Bonus points in 6N

moycullen14

From Gerry Thornley in the IT. What do ye all think? It would make it more interesting, that's for sure.

One final thought. The argument against introducing a bonus points scoring system as applies in virtually every other competition in the world, even in the World Cup during the pool stages, is that it goes against the wonderful traditions of the Five/Six Nations, and that conceivably, a team could win a Grand Slam and not be crowned champions.

The odds on the latter are, it has to be said, somewhat remote, for it would require the Grand Slam winners to pick up five wins without a solitary bonus point, with one of the beaten foes to pick up a bonus point in that game, and win all their other four with try-scoring bonus points.

Besides, it could be written into the rules that if a team wins all five games they are automatically declared champions regardless of bonus points.

In any event, were the Six Nations to have a bonus points system, Wales would be on 16 points (four wins, no bonus), Ireland would be next on 13 (two wins, one draw, two try bonus, one losing bonus), ahead of England on points difference (three wins, one losing bonus), France would be on 12 (two wins, one draw, one try bonus, one losing bonus), with Scotland on two losing bonus points and Italy on one losing bonus point.

In other words, instead of a fait accompli for the Welsh, any one of four teams could still in theory win the championship. Ireland would still be in with a chance if they beat England, and Wales lost to France. It would certainly have made for a more interesting finale. Oh well.

dulpit

I think it's a bit bizarre that all other rugby competitions have gone down the route of bonus points, but the 6 nations have not...

Would the introduction of bonus points have changed the results of previous championships?

bilston

You are far far far more likely to gain bonus point wins in home games than away games, any team with 3 home games would be at a huge advantage.

.ak

The only way it'd work is if they restructured the format - every team plays home and away, like the Tri-Nations or whateveritscallednow.

moycullen14

No idea if it would have made a difference to the actual results but it would certainly have made a difference to way teams would have played, particularly towards the end of games.

A game like Ireland V Scotland on Saturday would have more interesting towards the end as Ireland went for the BP try. As it was, it was a pretty tame ending as Ireland never looked like losing.

The combination of home & away games, best runner up and bonus points is what makes the HC so exciting. Almost every game has some effect on the overall result.

Only a bizarre set of results at the w/end will deny Wales a championship.

Rattlehead_ie

If we are all honest with ourselves we all know why this idea of the bonus point is being pushed (a little bit more than normal) right now. Its because somewhere along the line in the Welsh game the Irish players, coaches or management weren't switched on and we lost a game we should have won.

If it was the other way around and we were in Wales position I think there would be a lil less push for the bonus point being implemented. Now don't get me wrong I think the bonus point is a great idea, but it doesn't work in the 6Ns as .ak already stated the fact there isn't a home AND away game gives certain teams a huge advantage. The only non home/away comp its in is the RWC where all teams are away except the hosts.

prospect

Regardless of this years competition or its outcome (I think Wales deserve the title myself), I think the Bonus point system would generally make more exciting games, as teams try to increase/decrease winning margins for bonus points.

Dealing with the 3 home game advantage every second year is a bit more difficult. Maybe they could introduce a 7th team, then everyone would have 3 home and 3 away games?

Dear Romania, fancy playing in the RBS 7 nations?

rrpc

Rattlehead_ie wrote: »

If we are all honest with ourselves we all know why this idea of the bonus point is being pushed (a little bit more than normal) right now. Its because somewhere along the line in the Welsh game the Irish players, coaches or management weren't switched on and we lost a game we should have won.

If it was the other way around and we were in Wales position I think there would be a lil less push for the bonus point being implemented. Now don't get me wrong I think the bonus point is a great idea, but it doesn't work in the 6Ns as .ak already stated the fact there isn't a home AND away game gives certain teams a huge advantage. The only non home/away comp its in is the RWC where all teams are away except the hosts.

And in that case, the bonus points only work in the pool stages where it's used to decide who goes into the knockouts with two teams being the 'winners'.

I think we'd have won two championships in the last ten years if there were bonus points, but it's a bit of a case of 'if my auntie had balls..."

Clareman

I don't think it's fair to do the calculations for bonus points on this years championship, Wales could have pushed on against Scotland for a bp and didn't. IMVHO the bp is 1 of the best introductions into rugby in the pro era, you no longer have games over after 50 minutes (too often) as 1 team is trying to stop a team getitng a bp while the other is going for it, either that or if a team is 10 points down they are pushing to get a losing bp.

If they are worried about a team getting a Slam and not winning, easy, have it in the rules that if a team wins all 5 games they are automatically awarded a bp in every game (i.e. a Slam is automatically worth 25 points)

Neil3030

The traditionalist in me says no thanks to the bonus point system. I find the Six Nations to be sufficiently enthralling in its present format.

That said, I wouldn't object were it brought in.

Deano7788

prospect wrote: »

Dealing with the 3 home game advantage every second year is a bit more difficult. Maybe they could introduce a 7th team, then everyone would have 3 home and 3 away games?

Dear Romania, fancy playing in the RBS 7 nations?

The problem with this is finding the extra week in the calender (which is pretty full) to play the extra round of games. The season is already pretty long for British and Irish teams, and I really don't think French clubs would be happy, as their season is already ridiculously long and we saw the fuss that was kicked up over the rescheduling of the Irish game.

Podge_irl

Deano7788 wrote: »

The problem with this is finding the extra week in the calender (which is pretty full) to play the extra round of games. The season is already pretty long for British and Irish teams, and I really don't think French clubs would be happy, as their season is already ridiculously long and we saw the fuss that was kicked up over the rescheduling of the Irish game.

7 teams would require an extra two weeks.

I don't see the need or sense in bonus points in such a short competition that is already lopsided by it's home or away format. Yes, with them then things will still be all to play for, but as far as I'm concerned a team with 4 wins should beat a team with 3 wins and a draw anyway.

Cardinal Richelieu

dulpit wrote: »

I think it's a bit bizarre that all other rugby competitions have gone down the route of bonus points, but the 6 nations have not...

Would the introduction of bonus points have changed the results of previous championships?

I think it was Setanta that covered it last week, it would make it more exciting but they pointed out that if bonus points were applied to the 2002 season when France won the Grand Slam, England would have won the Championship on points.

http://www.rbs6nations.com/en/ireland/18813.php

Deano7788

Podge_irl wrote: »

7 teams would require an extra two weeks.

I don't see the need or sense in bonus points in such a short competition that is already lopsided by it's home or away format. Yes, with them then things will still be all to play for, but as far as I'm concerned a team with 4 wins should beat a team with 3 wins and a draw anyway.

Yeah, just realised I miscalculated that, although that just supports my point even more.

I'd agree with you, I'd rather leave the system the way it is as well, especially with all this talk of bringing in extra rules to guarantee the Grand Slam, like granting them extra points for winning all games. Then we'd still have a different points system to every other competition, where on top of 4 try and losing bonus points we'd have Grand Slam bonus points. If the Grand Slam is to be preserved above all else then just leave the system the way it is.

Deano7788

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

I think it was Setanta that covered it last week, it would make it more exciting but they pointed out that if bonus points were applied to the 2002 season when France won the Grand Slam, England would have won the Championship on points.

http://www.rbs6nations.com/en/ireland/18813.php

I think in this situation they would both have finished on 21 points and that could have been decided by the head to head result rather than the points difference, like in the Heineken Cup, so France would still have won.
However, head to head wouldn't really be fair either as it wouldn't be over 2 matches, so the home team would obviously have the advantage

Cardinal Richelieu

Deano7788 wrote: »

I think in this situation they would both have finished on 21 points and that could have been decided by the head to head result rather than the points difference, like in the Heineken Cup, so France would still have won.
However, head to head wouldn't really be fair either as it wouldn't be over 2 matches, so the home team would obviously have the advantage

Where did you get 21 points from? Only two points for a win and 1 for a draw in the 6 Nations.

France finished on 10 points and England on 8 but if the bonus point system was applied England outscored France 5-1 so final table would be France 11, England 13.

Deano7788

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Where did you get 21 points from? Only two points for a win and 1 for a draw in the 6 Nations.

France finished on 10 points and England on 8 but if the bonus point system was applied England outscored France 5-1 so final table would be France 11, England 13.

The introduction of bonus points would also see the 4 points for a win etc. points system introduced (Thornley states that Wales would be on 16 points with 4 wins and no bonus points), so that's where I got 21. They couldn't keep the current system and add a bonus point because you'd get the same for finishing within 7 as you would for a draw.

phog

Third thread with the BP being mentioned for the 6Ns but here goes, unless they reformat the 6Ns championship to a home/away tournament then I honestly dont believe the BP sytem is fair as it seems to favour the home team and it would do away with the Grand Slam winner unless they bring in extra BPs for the team that wins all their games.

rainbowdash

If its not broken don't fix it.

I like the simplicity of winner takes it all and no looking at permutations all the time. Just go out to win your own games and worry about nothing else.

Bonus points would also require the final series of matches to be played at the same time so nobody has an advantage in knowing what they have to do, whereas at the moment the last series of games can be played consecutively because everybody knows the objective is just to win.

Eoin

I don't think the home/away fixtures would make bonus points any more unfair (for lack of a better word) than it is now.

rainbowdash wrote: »

Bonus points would also require the final series of matches to be played at the same time so nobody has an advantage in knowing what they have to do, whereas at the moment the last series of games can be played consecutively because everybody knows the objective is just to win.

Not too sure about that - I think there've been a few years where a team going into the match knew what margin they needed. France v Scotland in 2007 rings a bell but I'm not 100% sure about that.

Overall I agree with Neil3030 though; I think it's grand the way it is, but if BPs were to be introduced, I wouldn't be too upset.

Podge_irl

Eoin wrote: »

I don't think the home/away fixtures would make bonus points any more unfair (for lack of a better word) than it is now.

It would exacerbate it slightly. You're much more likely to get a TBP against Italy at home then you are in Rome. You're also much more likely to get one in the last week then in the first actually.

I just think for such a short tournament they skew things a bit too much. I don't see any real value in them. In a 6 team tournament where everyone plays each other once, I'm happy for the team with the most wins to get the championship. To be honest, I'd almost prefer they went back to shared championships over the silly points difference differential they use at the moment for a similar reason.

danthefan

rainbowdash wrote: »

Bonus points would also require the final series of matches to be played at the same time so nobody has an advantage in knowing what they have to do, whereas at the moment the last series of games can be played consecutively because everybody knows the objective is just to win.

This isn't really true, because points difference can come into it, and the team playing last can know that if they win by X amount of points they'll win the championship.

rainbowdash

danthefan wrote: »

This isn't really true, because points difference can come into it, and the team playing last can know that if they win by X amount of points they'll win the championship.

That's true I suppose but with bonus points it would become more clinical, I would imagine.

OT but it used to be that teams who finished equal on match win/draw points shared the championship, up until about the mid 1990's I believe.

tolosenc

Rattlehead_ie wrote: »

The only non home/away comp its in is the RWC where all teams are away except the hosts.

But because there are fewer games, winning all your games means you win the group (4W + 0BP = 16, 3W + 1L + 4BP = 16 [then split by head to head]).

tolosenc

Deano7788 wrote: »

The introduction of bonus points would also see the 4 points for a win etc. points system introduced (Thornley states that Wales would be on 16 points with 4 wins and no bonus points), so that's where I got 21. They couldn't keep the current system and add a bonus point because you'd get the same for finishing within 7 as you would for a draw.

Scoring 4 tries and losing by less than 7 = winning!

Eoin

Theoretically, you could get a losing bonus point and a 4 try bonus point in the one match, and therefore top the group with 17 points. That's just being very pedantic though!

onlyrocknroll

I actually would quite like the idea of separating the GS and title, more permutations of how the tournaments might end would make it more interesting. There would be bragging rights arguments over who is the 'real' champion, we could have 2-3 teams each year still competing for something meaningful etc.

However it would be an unfair format unless there was a two leg format, which would just make the tournament too long. And I do like the charm of the weird anachronistic structure to the 6Ns as it is now. Leave it be.

errlloyd

Firstly I'd agree a Grand Slam automatically wins it for you.

Now the home and away thing.

Firstly its already unfair, like it suits Ireland perfectly, England and France are traditionally strong, every second year we get both of them away. I think this is easier then Wales who will never really have an "Easy" year. (Although one could argue that we're better then England atm so they have an "Easy" year on evens this year).

In any case, its not fair as it stands, but actually bonus points might make it fairer.

Lets get some facts straight, if you have easy teams away, it means you have hard teams at home. On an even year, when we go away to France and England we should secure bonus points against Italy, Scotland and beat Wales. This year is a traditionally a "hard" year, but with all likelihood we're gonna get 3 or 4 bonus points which would really help our year.

Similarly our "easy" year is odd years. We'd have England and France at home, probably not picking up a single bonus point, and the other three away we'd be struggling to pick up bonus points. We might have more of a chance of winning more games, but certainly less of a chance of getting points.

Food for thought?

Flincher

I think bonus points should only come into it if teams are level on wins.

So if France and Wales both had 4 wins and 1 loss, then it would come down to bonus points as opposed to points difference.

i dont like it you would have to go to 10 games a year and that would destroy the club game

Flincher

Flincher wrote: »

I think bonus points should only come into it if teams are level on wins.

So if France and Wales both had 4 wins and 1 loss, then it would come down to bonus points as opposed to points difference.

i like this idea