Just look at the challenge cup matches and play off games. For matches in the league football has draws. just like we do in rugby league. How are you not getting that there are differences in the competitions and Rugby League already have golden point which is used in the same circumstances that football would bring in those daft away goal rules etc?

And in cricket that was in a test series. Rugby league already have this. hence why when we drew the series with the Kiwis not too many years ago we actually got the trophy, because NZ actually had to beat us to take it rather than drawing the series

Football has to put up with draws because the nature of it makes it a regular occurrence. Our scoring system means they are rare and they cannot be played for. They don't need to be part of our game.

Of course I understand the requirement for a result is not the same for a league match as in a cup competition. But that doesn't preclude a result on the day being a desirable result. In the end, I don't think the joy the team that scores last to gain the draw equals the disappointment their opponents feel, in the same way it does in a win-lose situation. To help maximise audience satisfaction, the draw should be eliminated.

It's common to bash Aus/US innovations, but we all know they tend to be successful and we tend to take them on. NRL tries to minimise draws, as I understand it most US sports have overtime. We could benefit from thinking along the same lines.

Nothing wrong with a draw which is I believe a fairer result that having a winner by golden point

To suggest that something has a solution implies that there is a problem in the first place – the vast majority of people on these boards agree that draws are a fair result in the majority of situations and, by very definition of being close contests, are usually good games

The away goal in football is not a good analogy – these were introduced to stop away teams playing for the draw and penalties (and hence very boring games). I cannot recall seeing a Rugby League team playing for a draw with a defensive based game

Draws are usually good, for 79 minutes and 59 seconds. But it's not just me who thinks there's a problem with them. If only I'd been born one hundred and ten years earlier, I would have suggested this at the George and you'd all be poo-pooing anyone who suggested getting rid of it. Born in the wrong century and the wrong country by the looks of it, the Seppos have the right idea - a tie is like kissing your sister ( I don't have a sister, I'll have to take their word for it). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tie_(draw) I don't doubt RL can survive keeping the draw. I think it could have survived not bring in the 40:20. But that's not a reason not to bring either of those rule changes in.

Draws are usually good, for 79 minutes and 59 seconds. But it's not just me who thinks there's a problem with them. If only I'd been born one hundred and ten years earlier, I would have suggested this at the George and you'd all be poo-pooing anyone who suggested getting rid of it. Born in the wrong century and the wrong country by the looks of it, the Seppos have the right idea - a tie is like kissing your sister ( I don't have a sister, I'll have to take their word for it). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tie_(draw) I don't doubt RL can survive keeping the draw. I think it could have survived not bring in the 40:20. But that's not a reason not to bring either of those rule changes in.

Quote ="af"Draws are usually good, for 79 minutes and 59 seconds. But it's not just me who thinks there's a problem with them. If only I'd been born one hundred and ten years earlier, I would have suggested this at the George and you'd all be poo-pooing anyone who suggested getting rid of it. Born in the wrong century and the wrong country by the looks of it, the Seppos have the right idea - a tie is like kissing your sister ( I don't have a sister, I'll have to take their word for it). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tie_(draw) I don't doubt RL can survive keeping the draw. I think it could have survived not bring in the 40:20. But that's not a reason not to bring either of those rule changes in.'" You are a loony , or more likely just a wind up merchant

Quote ="af"Draws are usually good, for 79 minutes and 59 seconds. But it's not just me who thinks there's a problem with them. If only I'd been born one hundred and ten years earlier, I would have suggested this at the George and you'd all be poo-pooing anyone who suggested getting rid of it. Born in the wrong century and the wrong country by the looks of it, the Seppos have the right idea - a tie is like kissing your sister ( I don't have a sister, I'll have to take their word for it). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tie_(draw) I don't doubt RL can survive keeping the draw. I think it could have survived not bring in the 40:20. But that's not a reason not to bring either of those rule changes in.'" You are a loony , or more likely just a wind up merchant