Six Nations bonus point system in 2017

The Lost Sheep

Rightwing wrote: »

There must be a minimum number of games played before that is considered.

Take the football premiership, 38 games, home and away fixtures, if it comes down to goal difference so be it. The winner deserves it.
Very uneven though with only a handful of teams, at the very minumum do a home and away to balance it out, otherwise it's fairly meaningless, giving a trophy for the sake of it, hence why the grand slam is rated so much above the rest.

Why should there have to be a minimum number of games? What exactly should decide what the minimum number of games needed to be played for points difference to count.
Grand slam is rated so highly as it traditionally has been so difficult to achieve. The pro era has changed it and grand slams have become more common place but points difference being difference between 1st and 2nd doesn't make the win less meaningful

thomond2006

lawred2 wrote: »

might promote more attacking rugby

It depends on the situation in the game.

One example:
From next year if you go 28-0 up with four tries then you have no incentive to score more. Under the previous system at 28-0 up you would push for as many points as possible.

CatFromHue

lawred2 wrote: »

might promote more attacking rugby but for me the dogged horses for courses approach added to the charm of the six nations...

I like that winning 3 - 0 counted the same as winning 30 - 27

Usually bonus point systems are an attempt to make a product more marketable to mass tv markets...

I think over such a short comp with only home or away games and not everyone playing the same amount of home games it's not going to do much.

molloyjh

thomond2006 wrote: »

It depends on the situation in the game.

One example:
From next year if you go 28-0 up with four tries then you have no incentive to score more. Under the previous system at 28-0 up you would push for as many points as possible.

Well not quite. The PD thing still comes into it as the deciding factor if teams are even on points so the drive for a greater PD is still there. And there's a greater drive to get to the 28 points too don't forget.

In terms of what it means for games I see it having some impact to how individual games are played, and a positive impact at that. However the overall impact on the competition seems likely to be a negative one.

thomond2006

molloyjh wrote: »

Well not quite. The PD thing still comes into it as the deciding factor if teams are even on points so the drive for a greater PD is still there. And there's a greater drive to get to the 28 points too don't forget.

In terms of what it means for games I see it having some impact to how individual games are played, and a positive impact at that. However the overall impact on the competition seems likely to be a negative one.

Which is why I said it depends on the situation.

Rightwing

Podge_irl wrote: »

And why is this any better?

It will prevent situation where 3 teams may end up having 8 points, and whoever has Italy at home, or playing the final game has obvious advantages.

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Why should there have to be a minimum number of games? What exactly should decide what the minimum number of games needed to be played for points difference to count.
Grand slam is rated so highly as it traditionally has been so difficult to achieve. The pro era has changed it and grand slams have become more common place but points difference being difference between 1st and 2nd doesn't make the win less meaningful

Awarding a championship in a 3 team tournament, whereby 2 games each are played, on points differential wouldn't be a great idea.A minimum is required.
Home and away fixtures.
Yes, the grand slam is still very difficult to achieve.

The Lost Sheep

Rightwing wrote: »

It will prevent situation where 3 teams may end up having 8 points, and whoever has Italy at home, or playing the final game has obvious advantages.

Awarding a championship in a 3 team tournament, whereby 2 games each are played, on points differential wouldn't be a great idea.A minimum is required.
Home and away fixtures.
Yes, the grand slam is still very difficult to achieve.

But we're not talking about a 3 team tournament
Teams will always have some form of advantage over anothers due to scheduling. Unless you play all games at same time then what do you propose that is better?

Rightwing

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

But we're not talking about a 3 team tournament
Teams will always have some form of advantage over anothers due to scheduling. Unless you play all games at same time then what do you propose that is better?

Correct, but the aim should be trying to eliminate these flaws, I don't see anything wrong with playing all the games at the same time on the last day for instance. Even amateur sport like gaa does that in the interests of fairness.

Riskymove

thomond2006 wrote: »

Which is why I said it depends on the situation.

unless you are talking about the last game, there will always be a presumption of the more points the better so always an incentive to score points

Riskymove

Rightwing wrote: »

Correct, but the aim should be trying to eliminate these flaws, I don't see anything wrong with playing all the games at the same time on the last day for instance. Even amateur sport like gaa does that in the interests of fairness.

TV Money talks

Podge_irl

Rightwing wrote: »

It will prevent situation where 3 teams may end up having 8 points, and whoever has Italy at home, or playing the final game has obvious advantages.

Whereas now we have a team ending up on 21 points with another on 20 cause one of them had Italy at home or last up. It's the same problem presented differently. Your argument for this makes zero sense.

Buer

thomond2006 wrote: »

It depends on the situation in the game.

One example:
From next year if you go 28-0 up with four tries then you have no incentive to score more. Under the previous system at 28-0 up you would push for as many points as possible.

A possibility but, on the balance of probability, it will encourage more scores. There are 15 games in the tournament, 2 teams each game so 30 teams line out. Of those 30, only on 4 occasions were the 4 tries scored in 2016.

And if a team does score 4 tries, there's a good chance they'll want to still score more.

Rightwing

Riskymove wrote: »

TV Money talks

It does, and can make it exciting too. But, and there is a but there.

Podge_irl wrote: »

Whereas now we have a team ending up on 21 points with another on 20 cause one of them had Italy at home or last up. It's the same problem presented differently. Your argument for this makes zero sense.

I'll take the 21 point situation over a number of teams on 8.

The Lost Sheep

Rightwing wrote: »

Correct, but the aim should be trying to eliminate these flaws, I don't see anything wrong with playing all the games at the same time on the last day for instance. Even amateur sport like gaa does that in the interests of fairness.

All games wont be played same time as tv revenues go down.
Awarding a title on points difference isn't in any way a flaw

Rightwing

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

All games wont be played same time as tv revenues go down.
Awarding a title on points difference isn't in any way a flaw

I think after playing just 5 games, it's not ideal way to win a title. Bit like the HC groups, bonus points are welcome, but we will see how it goes.

sydthebeat

its going to throw match betting into an utter clusterfcuk

flatface

swiwi_ wrote: »

The next step is to move the start of the tournament to March. Change is at snails pace for the auld home unions but at least it's a start.

Mother of bod, please do not let this happen. In the depths of January depression the 6 nations keeps me crawling onwards, i'm not sure I could make March.

Podge_irl

Rightwing wrote: »

I'll take the 21 point situation over a number of teams on 8.

Why? It's a purely cosmetic difference.

lawred2

flatface wrote: »

Mother of bod, please do not let this happen. In the depths of January depression the 6 nations keeps me crawling onwards, i'm not sure I could make March.

same as

penybont exile

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

All games wont be played same time as tv revenues go down.
Awarding a title on points difference isn't in any way a flaw

Personally I think points difference is flawed .....

Head to Head for me ...... if there are two teams with the same points total.

If there are three teams then goto points diff * ..... but only take into consideration the games they play against each other. [* I'd go for a shared title over this as well .... but that's modern society people like to see someone declared the winner]

Not convinced about bonus points ..... too artificial for me.

WeleaseWoderick

This change seems to be come from the mindset of "more points = better rugby".

As a novelty, high scoring games with tonnes of tries are fine but for example, I'd have no interest in watching that England-France game from 2015 every weekend with defence being entirely optional.

Podge_irl

WeleaseWoderick wrote: »

This change seems to be come from the mindset of "more points = better rugby".

As a novelty, high scoring games with tonnes of tries are fine but for example, I'd have no interest in watching that England-France game from 2015 every weekend with defence being entirely optional.

Yeah. For all the excitement of that day, the title chase somewhat obscured the fact that all three of the games were absurdly one-sided affairs.

Lake1989

Podge_irl wrote: »

Yeah. For all the excitement of that day, the title chase somewhat obscured the fact that all three of the games were absurdly one-sided affairs.

england france finished 7-5 in tries. hardly one sided. if france didnt missed so many conversions it would have been much closer on the scoreboard too. England converted all 7 tries, France just 2.

The Lost Sheep

penybont exile wrote: »

Personally I think points difference is flawed .....

Head to Head for me ...... if there are two teams with the same points total.

If there are three teams then goto points diff * ..... but only take into consideration the games they play against each other. [* I'd go for a shared title over this as well .... but that's modern society people like to see someone declared the winner]

Not convinced about bonus points ..... too artificial for me.

I don't see how points difference is flawed. Its comparing your performance against the same teams as your opponent. I don't think head to head should lead it.
I don't think a shared title is needed. Maybe it is modern society but I don't see an issue with title being decided and having a conclusive winner. I don't agree with bonus points but don't see how they're artificial in any way

molloyjh

penybont exile wrote: »

Personally I think points difference is flawed .....

Head to Head for me ...... if there are two teams with the same points total.

If there are three teams then goto points diff * ..... but only take into consideration the games they play against each other. [* I'd go for a shared title over this as well .... but that's modern society people like to see someone declared the winner]

Not convinced about bonus points ..... too artificial for me.

It's a flawed tournament in general without the home and away ties, but in some ways that's what makes it so much more interesting. Given the lack of home and away fixtures there's really no way to "correct" the flaws.

WeleaseWoderick

I wonder if a fairer way to solve the "whoever beats Italy by the most" issue re points difference is to have something whereby your points difference excludes the game against whoever finishes last in the table?

Riskymove

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I don't see how points difference is flawed.

It's not that it is a flaw really, after all some way of deciding has to be agreed to in the event of a draw

The fact that there are only 5 games, not round robin, and that a game can be affected by bad calls are all factors why points difference can be viewed as not the best

Over a full season of 20 games, round robin etc. these things can balance out over the course of the season...where only 5 games, less so

penybont exile

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I don't see how points difference is flawed. Its comparing your performance against the same teams as your opponent. I don't think head to head should lead it.
I don't think a shared title is needed. Maybe it is modern society but I don't see an issue with title being decided and having a conclusive winner. I don't agree with bonus points but don't see how they're artificial in any way

You don't ....... I do ........... that's debate in a free society my friend!

Jump_In_Jack

Riskymove wrote: »

It's not that it is a flaw really, after all some way of deciding has to be agreed to in the event of a draw

The fact that there are only 5 games, not round robin, and that a game can be affected by bad calls are all factors why points difference can be viewed as not the best

Over a full season of 20 games, round robin etc. these things can balance out over the course of the season...where only 5 games, less so

What do you define as a round robin?
I assumed a round robin was everyone playing everyone once, or twice.
i.e. 6N is a round robin, no?

Jump_In_Jack

Bonus points is obviously better than points diff.
It encourages teams to go for tries instead of kicks at goal, which are boring.