K.O. Times next weekend~ fair or not?

Western Pomise

Just listening to panel on RTE....thought that a few times all the games on last wkd of 6 nations were played at same time?...may well be wrong....don't mind it at all as an Irishman but surely Ireland have an advantage,as they will take to field in France knowing exactly what need to be done.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Western Pomise wrote: »

Just listening to panel on RTE....thought that a few times all the games on last wkd of 6 nations were played at same time?...may well be wrong....don't mind it at all as an Irishman but surely Ireland have an advantage,as they will take to field in France knowing exactly what need to be done.

For commercial reasons you couldn't play all games at the sqme time. Sometimes it is the luck of the draw.

flazio

Can you imagine what a headache that would be for broadcasters if all games started at the same time?

ThisRegard

Western Pomise wrote: »

Just listening to panel on RTE....thought that a few times all the games on last wkd of 6 nations were played at same time?...may well be wrong....don't mind it at all as an Irishman but surely Ireland have an advantage,as they will take to field in France knowing exactly what need to be done.

A few years ago we were at a disadvantage when the top of the table was in a similar state to now and we played the first game of the day, Italy knicked a try at the death. It's just the way it is.

Quint2010

France always play last don't they? At least when they play at home they do.

Tin Foil Hat

Western Pomise wrote: »

Just listening to panel on RTE....thought that a few times all the games on last wkd of 6 nations were played at same time?...may well be wrong....don't mind it at all as an Irishman but surely Ireland have an advantage,as they will take to field in France knowing exactly what need to be done.

It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference from an irish point of view. If we win we've won, if we don't we won't. Simple. Doesn't matter if we're first, second or third.

marco_polo

I can see the point but the situations where it matters don't happen often enough to justify not being able to watch all three final games every year imo which is something I really enjoy about the 6n.

Tin Foil Hat

marco_polo wrote: »

I can see the point but the situations where it matters don't happen often enough to justify not being able to watch all three final games every year imo which is something I really enjoy about the 6n.

Same here. The scheduling cost us the championship in 2007. Even still, I wouldn't change it.

locum-motion

Western Pomise wrote: »

...thought that a few times all the games on last wkd of 6 nations were played at same time?...

Nope. Never happened. You might be thinking of the Heineken Cup, where the last pair of matches in each group are played at the same time.

Tin Foil Hat

Quint2010 wrote: »

France always play last don't they? At least when they play at home they do.

Hmm! Just checked there. They've played in the last fixture every year bar one this decade. They will play the final fixture again next season.
That does seem a little dodgy.

ballsymchugh

locum-motion wrote: »

Nope. Never happened. You might be thinking of the Heineken Cup, where the last pair of matches in each group are played at the same time.

5 nations matches were on at the same time way back. there was often a different match on bbc and rte

locum-motion

Quint2010 wrote: »

France always play last don't they? At least when they play at home they do.

Since the 5 Nations became the 6 Nations, France have played the last match of the last weekend on 5 occasions out of the 14 competitions. That's approx 1/3, which is about right.

4 of those 5 were at home.

However, I don't think there's a 'cause and effect' there, I think it's just the way it worked out.

thelad95

All games on at different times, one of the many flaws in the 6 nations I'm afraid. Other flaws include no bonus points, and the fact that a draw, in terms of the race for the championship is like a loss for both sides.

locum-motion

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

Hmm! Just checked there. They've played in the last fixture every year bar one this decade. They will play the final fixture again next season.
That does seem a little dodgy.

"This decade" is only 4 years old!

locum-motion

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

Same here. The scheduling cost us the championship in 2007. Even still, I wouldn't change it.

Scheduling didn't cost us the championship.

A bad decision by a TMO (who was Irish) awarded a late try that should never have been to France against Scotland. And that cost us the Championship.

marco_polo

thelad95 wrote: »

All games on at different times, one of the many flaws in the 6 nations I'm afraid. Other flaws include no bonus points, and the fact that a draw, in terms of the race for the championship is like a loss for both sides.

Well a draw is worse than a win in every competition so I don't get that point.

As to the other two points how could you introduce same starting times for fairness, while.also adding bonus points when there are an different number of home and away games for all teams?

Edit: I just think the final day of the six nations is one of the sporting jewels of the year and it would be a shame to lose it because it gives one team a slight advantage maybe once or twice a decade

Tin Foil Hat

locum-motion wrote: »

"This decade" is only 4 years old!

10,11,12,13,14 and, next year, 15
That'll be six seasons.

locum-motion

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

10,11,12,13,14 and, next year, 15
That'll be six seasons.

There was no year zero, so the first decade was 1-10.
The current decade is 2011-2020, the last one was 2001-2010 etc.

Tin Foil Hat

locum-motion wrote: »

There was no year zero, so the first decade was 1-10.
The current decade is 2011-2020, the last one was 2001-2010 etc.

Christ! I'm not going to do this pedantic nonsense on the rugby forum.

Tin Foil Hat

locum-motion wrote: »

Scheduling didn't cost us the championship.

A bad decision by a TMO (who was Irish) awarded a late try that should never have been to France against Scotland. And that cost us the Championship.

The French team of the last decade were notorious for knocking up a huge score, if needed. Granted, they got a bit of luck, but Ireland gave away two late tries against Italy trying to build the highest score possible. That wouldn't have happened if the fixtures were reversed, and we knew we had the points we needed.

cython

marco_polo wrote: »

Well a draw is worse than a win in every competition so I don't get that point.

As to the other two points how could you introduce same starting times for fairness, while.also adding bonus points when there are an different number of home and away games for all teams?

Edit: I just think the final day of the six nations is one of the sporting jewels of the year and it would be a shame to lose it because it gives one team a slight advantage maybe once or twice a decade

Not to mention that bonus points with the way that the tournament is scored (and even under the HC/Rabo scoring approach of 4 points for a win) could result in a scenario whereby a GS winner might not top the table and so a Grand Slam might not even mean winning the tournament!

Bonus points in a 5 round tournament with 6 teams just wouldn't work on several levels.

Thomas D

The competition is not based on absolute fairness with uneven home and away fixtures.

former legend

thelad95 wrote: »

All games on at different times, one of the many flaws in the 6 nations I'm afraid. Other flaws include no bonus points, and the fact that a draw, in terms of the race for the championship is like a loss for both sides.

None of the above are flaws IMO

thelad95

marco_polo wrote: »

Well a draw is worse than a win in every competition so I don't get that point.

As to the other two points how could you introduce same starting times for fairness, while.also adding bonus points when there are an different number of home and away games for all teams?

Edit: I just think the final day of the six nations is one of the sporting jewels of the year and it would be a shame to lose it because it gives one team a slight advantage maybe once or twice a decade

cython wrote: »

Not to mention that bonus points with the way that the tournament is scored (and even under the HC/Rabo scoring approach of 4 points for a win) could result in a scenario whereby a GS winner might not top the table and so a Grand Slam might not even mean winning the tournament!

Bonus points in a 5 round tournament with 6 teams just wouldn't work on several levels.

I've heard both these points before but the home/away thing is a disadvantage anyway, regardless of bonus points or no bonus points. As for the second scenario, it is extremely unlikely to happen because the strength of the teams in the tournament means it would be highly difficult to score 4 tries against 4 of the 5 teams in the tournament. In saying that, I remember in Ulster's Heineken Cup pool with Biarritz a couple of years ago, Biarritz had 4 wins to Ulster's 5 and Biarritz finished top and I remember thinking how grossly unfair this was at the time.

While, I agree that the final day of the 6 nations is a wonderful sporting event, I still think it would be exciting if all three kicked off at 5pm on the last Saturday. I can see how sponsors/broadcasters would be annoyed by this though.

Also, are the fixtures done randomly or do the Unions negotiate them? It can't be a coincidence that France more often than not seem to have the last fixture at home in Paris.

To combat the disadvantage of some teams having two home and three away fixtures does anyone think introducing a neutral fixture would be a viable prospect, having one every second weekend of the tournament. That way every side would have two home, two away and one neutral.

Some of these are radical steps and to be honest I don't really think the 6 nations needs reform but it does have flaws.

ThisRegard

Thomas D wrote: »

The competition is not based on absolute fairness with uneven home and away fixtures.

A country is to play 5 other countries, how could it be possible to have an even amount of home and away games?

Having all 3 games simultaneously would be a disaster for the public and such an anti climax to the tournament.

The Lost Sheep

ThisRegard wrote: »

A country is to play 5 other countries, how could it be possible to have an even amount of home and away games?

Having all 3 games simultaneously would be a disaster for the public and such an anti climax to the tournament.

Having all 3 games in last round of games simultaneously would be also be a disaster for the unions and their coffers. TV money and exposure of 7/8 hours of live coverage on 6 Nations weekend is €€€€. Changes and there would be less money and all unions lose in big way in terms of revenue

Sandwlch

ThisRegard wrote: »

A country is to play 5 other countries, how could it be possible to have an even amount of home and away games?

By playing each country home AND away for the championship ?

Tin Foil Hat

Sandwlch wrote: »

By playing each country home AND away for the championship ?

Best of luck finding five extra weekends in the schedule. Seven or eight, if you count rest weekends.

ThisRegard

Therefore extending it another 6 weeks or so? The clubs and other leagues, cups etc would love that.

Dravokivich

The only way it would be possible is if it was to be spread throughout the season. There'd be no room for the november internationals as a result. There'd be no use in it.

Theirs no room for bonus points as the focus should be on winning as much matches as possible. Bonus points are great for a league format with return fixtures and a good amount of competitors. But there's nothing it brings to a competitor over 5 matches, other than concentrating more on some oponents for try bonus and holding to others for losing bonus.

It should be that the champoins are those who won the most, by the most.

[Jackass]

As an Ireland and Leinster fan I can say it's definitely unfair, but for the first time I can remember, it's nice to be supporting the team with the advantage.

rrpc

[Jackass] wrote: »

As an Ireland and Leinster fan I can say it's definitely unfair, but for the first time I can remember, it's nice to be supporting the team with the advantage.

Sometimes having to chase a score can be as much of a disadvantage, you can often end up letting one or two in.

France don't just have to beat us, they have to chase England or Wales's score as well. Either one could be difficult as you'd expect their points difference to be over twenty at least by the last game.

locum-motion

I'm not sure that this is the right thread for the discussion of bonus points or not, but since it's come up, here's my tuppenceworth:

Bonus points are a great idea in full size leagues (Pro12, Super15) where a team that racks up lots of tries over a sustained campaign is rewarded for it.

They're also a great idea in the pool stage of the Heineken Cup; each 'league' is only 4 teams, but because they play H & A there's 6 matches each. This is a sufficient no. of matches for bonus points to come into the calculations of who is the best two second placed teams, and for the rankings of the 8 quarter finalists to determine who plays who, but is not such a large number of matches as to overturn the advantage of a team who wins all their games. To put it another way, if a team completes a 'Grand Slam' in their pool matches, it is highly unlikely - though not impossible - that they will not top their group and also highly unlikely - though again not impossible - for them not to have a home 1/4 final. However, even if the unlikely happens and they don't top their group, they're still likely to be in the competition (when has anyone ever got 24 points and not got through?) and can still win it.

In the RWC pool stages, there are 5 teams, and four matches. A four match campaign is not a long enough campaign for bonus points to make a difference. Look back over the results of previous cups. I'm fairly sure that you won't find any examples of the top two being any different if you were to recalculate with bonus points excluded. Usually most RWC groups finish with one team on 4 wins, one on 3, one on 2, one on 1 and one on 0. In these cases, bonus points are unlikely to make a difference*. Another scenario is where three/four teams all beat each other (A beats B, B beats C, C beats A, and all three beat D & E, or A beats B, B beats C, C beats D, D beats A and all four beat E) In these cases, BPs would be the decider, but I think it's never happened. Effectively, then, BP's in RWC merely act as a tiebreaker, so I'd have to question why they're there at all. If a tiebreaker is required, what's wrong with using good oul' Points Difference>Tries Difference>Points Scored>Tries Scored>Red Cards>Yellow Cards>Coin Toss? And would the result of these tiebreakers be any different than using BPs?

In the Six Nations, each team plays 5 games. This is enough for BPs to overturn a Grand Slam in some cases. Fair enough, it'd be rare and unlikely, but it could happen. And if it did, we'd all say that it had ruined that season's Championship. At least in the HH Cup scenario I outlined, the team who got overturned by BPs would still be in it and could still win. But not in the 6N. There's no 1/4 final to offer redemption in that. Week five comes, and that's it, it's over.

So, in summary, my opinion of BP's:

Leave them there in full-size leagues (Pro12, Super15) and in the Heineken. They add spice and interest over a long campaign.
Take them out of RWC. They serve no useful purpose.
Leave them out of Six Nations. They would fcuk it up.


* For BPs to make a difference in these cases, it would require the team on four wins to win all of them without scoring 4 tries, while the team on 3 wins loses to the other by <7 and scores 4 tries in all four matches. This team would top the group. But this scenario is off-the-charts unlikely.

Podge_irl

France got into the knockouts ahead of Tonga on BPs in 2011.

locum-motion

Podge_irl wrote: »

France got into the knockouts ahead of Tonga on BPs in 2011.

Thanks.

They each had a 2-0-2 record. (Admittedly, not a scenario I had anticipated in my post)

France had a better points difference by 46.

Using BPs didn't produce a different result than would have been the case if they didn't exist in the tourney.

Podge_irl

Ah yes, they didn't produce anything different from points difference no. Though I think points difference over such a short timescale leads to most of the same problems as BPs really. Probably the only time BPs have come into play at all at the RWC though.

Deano7788

locum-motion wrote: »

Thanks.

They each had a 2-0-2 record. (Admittedly, not a scenario I had anticipated in my post)

France had a better points difference by 46.

Using BPs didn't produce a different result than would have been the case if they didn't exist in the tourney.

Actually, if there was no BPs Tonga would have gone through as the head to head result comes before points difference.

Podge_irl

Deano7788 wrote: »

Actually, if there was no BPs Tonga would have gone through as the head to head result comes before points difference.

Ah yes, fair point.

Crazy that the better team in the final wouldn't have even been there without BP so.

locum-motion

Deano7788 wrote: »

Actually, if there was no BPs Tonga would have gone through as the head to head result comes before points difference.

Actually, you're right, I stand corrected.

According to the rules in place during the 2007 RWC, but excluding BPs, Tonga would have gone through.

So, that's one example of BPs changing the outcome of a pool, which I said was unlikely but not impossible. Out of 28 pools over 7 RWCs. I still think that BPs should be dropped for the RWC. In fact, I'd say that one example actually strengthens my conviction.

EDIT: Actually, just double checked. 2003 was the first RWC with 5-team pools and BPs available. So that's 1 pool out of 12 over 3 RWC's.

EDIT 2: Since the current format began, the France/Tonga example cited is the only pool that did not finish with one team each on 4 wins, 3 wins, 2 wins, 1 win and 0 wins.

Richard Hillman

Why would any fan want all games at the same time when you can watch 3 games in a row?

Podge_irl

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Why would any fan want all games at the same time when you can watch 3 games in a row?

I remember back yonder when I was a college student with a TV in my room. If I didn't make it out of bed before the first kick off then I was planted there til 7pm.

Fun times.

ArmaniJeanss

locum-motion wrote: »

So that's 1 pool out of 12 over 3 RWC's.

Just because bonus points have only been the tie splitter once in 12 doesn't mean they haven't had an influence in other pools.

e.g., the 2007 Irish Pool.
Even if bonus points weren't the ultimate splitter they were a huge factor, as Ireland went into the last game needing not just to beat Argentina but to score (and deny) a bonus point as well. So our failure to get bps in ealier games meant that rather then try to grind out a bare win we had to approach the game in a way we normally wouldn't.
So Bps was a big factor in this group.

andrewdcs

They need to flip the home and away sequence every now and again.

Always giving England and France either both at home or both away v is a pain.
Why not every few years play England away twice in a row. Flip everyone around, sequence resets every 12 years or whatever.

No need to play last round together as it's total pot luck.

Red Pepper

locum-motion wrote: »

Scheduling didn't cost us the championship.

A bad decision by a TMO (who was Irish) awarded a late try that should never have been to France against Scotland. And that cost us the Championship.

That decision was gut wrenching. Not as bad as the recent NZ game but it hurt for a couple of years before we finally clinched the trophy in 2009.

relaxed

Thomas D wrote: »

The competition is not based on absolute fairness with uneven home and away fixtures.

But every second season each team gets 3 home games so it balances out, what bemuses me is we always get England and France away in the same season.

I'd like the see the rotation changed every 4 years or so, so next year for example its Wales and England away, then in 4 or 5 years it France Scotland and Wales away etc.

Ideally France Wales and England at home, with Scotland and Italy away would give us a great chance every 2 years.

errlloyd

relaxed wrote: »

I'd like the see the rotation changed every 4 years or so, so next year for example its Wales and England away, then in 4 or 5 years it France Scotland and Wales away etc.

I feel this gets addressed by the peaks and troughs of team form.

locum-motion

andrewdcs wrote: »

They need to flip the home and away sequence every now and again.

Always giving England and France either both at home or both away v is a pain.
Why not every few years play England away twice in a row. Flip everyone around, sequence resets every 12 years or whatever.

No need to play last round together as it's total pot luck.

relaxed wrote: »

But every second season each team gets 3 home games so it balances out, what bemuses me is we always get England and France away in the same season.

I'd like the see the rotation changed every 4 years or so, so next year for example its Wales and England away, then in 4 or 5 years it France Scotland and Wales away etc.

Ideally France Wales and England at home, with Scotland and Italy away would give us a great chance every 2 years.

It's perfect the way it is. If we concede that F & E are almost always the two toughest teams that we face, then it is better that we play them away together in the year when we have only two away fixtures.

In the year where we have 3 aways, could you imagine if they were E, F & W? That would be a ba5tard of a year.

who_me

ThisRegard wrote: »

Therefore extending it another 6 weeks or so? The clubs and other leagues, cups etc would love that.

Just drop Scotland & Italy into a second-tier competition, the Championship is meant to be an elite competition...

(Joking obviously, but judging by the way the HEC squabble is going/went...)