Title decider

Fishtits

Given that two recent high profile matches have gone to extra time etc with various results.

What are your suggestions for resolving stalements?

I'm assuming that penalties are a never again.

?

anonymous_joe

Fishtits wrote: »

Given that two recent high profile matches have gone to extra time etc with various results.

What are your suggestions for resolving stalements?

I'm assuming that penalties are a never again.

?

To quote Les Kiss - nominate 5 kickers before the game and have them take the kicks. And do the shootout.

Martyn Williams miss got a lot of attention, but people forget the advantage Leicester had in an ex-footballer in Crane (I think) taking their last one. Seems that picking your best kickers before would make it fairer.

Serenity Now!

Scrap the 10 mins a side extra time and just go 'golden point' like rugby league in 30 mins max (two halves). First score wins.

Penalty shootouts are just not rugby. I don't think either team fully knew the criteria for winning the AIB League final today until it was announced over the PA either.

irishbucsfan

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Scrap the 10 mins a side extra time and just go 'golden point' like rugby league in 30 mins max (two halves). First score wins.

What if there's no score after 30 minutes?

chupacabra

Serenity Now! wrote: »

Scrap the 10 mins a side extra time and just go 'golden point' like rugby league in 30 mins max (two halves). First score wins.

Penalty shootouts are just not rugby. I don't think either team fully knew the criteria for winning the AIB League final today until it was announced over the PA either.

No, if there was a golden point system, the team recieving the kick off already have a massive advantage in that they are almost given posession right off the bat. 5 kickers, 5 shots at goal, repeat. This is the best way.

Podge_irl

anonymous_joe wrote: »

To quote Les Kiss - nominate 5 kickers before the game and have them take the kicks. And do the shootout.

Martyn Williams miss got a lot of attention, but people forget the advantage Leicester had in an ex-footballer in Crane (I think) taking their last one. Seems that picking your best kickers before would make it fairer.

What if some of your nominated kickers get injured?

My choice would be to go on most trys scored.

If the try count is the same,
When it goes to extra time take 3 players from each team and have uncontested scrums,keep playing and if no try is scored in extra time take 2 more players off until a try is scored.

So basically you would have no front row and if no try is scored then you have no front 5.Have some sort of makeshift scrum instead.

anonymous_joe

Podge_irl wrote: »

What if some of your nominated kickers get injured?

In that case pick a replacement.

But to use Leinster as an example:

Sexton, Kearney, Fitz, Nacewa maybe BOD.

Someone gets injured pick another, anyone. Ignore who is or is not on the pitch (i.e. let subs be kickers) simply because we all know what a joke it'd be if a guy like Hayes is being asked to kick to decide a final.

irishbucsfan

Daniela Flaky Fatigues wrote: »

My choice would be to go on most trys scored.

If the try count is the same,
When it goes to extra time take 3 players from each team and have uncontested scrums,keep playing and if no try is scored in extra time take 2 more players off until a try is scored.

So basically you would have no front row and if no try is scored then you have no front 5.Have some sort of makeshift scrum instead.

That could never happen in a million years. The whole reason extra time is limited to 20 minutes is because of the health risk of playing rugby for 100 minutes. To then take players off teams (thus reducing the number of players on the pitch and increasing the work rate) would be even unhealthier.

Penalty shootouts with preselected kickers would be nicer (even with just one kicker, but move the place the kick is from until one kicker is the winner... or something like that) than what we've got.

Deciding the game like this is unfair.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That could never happen in a million years. The whole reason extra time is limited to 20 minutes is because of the health risk of playing rugby for 100 minutes. To then take players off teams (thus reducing the number of players on the pitch and increasing the work rate) would be even unhealthier.

Penalty shootouts with preselected kickers would be nicer (even with just one kicker, but move the place the kick is from until one kicker is the winner... or something like that) than what we've got.

Deciding the game like this is unfair.

What are you on about health risk?
The reason the time is added on is to decide a winner,no more no less and 20 minutes allows a nice amount of time each half.

These are proffesional athelites,they can easily keep going.
If not then when extra time comes take 3 players off each team,if at half time of extra time comes and its the same take 2 more player off.

Chucky the tree

They can easily keep going? Did you not see the state of the players after the final whistle went? It's hard enough getting players to go 80minutes let alone 100+ minutes.

Chucky the tree

Chucky the tree wrote: »

They can easily keep going? Did you not see the state of the players after the final whistle went? It's hard enough getting players to go 80minutes let alone 100+ minutes.

Ok well if they cant keep going then at the start of extra time take either 3 or 5 players off and continue and keep taking them off in 3 minute intervals until a try is scored.

You get the jist.

topcelt

if after 80

Min's

the scores are tied both teams loose the full back

straight

away for extra time then 14 , 13 and so on every 2

Min's

extra time of 30

Min's

with golden try only if you only score

penalties

or

dg's

must play the full extra time

phog

Daniela Flaky Fatigues wrote: »

What are you on about health risk?
The reason the time is added on is to decide a winner,no more no less and 20 minutes allows a nice amount of time each half.

These are proffesional athelites,they can easily keep going.
If not then when extra time comes take 3 players off each team,if at half time of extra time comes and its the same take 2 more player off.

I think the OP was asking about the professional game and the amateur (ish) AIL, it would be hard to expect an AIL game to go on longer than 100 minutes especially on a hot sunny day like yesterday.

Golden score is harsh because the teams that gets the kick off has the field advantage.

Depleting the team numbers during extra time might be an option but if still a draw after the extra time what then? There's no easy option thats for sure.

RuggieBear

replay or share it imo.

Benny Cake

I reckon the penalty kicks should be kept but in a different format. It is unfair to ask players that have no experience of kicking to decide their teams fate. My proposed rules would be:
1. Each team nominates 1 kicker
2. Each takes a kick on from positions 1 through 5
3. If teams are level proceed to position 6 through 8 on a sudden death basis (I drew the diagram for a right footed kicker, the kicker can kick from the other side if he wishes)
4. If still tied, start again at position 1 and continue around until someone misses.

This way it is the experienced kickers that decide the resut not some misfortunate prop!!

Podge_irl

D_Red_Army wrote: »

I reckon the penalty kicks should be kept but in a different format. It is unfair to ask players that have no experience of kicking to decide their teams fate. My proposed rules would be:
1. Each team nominates 1 kicker
2. Each takes a kick on from positions 1 through 5
3. If teams are level proceed to position 6 through 8 on a sudden death basis (I drew the diagram for a right footed kicker, the kicker can kick from the other side if he wishes)
4. If still tied, start again at position 1 and continue around until someone misses.

However, as pointed out before, that massively disadvantages a team whose primary kicker is injured in the game. As ridiculous as props taking kicks might be, I think its more ridiculous for 28 players to watch on as 2 players decide the match.

escobar

Podge_irl wrote: »

However, as pointed out before, that massively disadvantages a team whose primary kicker is injured in the game. As ridiculous as props taking kicks might be, I think its more ridiculous for 28 players to watch on as 2 players decide the match.

The whole idea of deciding a match this way is ridiculous....I mean is it rugby or soccer they're playing....

Crash

I still prefer the RWC rules way of deciding it - five kicks, five nominated kickers, one under the posts, one half way between posts and touch line, one at touchline, on each side. Each kicker may take one kick out of the five.

Chances of it going past 5 are a bit lower, and if so repeat, players arent humiliated by attempting something they've never done before - either that or just find a way to replay the damn thing - we all know thats not feasible in a lot of cases.

Podge_irl

Crash wrote: »

I still prefer the RWC rules way of deciding it - five kicks, five nominated kickers, one under the posts, one half way between posts and touch line, one at touchline, on each side. Each kicker may take one kick out of the five.

It's a much better idea. Adds some element of tactics to it as to where you put your best kickers.

Serenity Now!

ffs, there's enough kicking in the bloody game already :rolleyes:

Serenity Now!

chupacabra wrote: »

No, if there was a golden point system, the team recieving the kick off already have a massive advantage in that they are almost given posession right off the bat

Thats what a coin toss is for :rolleyes:

escobar

Serenity Now! wrote: »

ffs, there's enough kicking in the bloody game already :rolleyes:

Those damn elv's ....there must be a better way to decide a match...

Diamondmaker

NRL games regulalry go to golden point its no big deal.

G Murphy however when being interviewd on this noted correctly that golden point then can put a dodgy ref decision as the decider, but then again that can happen at any point during the game.

Sudden death golden point works well in NRL so why not union ?

escobar

Diamondmaker wrote: »

NRL games regulalry go to golden point its no big deal.

G Murphy however when being interviewd on this noted correctly that golden point then can put a dodgy ref decision as the decider, but then again that can happen at any point during the game.

Sudden death golden point works well in NRL so why not union ?

It's ahorrible way to have to decide a match. props kicking etc....

don't really see the relevance with league. It's a completely different game they kick away the ball at least every 5 plays anyway....

danthefan

A dodgy reffing decision can decide the course of any game at any stage, in normal play or in extra time.

escobar

They mentioned the game on ruggamatrix saying it was a terrible way to have to decide a match and suggested playing extra time and taking some players off if need be.

Maybe it could be decided on a next try wins scenario, it's already used in soccer and would be a fairer way of deciding the result.

Serenity Now!

escobar wrote: »

Those damn elv's ....there must be a better way to decide a match...

I wasn't referring to any ELVs. Rugby union has had heaps of kicking for years regardless of how teams refuse to want to ruck in their own third of the field due to IRB reffing regulations of the breakdown.

Serenity Now!

escobar wrote: »

don't really see the relevance with league

The relevance with rugby league is that games are decided by golden points and not some stupid equivalent of a cricket bowl-out.

Crash

Yeah but IMO you can expect a golden try in League to some extent -more space, defenses often not quite as strong (or rather not needing to be so for long phases of play) and much more end to end rugby, so its reasonable to expect. Not so much in Union.

Serenity Now!

Crash wrote: »

Yeah but IMO you can expect a golden try in League to some extent -more space, defenses often not quite as strong (or rather not needing to be so for long phases of play) and much more end to end rugby, so its reasonable to expect. Not so much in Union.

Lol!
Sorry but I had to laugh at that, not only for having played both codes of rugby myself but the irony of the huge number of rugby league coaches being employed in rugby union for...defence!

Crash

Ok true, fair enough but at the same time defenses are required to shift around the pitch faster, but again only for shorter periods of the game.

justsomebloke

what we need is a ice hockey type thing. You basically have a one on one match with one player with the ball on the 22 against one defender who starts from the ingoal area and see if the attacker can score without being tackled

Serenity Now!

Joe the Santa wrote: »

what we need is a ice hockey type thing. You basically have a one on one match with one player with the ball on the 22 against one defender who starts from the ingoal area and see if the attacker can score without being tackled

Then some kick-the-can and a game of rounders maybe?

Crash

Ultimate frisbee-off. Discussion over.