Introduction of bonus points to 6 Nations

Rattlehead_ie

Edwards Backs 6N Points system

Discuss?

I would for the most part welcome the idea of the bonus point system being introduced.

Imhof Tank

Dont think bonus points could work without a home and away format.

pd101

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Dont think bonus points could work without a home and away format.

Yeah I agree. I don't think it would be very good for us either as we cant run in four tries against teams as easy as France.

Stev_o

pd101 wrote: »

Yeah I agree. I don't think it would be very good for us either as we cant run in four tries against teams as easy as France.

But thats the point. They are supposed to reward those who can and most of time its teams that play attractive rugby that will achieve this. Like if you compare France now and France under Laporte the big question mark is over if Livermont can win the 6N with this fast flowing rugby remember France was able to win it through very stale means that last number of years. So if Livermont fails to win people may think "Hey why dont you go back to the old style of rugby that seemed to win us matches"

You have to award teams for trying to score tries and for teams that hang in there or else this tournament will get as stale as the 3N

Colm_OReilly

From wikipedia:

The bonus point system creates the odd but interesting situation where, out of two teams, the one with a lesser win-draw-loss record can sit higher on the table, based on how many bonus points they earn. Notably, the 2002 Six Nations Championship would have seen England win the competition on points difference over Grand Slam winners France if the bonus points system had been in place and all scorelines, including numbers of tries scored, had been the same under these different circumstances.

Imhof Tank

For the sake of argument, if the tournament developed into a duel between Ireland, England and France, then this year we would have 2 away games against our main rivals, France would have 2 home games and England would have one home and one away.

This already gives France a huge advantage (relative to Ireland and England) this year – and a corresponding disadvantage next year.

If it is accepted that bonus points are easier to gain at home – then their introduction would makes France’s scheduling advantage this year be even more pronounced.

Eoin

Colm_OReilly wrote: »

From wikipedia:

IMO that's enough reason alone not to introduce it.

toomevara

I'd like to see it trialled. I think it creates a more interesting and competitive tournament, and while I accept that the scheduling is uneven, at least over every two year cycle its ironed out...

I'm not so sure that the home bonus point argument holds up when subjected to serious scrutiny.

rockman15

i think the bonus system would certainly breathe some running rugby back into the game. Stop the forwards pick and smash game that seems to be prevailing in this hemisphere, it would certianly encourage more spectators, champagne rugby...and so what if the French run circles around us???we have to get better and start running circles around them.

keep in mind these are professionals, home field advantage i dont think plays as big a role as its hyped up. Didnt England beat the French in Paris in the WC and France beat us last year in Croker? Home "advantage" is slowley being chipped away...

Stealdo

No, no, no, no, never, no.

While I think the bonus point system is a great incentive for teams to play more attacking rugby the 6 Nations championship is now unique in the world in the winner-take-all nature of the games. It works as others have said where there are home/away games or in neutral venued games, but just look at the nature of some HC games where teams target a losing bonus point away from home etc, that should never be allowed to corrupt the championship.

Think about what the bonus point system would do for the championship and it can be solved in a much simpler fashion. I don't think anyone would suggest that a team winning the GS should not win the Championship, so we can toss aside that argument. The only time it is really needed is when two teams finish on 8 points. (there's the occasional situation where three teams finish together, but that's very rare). In that situaion the only anomoly that needs to be corrected is where the team that won the match between those two sides loses on points diff. That is very easily solved by changing the points diff rule to being decided by the winner of the match between those sides. Do this, and there is no use for a bonus point system. This would have meant that France won the Champ last year by virtue of having beaten Ireland, not by scoring a try against Scotland in the last second, which would have taken some of the drama out of the last day, but, who would disagree that an Irish Championship last year wouldn't have been devalued by the fact that we lost to the team that came second? by the same token Ireland would have won the championship in 2001.

il gatto

Keep it pure. Leave well enough alone. The lack of attacking rugby is largely due to the lack of decent players in the right positions in half the countries involved at the current time. It means you're left with Ireland-France, Ireland-Wales and France-Wales as the only prospective matches with good attacking rugby.

An Tarbh

I think it's a nonsense idea, people want more excitement in the Six Nations, well how much more excitement can you get than the finish we had to last year's championship with it deciced on the final play, had the bonus point system been in place then the France Scotland game would have been irrelevant as the championship would have already been decided.

Podge_irl

Stev_o wrote: »

You have to award teams for trying to score tries and for teams that hang in there or else this tournament will get as stale as the 3N

It's been around for over a hundred years and hasn't gone stale yet....

Filan

I believe that had it existed last season Ireland would have won!

themont85

Bonus points won't work in the 6 nations format. While I like seeing it in the H cup, its a bit unfair the way teams drawn with a weak Italian side can rack up the bonus points whilst in a tight group like leinsters and munsters this year the games were closer and far harder to get the 4 try bonus point.

Imhof Tank

Filan wrote: »

I believe that had it existed last season Ireland would have won!

Yes but if bonus points counted last season (or at any time) then match win points would presumably have been changed from 2 to 4, as in the H Cup.

Taking the results of previous year's 6N tournaments and retrospectively applying hypothetical bonus points means nothing unless you also adjust the points for match wins.

Podge_irl

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Yes but if bonus points counted last season (or at any time) then match win points would presumably have been changed from 2 to 4, as in the H Cup.

Taking the results of previous year's 6N tournaments and retrospectively applying hypothetical bonus points means nothing unless you also adjust the points for match wins.

Ireland and France had the same number of wins, so that is irrelevant.

I don't think there is any need for bonus points, and with a home or away structure it wouldn't be especially fair. If it ain't broken etc etc.

Imhof Tank

Well, I suppose my point was maybe more relevant to the wikipedia extract quoted by Colm O'Reilly:-


"The bonus point system creates the odd but interesting situation where, out of two teams, the one with a lesser win-draw-loss record can sit higher on the table, based on how many bonus points they earn. Notably, the 2002 Six Nations Championship would have seen England win the competition on points difference over Grand Slam winners France if the bonus points system had been in place and all scorelines, including numbers of tries scored, had been the same under these different circumstances"

In the scenario referred to, England would have finished ahead of France despite winning less matches. This wouldnt have been the case if you assume 4 points for a win instead of 2.

Podge_irl

Actually, I believe that wiki article takes into account the need to allow 4 points for a winning team. I'm not going to check the match reports, but seemingly England would have had 5 bonus points to France's 1 and a better points difference. That alone is enough for me to not want them. But ultimately, I don't think they are necessary either.

Imhof Tank

Yes, I have looked at the archive - you are correct.

However, if bps had been part of the equation that season, no doubt France would have approached match situations differently - going for tries if they knew they needed them etc

Podge_irl

Imhof Tank wrote: »

However, if bps had been part of the equation that season, no doubt France would have approached match situations differently - going for tries if they knew they needed them etc

Oh, I have no doubt. But the point isn't really whether it ever would have happened, the fact that it is possible is reason enough not to introduce them.

Imhof Tank

Podge_irl wrote: »

Oh, I have no doubt. But the point isn't really whether it ever would have happened, the fact that it is possible is reason enough not to introduce them.

Agreed

Peter B

If we are looking for better running, attacking rugby I'd say it is not the competition point system that needs to be changed but the type of ball. If we could change the ball-type to a ball where you could not kick so far or accurately, then 10 yard to half way line penalties would be taken less often. There would be less booting down the field and less kicking to touch.

IIRC the ball in the early 90s was not nearly as good as the one used today resulting in lots of real attacking, running rugby.