Unions to consider bonus points system for 6 nations!

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2013/0124/1224329226209.html

Each of the unions in the Six Nations left a board meeting in London this week clutching a comprehensive paper outlining the pros and cons of the tournament falling into line with almost every other professional rugby competition. The figures will be considered in the coming months before a final decision is taken.

it has its pro's and con's, What are your thoughts?

I am all for it, lets encourage teams to go for the try. Imagine the six nations comming down to the wire and a nation knew they had to go for the BP. The last few minutes of every game would be down to the wire.

From earlier article

By applying the bonus point system as used in the Heineken Cup, RaboDirect Pro12, Rugby Championship and Rugby World Cup, there would have been five seasons where change in the order would have occurred since the Six Nations began in 2000.

On two of those occasions, 2002 and 2007, the champions would have been different – Ireland winning in 2007.

That is applying bonus points retrospectively, but with teams knowing about them, their attitude might change

Will not work unless play each team home and away

3 home matches for one team, 2 for another - not a level playing field

One team plays in the sun in Paris, the other the mud in Scotland

Impractical and if came in would be for me the death of the 6 nations

(this is me sitting on the fence)

NONSENSE

the competition is unique, it does not need to copy anybody else. There are no dead rubbers as national pride and neighbourly rivalries are at stake. Let the rest copy us as they have always sought to do. This is a competiton based on beer and shagging not corporate blydi sandwiches.

Kingshu wrote:http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2013/0124/1224329226209.html

Each of the unions in the Six Nations left a board meeting in London this week clutching a comprehensive paper outlining the pros and cons of the tournament falling into line with almost every other professional rugby competition. The figures will be considered in the coming months before a final decision is taken.

it has its pro's and con's, What are your thoughts?

Every other professional rugby tournament has both home and away ties between sides or is played on neutral territory though (for all except the hosts)?

I hate the idea.

International rugby matches are about winning and losing. If you score lots of tries - you stand a good chance of winning. If you lose - well you lost, man up and come back fighting.

I especially hate applying it to a competition where sides have differing playing schedules.


Hate the idea.

HATE IT.

Plus, as the french coach pointed out, you could get a grand slam but not win the championship. That would be very wrong. If there is ever a case of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it', this is it

Exactly.

To me the 6 Nations is broken, stale and outdated. It serves a nostalgic value for people who watched it in the 1990s but really its in need of a shake up.

That being said, I dont think bonus points will do that.

Why, does the 6ns need to be changed?

Suerly it can only work if the teams play each other on an home and away basis?

In artile Dk and a few other make the point that with some teams having more home games than other is itsn't fair, personally I'm against the usual bonus point system.

but is there a BP system that could improve it?

NO!

mr_stonelea wrote:Plus, as the french coach pointed out, you could get a grand slam but not win the championship. That would be very wrong. If there is ever a case of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it', this is it

It would take a pretty extreme situation for that to happen, though: 5 wins x 4 points (i.e. no BP) = 20 points
By definition, the next best team can have a maximum of 16 points BEFORE bonus points are earned.
Therefore, they would need 5 BP to overhaul the slam team.
Only three ways to do that:
i) 4 tries in 4 games, plus an LBP
ii) 4 tries in all 5 games
iii) 4 tries in all 5 games plus an LBP

In the case of (ii) and (iii), it's very unlikely that the slammers wouldn't have picked up a TB in their match against the second placed team (the alternative is scoring 21 points from the boot alone), which in the case of (ii) would leave the teams tied on points and the slammers would win based on having won more games.

So, it would take one team to score 4 tries in at least 4 of their games and pick up an LBP against a slam team who picked up no TBPs at all. How often does that happen?

You get a big bonus point for winning a grand slam, problem solved.

Poorfour wrote:

mr_stonelea wrote:Plus, as the french coach pointed out, you could get a grand slam but not win the championship. That would be very wrong. If there is ever a case of 'if it ain't broke don't fix it', this is it

It would take a pretty extreme situation for that to happen, though: 5 wins x 4 points (i.e. no BP) = 20 points
By definition, the next best team can have a maximum of 16 points BEFORE bonus points are earned.
Therefore, they would need 5 BP to overhaul the slam team.
Only three ways to do that:
i) 4 tries in 4 games, plus an LBP
ii) 4 tries in all 5 games
iii) 4 tries in all 5 games plus an LBP

In the case of (ii) and (iii), it's very unlikely that the slammers wouldn't have picked up a TB in their match against the second placed team (the alternative is scoring 21 points from the boot alone), which in the case of (ii) would leave the teams tied on points and the slammers would win based on having won more games.

So, it would take one team to score 4 tries in at least 4 of their games and pick up an LBP against a slam team who picked up no TBPs at all. How often does that happen?

in the article
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2013/0124/1224329226209.html

Since the Six Nations began in 2000 there is only one season in which a side winning the Grand Slam would have come second had the customary bonus points system been in place,” said Beaumont. “That was in 2002, when France won all four games, but picked up only one try bonus point to finish with 21 points, while England earned a losing bonus point against the French and got try bonuses in each of their other games to reach 21 points with a superior try count.

exactly

Team A - 5 wins out of 5 but no bonus points (very possible)

Team B - 4 wins with maximum bonus points - loses the Grand Slam decider but gains a losing bonus point.

So which team celebrates? The Grand Slam winner or the Championship winner? It maybe unlikely but sod's law suggests it will happen

Is it just me or is the Grand Slam too big a deal. I've rarely if ever seen a team celebrate winning a 6 Nations if they've lost the Grand Slam.

To me thats a problem. Winning the 6 Nations should be a big thing. The Slam should be merely icing on the cake.

The bonus points system is already flawed, as the match points from a game can either be four or five, which is inherently unfair in any league format. Compounding this calumny on a competition that has uneven home/away fixtures and played in very different conditions would make the Championship a hostage to the fixture schedule.

The brevity of the competition is also an issue being held over only five matches, so proportionally bonus points have a greater value. If for example a referee red cards a player, and the opposition get an easy TBP, he is not only affecting the result of the match but having a significant influence on the four teams not playing in front of him.


The true spirit of Six nations rugby is for two teams to meet and see who is the best. Bonus points need parity in fixtures, but the idea of a best of two legs home and away detracts from the sense of occasion that say a Calcutta Cup is. Two teams get ONE chance to confront each other and whoever loses has to wait a whole year for revenge, while the other gloats!

There really is NO argument for introducing bonus points and hopefully the 6N will have the sense to realise that.

The Great Aukster wrote:
The true spirit of Six nations rugby is for two teams to meet and see who is the best. Bonus points need parity in fixtures, but the idea of a best of two legs home and away detracts from the sense of occasion that say a Calcutta Cup is. Two teams get ONE chance to confront each other and whoever loses has to wait a whole year for revenge, while the other gloats!.

But its difficult to say whos clearly the best unless you win both home and away? Otherwise what would be the point in home/away games.

I'm for anything that could improve the standard of rugby in the 6 Nations. Bonus points could help. Although I prefer the French leagues version of tbp's to the more common one. To those who think it's unfair because of the uneven home away games, well, it's unfair anyway already. There's an uneven number of games no matter what.

And who cares about the very very rare situation in which one team could narrowly win 5 games, maybe with very few tries, and another team narrowly loses 1 but gets 4 bonus point wins. In my view, the latter team deserves the title. Try scoring rugby should be encouraged and rewarded. Or we'll never match the excellence of the southern hemisphere.

We need to evolve and be open to new things or soon we won't be behind the big 3, we'll be behind the big 4 as Argentina pass us all out too, playing more innovative and attacking rugby, while we bash around in the muck trying to stop the other team from playing and defend our way to 6 Nations victory.

This is a terrible idea:

The last thing we need in rugby is Northern Hemisphere teams realising the merit of scoring tries.

But is it not a situation where the weather could also benefit a team more, lets say you play a weaker team one week on a cold miserable wet windy day some where, and there isnt a try to be found for love nor money, then the following week another team plays that team on a hard,dry fast track and scores 5 trys???

I am of the belief that bonus points have failed to improve the quality of a single competition to which they have been introduced.

Every year law makers and tournament officials introduce new regulations or ideas to make the game more "exciting". Every year their ideas fail to do so, so they change something else.

How about making it 5 points for a win?

Before I even start I would like to state that I know that there is a 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' element to this.

Bonus points for long term tournaments like the Rabo and the AP work fine.
However they can be very unfair where there is a very limited number of games. The most recent example was the RWC in NZ where England got to play both Georgia and Romania under the roof in Dunedin and got 2 bonus points.
Scotland had to play Georgia in terrible conditions in Invercargill and failed to score a try.
You will remember that this meant that Scotland had to beat England by 8 to go through rather than just win the game.
You will also remember that Scotland were the better team on the day and were leading by 3 but, rather than closing the game down, they had to go for the try,lost the ball and ended up losing to Ashton's try in the dying minutes.

Had Scotland only required the win they would have qualified and, in all likelihood, gone on to win the whole thing.

I would quite like the 6 nations to be a two year comp. By the end it would be home and away but without the extra time needed. Not interested in the bonus point, it's not a fix it's a gimmick. IF bonus points come in it MUST be for scoring 3 more tries than opposition. Not just 4. IMO of course.

IronMike wrote:You get a big bonus point for winning a grand slam, problem solved.

No, this is how you solve the problem - don't blydi bother with bonus points!

Glas a du wrote:

IronMike wrote:You get a big bonus point for winning a grand slam, problem solved.

No, this is how you solve the problem - don't blydi bother with bonus points!

But it DOES solve the problem with bonus points in the 6 Nations everyone is repeating.

I know that! I'm snuffing the problems out at source!

I think it would make it more likely for the championship to be decided before the final weekend, making the last round of games meaningless. But i haven't looked at previous years to see if that would actually have happened

The big stumbling block for me is that you could potentially have a team win all their games but not end up with the Slam, unless they say added and additional points tally for winning all the games.

malky1963 wrote:Before I even start I would like to state that I know that there is a 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' element to this.

Bonus points for long term tournaments like the Rabo and the AP work fine.
However they can be very unfair where there is a very limited number of games. The most recent example was the RWC in NZ where England got to play both Georgia and Romania under the roof in Dunedin and got 2 bonus points.
Scotland had to play Georgia in terrible conditions in Invercargill and failed to score a try.
You will remember that this meant that Scotland had to beat England by 8 to go through rather than just win the game.
You will also remember that Scotland were the better team on the day and were leading by 3 but, rather than closing the game down, they had to go for the try,lost the ball and ended up losing to Ashton's try in the dying minutes.

Had Scotland only required the win they would have qualified and, in all likelihood, gone on to win the whole thing.

Great post Malky - Love it

malky1963 wrote:Before I even start I would like to state that I know that there is a 'coulda, woulda, shoulda' element to this.

Bonus points for long term tournaments like the Rabo and the AP work fine.
However they can be very unfair where there is a very limited number of games. The most recent example was the RWC in NZ where England got to play both Georgia and Romania under the roof in Dunedin and got 2 bonus points.
Scotland had to play Georgia in terrible conditions in Invercargill and failed to score a try.
You will remember that this meant that Scotland had to beat England by 8 to go through rather than just win the game.
You will also remember that Scotland were the better team on the day and were leading by 3 but, rather than closing the game down, they had to go for the try,lost the ball and ended up losing to Ashton's try in the dying minutes.

Had Scotland only required the win they would have qualified and, in all likelihood, gone on to win the whole thing.

Exactly. There has never been a position that I can remember where who won the championship was decided on some massively unfair basis. Bonus points are for situations where other motivation is not enough to create a spectacle. The 6 nations championship is not one of those situations.

Can we merge this with the 300 previous discussions on the subect please to avoid everyone having to recycle the same tedious arguments yet again please.

red_stag wrote:To me the 6 Nations is broken, stale and outdated. It serves a nostalgic value for people who watched it in the 1990s but really its in need of a shake up.

That being said, I dont think bonus points will do that.

I feel exactly the same way about the B&I Lions, but you try saying it without attracting an avalanche of criticism.

Jimpy wrote:

red_stag wrote:To me the 6 Nations is broken, stale and outdated. It serves a nostalgic value for people who watched it in the 1990s but really its in need of a shake up.

That being said, I dont think bonus points will do that.

I feel exactly the same way about the B&I Lions, but you try saying it without attracting an avalanche of criticism.

Really? I love the Lions Tour, it ranks alongside the Heineken Cup for me. Im young enough that 2001 was my first time seeing the Lions Tour and I loved it. 2005 was a blip and back to normal in 2009. This year already looks like it will be a good one.

It's not broke, please don't change it - Its a unique historical tournament and needs to be respected before its turned into some superficial try fest circus to satisfy the media and money men.

and SKY

I've since changed my mind.

Lets go with bonus points and if a team wins the Grand Slam but doesnt win the 6 Nations Championship I actually think it will be a good thing.

NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

red_stag wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

red_stag wrote:To me the 6 Nations is broken, stale and outdated. It serves a nostalgic value for people who watched it in the 1990s but really its in need of a shake up.

That being said, I dont think bonus points will do that.

I feel exactly the same way about the B&I Lions, but you try saying it without attracting an avalanche of criticism.

Really? I love the Lions Tour, it ranks alongside the Heineken Cup for me. Im young enough that 2001 was my first time seeing the Lions Tour and I loved it. 2005 was a blip and back to normal in 2009. This year already looks like it will be a good one.

I know, I just think the Lions is something that belongs to the past, the amateur era. I'd much rather my club's players were resting over the summer, not being routinely humped on some foreign field. Not to mention being injured.

The Lions is the pinacle of Rugby on these Islands, like it or not. Now If I was convinced that dropping it would mean that the players would raise the level of attainment in their own country's shirt then I would be the first to say let it go. However I'm not convinced that they would. Perhaps you could persuade me otherwise?

Jimpy,

You may prefer they were being rested but what about the players?

I bet to a man they would rather be on that plane to Oz this year than back home.

Thats the one argument about the Lions I've never understood.

"We dont win so I dont like it"

red_stag wrote:Thats the one argument about the Lions I've never understood.

"We dont win so I dont like it"

Stag,

Good job I dont use that all the time, I am a Dragons fan so am fecked and would have never gone to see Wales play in the 90s. Though sometimes I wish I hadn't

bedfordwelsh wrote:

red_stag wrote:Thats the one argument about the Lions I've never understood.

"We dont win so I dont like it"

Stag,

Good job I dont use that all the time, I am a Dragons fan so am fecked and would have never gone to see Wales play in the 90s. Though sometimes I wish I hadn't

Exactly. There's more to supporting a team than victories. I didn't enjoy the 2005 Tour but 2001 and 2009 were very enjoyable.

Glas a du wrote:The Lions is the pinacle of Rugby on these Islands, like it or not. Now If I was convinced that dropping it would mean that the players would raise the level of attainment in their own country's shirt then I would be the first to say let it go. However I'm not convinced that they would. Perhaps you could persuade me otherwise?

I probably couldn't to be honest. But I happen to think that its outdated, anachronistic and has no place in the modern game - I happen to feel its just one step up from the Barbarians, but thats another thing.

Its an opinion, other opinions are available.

I think my point is that nobody would criticise somebody for calling the 6N outdated and stale, but the minute somebody says the same about the Lions, you're lambasted.

red_stag wrote:Thats the one argument about the Lions I've never understood.

"We dont win so I dont like it"

Actually, that isn't my motivation for disliking it, nor did I say it was.

bedfordwelsh wrote:Jimpy,

You may prefer they were being rested but what about the players?

I bet to a man they would rather be on that plane to Oz this year than back home.

Since when can the players be trusted to know what's good for them? They do get hit in the head an awful lot...

Jimpy wrote:

red_stag wrote:Thats the one argument about the Lions I've never understood.

"We dont win so I dont like it"

Actually, that isn't my motivation for disliking it, nor did I say it was.

You said about them getting humped when they played.

I get what your saying but I dont think its the case that you get blasted for criticising Lions but not for 6 Nations.

Last year I got dogs abuse from a few posters for hating the 6 Nations. Apparently doing so meant that:

- I showed no support to Ireland
- I was belittling Wales championship win