Should BPs be scrapped in the 6 Nations..

We had the debate 2 years ago when the BPs where introduced into the 6 Nations, and I think back then most of us thought it was a waste of space. The argument I put back then, was with the right number of Try and losing bonus points, it was possible for a team winning just 3 games to take the title off a team winning 4 games who took no BPs. No that situation, to me, is just not right. The 6 Nations board back then realised that you could have a side win a Slam yet not win the title under the BP scheme, so they added extra BPs for a team winning all their games. But getting a Slam isn't easy, but the even of a team winning less games with BPs is.

We now find ourselves this tournament, seeing a position where Ireland just have to win next round to get the title before the last weekend.

The point of the BPs was to add to the excitement and make it more competitive going into the last week. So do we agree, this hasn't worked. I accept, if Ireland do win next game, they will still be competitive as they will want a Grand Slam, but winning the tournament with a week to go does somewhat deflect the excitement for the last weekend.

I think that BPs should be scrapped and we simply go back to the Points Difference to determine the winner. If they really want to get teams to run in trys instead of racking up penalty kicks, then have trys for minus trys against as a differentiator when games won are even, but get rid of the BPs as this scenario where the title can be won before the end of the tournament is really silly.

Using BP's would a good idea - if all of the games are played in the same conditions

However because of the international flavour of the 6N's each game could be played (even on the same day) under wildly differing conditions.

The Tournament is played over too short a period for the 'swings and roundabouts' effect to come into play. This year the teams are so close together, the one game where you miss out on BP's could screw your chances as there's very little chance to make up the deficit.

Lets face it, if you are playing in teeming rain in Paris whilst your two main rivals are playing in firm dry conditions elsewhere then you are facing an uphill battle. If it was a longer competition, yes BP's could fairly add an extra frisson, however not over 5 games, it becomes a lottery dependant on the weather and where you play the Italians.

BPs are only helpful when it benefits England. otherwise they are very bad...............

doctor_grey wrote:BPs are only helpful when it benefits England.  otherwise they are very bad...............

Yes bonus points are always crap when they don't benefit your team

They haven't made much difference IMO.

No9 wrote:We had the debate 2 years ago when the BPs where introduced into the 6 Nations, and I think back then most of us thought it was a waste of space. The argument I put back then, was with the right number of Try and losing bonus points, it was possible for a team winning just 3 games to take the title off a team winning 4 games who took no BPs. No that situation, to me, is just not right. The 6 Nations board back then realised that you could have a side win a Slam yet not win the title under the BP scheme, so they added extra BPs for a team winning all their games. But getting a Slam isn't easy, but the even of a team winning less games with BPs is.

We now find ourselves this tournament, seeing a position where Ireland just have to win next round to get the title before the last weekend.

The point of the BPs was to add to the excitement and make it more competitive going into the last week. So do we agree, this hasn't worked. I accept, if Ireland do win next game, they will still be competitive as they will want a Grand Slam, but winning the tournament with a week to go does somewhat deflect the excitement for the last weekend.

I think that BPs should be scrapped and we simply go back to the Points Difference to determine the winner. If they really want to get teams to run in trys instead of racking up penalty kicks, then have trys for minus trys against as a differentiator when games won are even, but get rid of the BPs as this scenario where the title can be won before the end of the tournament is really silly.

Are BPs all about making it competitive going into the last week?

Regardless, if Ireland beat Scotland (with no try bonus) they'll be on 18. If England beat France (with no try bonus) they'll be on 13. A 30-3-type game, like we saw when Grand Slam chasing England went to Championship outsiders Wales in 2013, could settle the tournament in England's favour. There's no real change in this respect between having the Championship settled on PD vs BP, just a slight shift in the criteria required (England might have to score 4 tries, whereas in the 30-3 game Wales scored 2 - however it is unlikely England would need a 27 point margin of victory).

If Ireland win and England lose to France, then all the would-be contenders would be on 2 wins to Ireland's 4, and rightfully out of the running, bonus points not coming into play.

TrailApe wrote:Using BP's would a good idea - if all of the games are played in the same conditions

However because of the international flavour of the 6N's each game could be played (even on the same day) under wildly differing conditions.

The Tournament is played over too short a period for the 'swings and roundabouts' effect to come into play. This year the teams are so close together, the one game where you miss out on BP's could screw your chances as there's very little chance to make up the deficit.

Lets face it, if you are playing in teeming rain in Paris whilst your two main rivals are playing in firm dry conditions elsewhere then you are facing an uphill battle. If it was a longer competition, yes BP's could fairly add an extra frisson, however not over 5 games, it becomes a lottery dependant on the weather and where you play the Italians.

I would disagree on this last point. Italy, at current, should be a 4 try bonus point for any Championship contender. England beat them away with one, Ireland beat them at home with one and France failed to get one at home (due in small part to some farcical decision-making in the 80th minute).

I think it's more of a leveller that England and Ireland both came out of the Italy game with 5 points and results against other teams counting for more.

If it does come down to Ireland or England separated by bonus points or Ireland or Scotland separated by bonus points, I'd rather see that and the tournament decided by Ireland picking up a second try bonus point against Wales as opposed to the tournament decided by Ireland racking up more points against Italy at home than England or Scotland might manage away, and vica-versa next year.

I didn't have a problem with a drawn Lion series, and I don't have a prolem with the original ranking system.

The first time England played a three match series on tour was against South Africa in 2012. Before that, every time we played against summer tour opposition, it was a one-off test or a two match series. It didn't cause hear failure when we drew a two test series before.

I like the idea of bragging rights being hard to achieve/elusive.

No9 wrote:We now find ourselves this tournament, seeing a position where Ireland just have to win next round to get the title before the last weekend.

That is not true though. Ireland lead by 5 points, so simply beating Scotland would not secure the title. If England beat France without a TBP, then Ireland would need a TBP win to secure the title.

(All assuming that my arithmetic is kosher)

robbo277 wrote:

No9 wrote:We had the debate 2 years ago when the BPs where introduced into the 6 Nations, and I think back then most of us thought it was a waste of space. The argument I put back then, was with the right number of Try and losing bonus points, it was possible for a team winning just 3 games to take the title off a team winning 4 games who took no BPs. No that situation, to me, is just not right. The 6 Nations board back then realised that you could have a side win a Slam yet not win the title under the BP scheme, so they added extra BPs for a team winning all their games. But getting a Slam isn't easy, but the even of a team winning less games with BPs is.

We now find ourselves this tournament, seeing a position where Ireland just have to win next round to get the title before the last weekend.

The point of the BPs was to add to the excitement and make it more competitive going into the last week. So do we agree, this hasn't worked. I accept, if Ireland do win next game, they will still be competitive as they will want a Grand Slam, but winning the tournament with a week to go does somewhat deflect the excitement for the last weekend.

I think that BPs should be scrapped and we simply go back to the Points Difference to determine the winner. If they really want to get teams to run in trys instead of racking up penalty kicks, then have trys for minus trys against as a differentiator when games won are even, but get rid of the BPs as this scenario where the title can be won before the end of the tournament is really silly.

Are BPs all about making it competitive going into the last week?

Regardless, if Ireland beat Scotland (with no try bonus) they'll be on 18. If England beat France (with no try bonus) they'll be on 13. A 30-3-type game, like we saw when Grand Slam chasing England went to Championship outsiders Wales in 2013, could settle the tournament in England's favour. There's no real change in this respect between having the Championship settled on PD vs BP, just a slight shift in the criteria required (England might have to score 4 tries, whereas in the 30-3 game Wales scored 2 - however it is unlikely England would need a 27 point margin of victory).

If Ireland win and England lose to France, then all the would-be contenders would be on 2 wins to Ireland's 4, and rightfully out of the running, bonus points not coming into play.

You do have a point, as my fingers didn't type what my brain was thinking.. If Ireland win then, and England win, it could go to the last weekend. I meant to say if Ireland win with BP next week and England doesnt get a wining BP, its all over a week early. Which is back to my point. Is BP really adding something, or is it actually destroying competition in the last weeks.

carpet baboon wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:BPs are only helpful when it benefits England.  otherwise they are very bad...............

Yes bonus points are always crap when they don't benefit your team

Exactly right!!!  

Otherwise, I am rather apathetic whether we keep them or not. One way or the other, I am OK if teams end up tied based on record and we have co-champions. I don't like determining the championship based on points for and against because that drives running up the score in some games.

LondonTiger wrote:

No9 wrote:We now find ourselves this tournament, seeing a position where Ireland just have to win next round to get the title before the last weekend.

That is not true though. Ireland lead by 5 points, so simply beating Scotland would not secure the title. If England beat France without a TBP, then Ireland would need a TBP win to secure the title.

(All assuming that my arithmetic is kosher)

If Ireland beat Scotland with a TBP, then England need to win both its remaining games with TBPs plus make up a current 22 point difference (of course the P Diff will change next week).

I was against bonus points before they were introduced.  My reason being I saw them as an attempt to add more excitement to the game, but I felt that at international level teams shouldn't need extra incentive to score tries and to not give up and try to finish closely.  Did Ireland score 5 tries v Wales because there was an extra point on offer or because the opportunities arose and they took them?  Why didn't England score 4 tries v Wales?  They only got 2.  Why shut up shop and deny themselves the extra point.  Or was it because the game just didn't pan out that way?  

No, I think they're unnecessary and still think that way.  Teams were separated previously by championship points and then, if tied, by total points scored.  That led to some exciting finishes such as the crazy super Saturday a few years back with Wales trouncing Italy (but letting them score a try at the end which took us ultimately from 2nd to 3rd I believe), Ireland had to beat Scotland, and England and France had a high scoring ding dong.  That was fine for me!  No other intervention needed.  But each to their own.  Now we've got the bonus points it's always nice when your team gets one, and Wales have a 4 try BP and a losing BP so far this year which might come in handy.  But it wasn't a broken system before, for me.  They'll be making it home and away fixtures next

No9 wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

No9 wrote:We had the debate 2 years ago when the BPs where introduced into the 6 Nations, and I think back then most of us thought it was a waste of space. The argument I put back then, was with the right number of Try and losing bonus points, it was possible for a team winning just 3 games to take the title off a team winning 4 games who took no BPs. No that situation, to me, is just not right. The 6 Nations board back then realised that you could have a side win a Slam yet not win the title under the BP scheme, so they added extra BPs for a team winning all their games. But getting a Slam isn't easy, but the even of a team winning less games with BPs is.

We now find ourselves this tournament, seeing a position where Ireland just have to win next round to get the title before the last weekend.

The point of the BPs was to add to the excitement and make it more competitive going into the last week. So do we agree, this hasn't worked. I accept, if Ireland do win next game, they will still be competitive as they will want a Grand Slam, but winning the tournament with a week to go does somewhat deflect the excitement for the last weekend.

I think that BPs should be scrapped and we simply go back to the Points Difference to determine the winner. If they really want to get teams to run in trys instead of racking up penalty kicks, then have trys for minus trys against as a differentiator when games won are even, but get rid of the BPs as this scenario where the title can be won before the end of the tournament is really silly.

Are BPs all about making it competitive going into the last week?

Regardless, if Ireland beat Scotland (with no try bonus) they'll be on 18. If England beat France (with no try bonus) they'll be on 13. A 30-3-type game, like we saw when Grand Slam chasing England went to Championship outsiders Wales in 2013, could settle the tournament in England's favour. There's no real change in this respect between having the Championship settled on PD vs BP, just a slight shift in the criteria required (England might have to score 4 tries, whereas in the 30-3 game Wales scored 2 - however it is unlikely England would need a 27 point margin of victory).

If Ireland win and England lose to France, then all the would-be contenders would be on 2 wins to Ireland's 4, and rightfully out of the running, bonus points not coming into play.

You do have a point, as my fingers didn't type what my brain was thinking.. If Ireland win then, and England win, it could go to the last weekend. I meant to say if Ireland win with BP next week and England doesnt get a wining BP, its all over a week early. Which is back to my point. Is BP really adding something, or is it actually destroying competition in the last weeks.

It's a valid complaint, but England lost by a margin against Scotland and under this scenario would have twice failed to score 4 try bonus points (against Wales and France), while Ireland would have managed 2 try bonus points against proper opposition (Scotland and Wales, sorry Italy).

If Ireland won the title in Week 4 and England then beat them 60-0 so they both finished on 4-1 records but Ireland took it on bonus points, it would feel a little odd, possibly even feel like the wrong team has the Championship. But these are the rules we are playing under and just like England were in 2011 and 2017, Ireland would be deserved Champions.

It's also a situation with a very low probability, therefore probably not worth legislating for.

Bonus points.  Never give them too much attention.  Wins and losses are what the fans come to see.  The cheering and chanting is all about which side squeezes out a win.
So that should be the criteria as it always naturally has been the criteria in sport.
Bonus points are there to give real sport a computer game feel - it's there to keep tension high, to keep journalists in work, to keep seasons marketable, to keep profits coming in, keep the ending right to the very end. Artifice and manipulation to orchestrate a 'desired' choreography.

But WINNING should not be downgraded to humour any version of bonus points.
If Ireland or any Nation wins more games than their nearest rivals - that's the side that should lift the cup.  If Ireland win four games by beating Scotland, and France also beat England then that should be that.  Ireland win the competition.  Not the Slam but the Six Nations.  Fair is fair is fair.

I think they should be dropped for the remaining two rounds - not necessary.

Get rid of them. Huge advantage to teams who have three home games.

David-Douglas wrote:Get rid of them. Huge advantage to teams who have three home games.

Having three home games will always be an advantage even if there are no bonus points. Points scored at home will be a factor then as teams generally score more at home than away.

eirebilly wrote:

David-Douglas wrote:Get rid of them. Huge advantage to teams who have three home games.

Having three home games will always be an advantage even if there are no bonus points. Points scored at home will be a factor then as teams generally score more at home than away.

Head to head then a # of home games as ties. Draw if not. Points difference is irrelevant, aim is to win, not lose close or win big,

David-Douglas wrote:Get rid of them. Huge advantage to teams who have three home games.

Huge advantages are cyclical.... just like world cups.... just like Olympics....
Huge advantages are also determined by more than location.  Huge advantages come and go throughout a 6N season as best players either fall away through injury or suspension - or they come on board again before the end of the competition to improve the power of a team, making the team more difficult to beat for the sides that still have to meet them over the sides that already met them when they were underpowered.
So there are always advantages operating in any contest involving men/women on a field playing a team sport.
Italy have huge advantages some years...does it matter to them?  You still have to be pretty damn good, and you still have to win away anyway to have a realistic chance of a title and/or a Slam.

The wayward nature of the competition worked up until now and when people win it, they don't usually mind the yearly lopsided nature of it.  The bragging rights are in the bag for decades to come - who won what, when.  Nobody tends to give a damn about 'huge advantages' when remembering how many times they've won the thing and letting people know it.

The bonus points system in inherently flawed because it rewards losers at no cost to the winners. How many winning sides (or their fans) really care whether they won by 7 or 8 points? Having a TBP can actively discourage try scoring once four tries are scored, because the BPs are likely to be the dominant factor over PD in the table so why should a team risk injury by going for tries that only in exceptional circumstances will have any bearing?

BPs were introduced into the 6N as an unnecessary gimmick and are still a very bad idea - if on the off chance they have any effect it is almost certain to be a detrimental one. It is sad that the 6N organisers have so lost touch with the roots of rugby that they insist on such a gimmick, so why not introduce something fairer such as awarding another 1/4 match point for every try scored. The victor would not take their foot off the pedal, neither would the vanquished be kicking a penalty to get within 7 with a minute to go - everyone's a winner.

The Table would be:
Ireland 15.25
England 10.5
Scotland 9.5
Wales 5.75
France 5.5
Italy 1.75

So if Italy scored 1 try at the Millstad and beat Wales who scored none they would overtake them and have 6 points to Wales 5.75. In theory every team is still in with a shout of the championship, all they have to do is score a shed load of tries! Let's say Ireland win their next two games but score no tries and therefore finish with a slam on 23.25. So Wales would have to beat France and score 55 tries in the process to win the championship on 24 points! Ridiculous yes - but no more so than awarding extra bonus points to someone for winning all their games.

The Great Aukster wrote:The bonus points system in inherently flawed because it rewards losers at no cost to the winners. How many winning sides (or their fans) really care whether they won by 7 or 8 points?  Having a TBP can actively discourage try scoring once four tries are scored, because the BPs are likely to be the dominant factor over PD in the table so why should a team risk injury by going for tries that only in exceptional circumstances will have any bearing?

BPs were introduced into the 6N as an unnecessary gimmick and are still a very bad idea - if on the off chance they have any effect it is almost certain to be a detrimental one. It is sad that the 6N organisers have so lost touch with the roots of rugby that they insist on such a gimmick, so why not introduce something fairer such as awarding another 1/4 match point for every try scored. The victor would not take their foot off the pedal, neither would the vanquished be kicking a penalty to get within 7 with a minute to go - everyone's a winner.

The Table would be:
Ireland 15.25
England 10.5
Scotland 9.5
Wales 5.75
France 5.5
Italy 1.75

So if Italy scored 1 try at the Millstad and beat Wales who scored none they would overtake them and have 6 points to Wales 5.75. In theory every team is still in with a shout of the championship, all they have to do is score a shed load of tries! Let's say Ireland win their next two games but score no tries and therefore finish with a slam on 23.25. So Wales would have to beat France and score 55 tries in the process to win the championship on 24 points! Ridiculous yes - but no more so than awarding extra bonus points to someone for winning all their games.

If you wanted to go down that route, surely you would just have no bonus points and try difference ahead of points difference as the first separator?

I think the issue is that it needs to be understandable to the layman. Especially with the 6 Nations, which attracts casual fans. The first time I saw NFL standings on Sky Sports News, I was confused that the wins didn't equal the losses in the conference, when actually that can be explained by them playing inter-conference games.

Now imagine a part-time rugby fan logging onto the BBC website next February after one round of games, and seeing one team on 5.25 points, another on 4.75, etc. It would look more like a maths class than anything else.

I think the best way would be one tournament over 2 years with bonus points, with a Grand Slam trophy on offer each year.

So win the Championship over 10 games, you're 6 Nations Champions.
Win 5 games in any one year, you're that year's Grand Slam Champions.

I wouldn't make any provision for a team winning 10 matches 3-0 (2 Grand Slams and 40 points) and another winning 8 matches with try bonus points (in addition to the two losing bonus points against the Grand Slam Champions makes 42 points). One team wins consecutive Grand Slams, another wins the biennial Championship. Different awards for different things.

and relegation, for the 6th placed team

A medal for everyone?

I think this really is a modern world (2000 +) v the ancient world (1900s).  It just seems that nobody wants to lose in this post-1900s world.  Everyone has to be cuddled and told they're not being left out and that they have their own cup, their own medal, their own personal award.... yeah, it's not 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th.... but it's a Taking Part Meritocracy Soothing Balm Award and it was made specially for you.

Let's stop this nonsense.  Let's get back to a real man's (oops!!!) - I mean a non-determinate, non-gender homospecies world and let the winner em............... take all?

SecretFly wrote:A medal for everyone?

I think this really is a modern world (2000 +) v the ancient world (1900s).  It just seems that nobody wants to lose in this post-1900s world.  Everyone has to be cuddled and told they're not being left out and that they have their own cup, their own medal, their own personal award.... yeah, it's not 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th.... but it's a Taking Part Meritocracy Soothing Balm Award and it was made specially for you.

Let's stop this nonsense.  Let's get back to a real man's (oops!!!) - I mean a non-determinate, non-gender homospecies world and let the winner em............... take all?

It wouldn't be a medal for all though. In two season you'd have one Championship and potentially two Grand Slams. If no-one won all their games in a season, one wouldn't be awarded.

Compare that to now where in two seasons you'd have two Championships and potentially two Grand Slams, and you actually have fewer presentations and medals.

*for the purpose of the above, I'm ignoring the Triple Crown, Calcutta Cup, Millennium Trophy, Giuseppe Garibaldi Trophy et al. that exist and would continue to exist. They're a different problem for a different day.

If we want to simplify it for the layman, why not have 2 points for a win and naff all for a loss? Very simple to understand.

We'll be awarding style points next!

The Oracle wrote:If we want to simplify it for the layman, why not have 2 points for a win and naff all for a loss?  Very simple to understand.

We'll be awarding style points next!  

SecretFly wrote:

The Oracle wrote:If we want to simplify it for the layman, why not have 2 points for a win and naff all for a loss?  Very simple to understand.

We'll be awarding style points next!  

Also

In fact

Pete330v2 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

The Oracle wrote:
We'll be awarding style points next!  

Also

In fact

10 points for style, Pete!

The Oracle wrote:If we want to simplify it for the layman, why not have 2 points for a win and naff all for a loss?  Very simple to understand.

We'll be awarding style points next!  

That would be more simple, but then every major rugby tournament started using bonus points. Then the question became - why not the Six Nations?

Billy Vunipola said after he scored his try against Fiji in the World Cup that he didn't realise there was a bonus point for it.

It seems nonsensical, but obviously he's used to switching from Saracens (where he plays for bonus points week-in, week-out) to England (where bonus points are never considered). It was an oversight for the coaching team not to bring it up, but they probably just assumed the players knew the World Cup had bonus points.

Bonus points bring the Six Nations into line with the rest of the rugby world. They're not particularly difficult to understand or explain.

You could argue that all rugby could do away with them, and I have no strong feelings either way on that. But I wouldn't advocate a position where we're the only tournament without them, especially if we're going to ask our players to go to World Cups and change their mindsets.

Like others have mentioned, a short, sharp international tournament like the 6N with no home AND away is different from a season long club tournament with him home and away fixtures. And as such the use of bonus points could/should be viewed differently. But they’re here now so it makes little difference to my enjoyment of the tournament. I just don’t see that they were needed in the first place.

My other gripe is with trying to morph all tournaments into the same format. ‘Other tournaments use BPs so why not the 6N?’ Other tournaments are home and away, so will we make the 6N home and away to match? Other tournaments are world wide, so let’s make the 6N a world wide tournament with 32 teams! Not for me thanks. I guess I quite like differences and quirks in tournaments that makes them unique. No need to homogenise everything otherwise it becomes very boring.

On the mind set point, Robbo. Again, I just don’t think that at this level (what should be the pinnacle for players careers) players and teams should need an incentive to change their mindset. Did teams really go out in the 6N to score only 1 try before the BPs? Did they really not bother trying to catch up to within 7 points before losing BPs? If so, they should stripped of their international caps! The swines! Players and teams should be busting a gut to score tries and keep within 7 points regardless of an extra point. Maybe I’m being naive!

Yes.  Six Nations is Six Nations because it is Six Nations.  And the excitement levels are such because it is a short, sharp shock and then it's gone for another year.  It's one of the quirkiest sporting events on the planet and who the hell cares.  There are enough damn never ending Leagues on the planet.  God protect me from any more damn home and away bonus point wonder Leagues!

The Oracle wrote:On the mind set point, Robbo. Again, I just don’t think that at this level (what should be the pinnacle for players careers) players and teams should need an incentive to change their mindset. Did teams really go out in the 6N to score only 1 try before the BPs? Did they really not bother trying to catch up to within 7 points before losing BPs? If so, they should stripped of their international caps! The swines! Players and teams should be busting a gut to score tries and keep within 7 points regardless of an extra point. Maybe I’m being naive!

You raise good points.

England had a 12 point cushion over Wales and 2 tries in 20 minutes and didn't secure a bonus point. Scotland had a 19 point cushion over England and 3 tries at half time and didn't secure a bonus point, so it's questionable whether teams actually care about the four-try bonus even now they're here, and won't chance their arm unless they're very comfortable in the game.

Obviously getting within 7 is an objective in itself when trailing as it gives you a chance to draw/win, so the LBP can be a bit misleading. For example, against England Wales took a penalty shot at goal to reduce the gap from 9 to 6 to give them a shot at the win in the last 5 minutes, not to bag the losing bonus. It's only when the clock stops you get a "league table incentive" to keep playing - as England had against Scotland on the weekend. Although before bonus points I don't remember many teams trailing by 12 kicking the ball out on 80 and taking their lot.

I personally think they're slightly fairer as a separator than points difference, and in a small tournament like this you almost certainly won't get teams overtaking others with superior W/L/D records as a result of bonus points, so they just become a separator for teams with even records.

I think they add a bit to certain games, if not certain tournaments. So if you score a last minute try to get the try bonus point, then that feels like more of a win than scoring a last minute try to add +7 to your PD column. Even if in the grand scheme of things that bonus point is meaningless, at the time it feels like something.

One issue could be that most bonus points in the Six Nations come against Italy, so a bonus point there is almost the minimum requirement.

Would be interested to know whether Welsh fans thought getting the bonus point against Scotland was a big deal in Week 1 at the time. England won the Championship just with a win against Scotland last year, so can't really say the TBP figured into anyone's thinking.

In terms of losing bonus points, I was still completely engulfed in the latter stages and overtime of Saturday's game because if England are to win then it'll have to be on bonus points now. So getting one late against Scotland, while not making up for a defeat, would have at least felt like something to take away.

And I guess there's my point why BPs has ruined the 6 Nation's format and should be scrapped.

England have to win both its remaining games with BPs to be in with a chance of the title. And if Ireland get a winning BP against Scotland, England will have to get winning BPs in both the games AND a beat Ireland by a clear 22 points (current points diff - of course that will change next round).

Without BPs, then England just have to win both their games and would know what Points Diff they needed.

What's wrong with that... The position we where in in 2013, and I challenge anyone (even the English) to say that Wales/England game wasnt exciting..

Bonus Points arent needed in the 6 Nations..... they where a stupid idea and should be scrapped.

robbo277 wrote:
Would be interested to know whether Welsh fans thought getting the bonus point against Scotland was a big deal in Week 1 at the time.

To answer that. Yes, as a Welshman, I felt getting a BP against Scotland was a big deal. But only because that's the current scoring method, so getting as many points you can each round is the deal. So you want to get 5pts every game, and I will be disappointed if we don't get 5 points against Italy, and I want 5 points against France, to push us up that table. But that's because its the current scoring mechanism, not because I think BPs in the 6 Nations is a good thing.

No9 wrote:And I guess there's my point why BPs has ruined the 6 Nation's format and should be scrapped.

England have to win both its remaining games with BPs to be in with a chance of the title. And if Ireland get a winning BP against Scotland, England will have to get winning BPs in both the games AND a beat Ireland by a clear 22 points (current points diff - of course that will change next round).

Without BPs, then England just have to win both their games and would know what Points Diff they needed.

What's wrong with that... The position we where in in 2013, and I challenge anyone (even the English) to say that Wales/England game wasnt exciting..

Bonus Points arent needed in the 6 Nations..... they where a stupid idea and should be scrapped.

robbo277 wrote:
Would be interested to know whether Welsh fans thought getting the bonus point against Scotland was a big deal in Week 1 at the time.

To answer that. Yes, as a Welshman, I felt getting a BP against Scotland was a big deal. But only because that's the current scoring method, so getting as many points you can each round is the deal. So you want to get 5pts every game, and I will be disappointed if we don't get 5 points against Italy, and I want 5 points against France, to push us up that table. But that's because its the current scoring mechanism, not because I think BPs in the 6 Nations is a good thing.

In 2013, Wales had to win by 8 to take the Championship from England.
In 2015, England had to beat France by 26 to take the Championship from Ireland.

Why did Wales get an "easier ride" than England in the last game? Simply because Wales did better in 2013 than England did in 2015 in the first 4 games and put themselves in a better position. And the same is true this year, even allowing for the fact that they've played slightly different opposition, Ireland have had a much better opening 3 games of the Championship, leaving England with it all to do.

As an aside, even if England and Ireland both get TBP wins and the same number of points (so no change in net point difference), England will need to TBP and to win by +13 to take the Championship, as every point they score against Ireland will add 1 to England's PD and take 1 from Ireland's, so will effectively be worth two on the table.

And that's my point... England must not only win by 12 points (which will change by the last game) BUT also score 4 trys in both games. Surly wining the games should be enough (and points diff of course). The BPs are just silly in this tournament.

If Ireland and England both finish with the same number of Wins, the title should be determined by points diff, as I accept in this day, you have to have a winner as sharing (as was ok in the good old days of the 5 Nations) is no longer accepted.

Of course, there's an argument to say, if drawn on match won, then maybe the result of the drawn teams decide it. That way, the title, assuming England and Ireland win next round, will be decided on the final game between them. Not sure about this, but think even this is better than BPs.

And this is WHY Bonus Points should be scrapped...

If the following results are :-



And its not impossible that:-

• Scotland beat Ireland by 2, leaving Ireland pick up a LBP
  
• France beat England by 3, leaving England pick up a LBP
  
• Wales at home beat Italy taking a TBP
  

Then..

• Scotland beat Italy (away) but dont pick up a TBP
  
• England beat Ireland with Ireland getting  a losing BP
  
• Wales (knowing exactly whats needed) beat France at home and pick up a TBP.
  

None of this is impossible...


The the final table would be :-



Who really thinks if that happens, Wales should take the title with only 3 wins and Ireland 2nd place, also with 3 wins, and Scotland with 4 wins gets 3rd place.

Now, as a Welshman I'd be over the moon. As a rugby fan, winning the 6 Nations whilst winning less games doesn't sit well with me.

Just posted this in another thread, thought people might be interested...

I've got something for the differences in what the title chances would like at each stage under bonus points and non-bonus point championships.

Now, before we get started, I'd like to say that I know already this isn't perfect. There are a couple of things that need investigated to make sure that they aren't unduly affecting the results but broadly speaking I'm pretty happy I've got most of them ironed out and that this is a reasonable reflection of the chances that the algorithm gives under each set of circumstances.

This content doesn't really lend itself to presenting on the 606 website very well, so I'll try and write something up on the Rugby4Cast website and post a link so it is a little clearer, as well as sorting out the last remaining issues.

Broadly speaking however, the differences between the two circumstances can be seen.

Under bonus points the tournament is more open, with more teams able to reach higher or lower positions due to more scoring options, which makes sense thinking logically. Whether or not this makes the tournament 'better' as it leaves it more open until the end is up for debate. Whether this is sufficient to make up for the fact that sometimes you can get anomalous results like No9 posted is another debate. Suffice to say, No9's situation is, although possible, quite unusual. We give it roughly a 0.3% chance of happening.

Under the old system, you can see as results come in positions become more 'fixed' as possibilities are removed. Teams cannot 'move' as far up and down the table in the later weeks.

Before anyone asks, I'm not sure why Ireland have exactly the same 84% chance of winning the tournament after Round 3 under both circumstances. I shall investigate further when I get the chance. At the moment it just looks like a coincidence, due to the fact that under the no bonus point situation Ireland's points difference is better, and would be hard to overcome.

Hope this serves to answer some questions, and provoke even more! Let me know your thoughts, happy to take feedback on anything.

My point is simple, no matter how unlikely it is mathematically, it is possible for a team to win the title whilst winning less games than a team below them. That doesn't sit well with me.

It simply should be based on number of wins first (then draws) and then if needed split on points diff or tries scored, which ever is the flavour of the month.

Absolutely, it doesn't sit well with me either tbh. But I think I am happy with the idea that is sufficiently unlikely, in order to make the tournament more competitive for longer.

BP isnt that different from points difference, albeit it (BP) favours teams who get a thrashing in the sense that if you lose by 8 or 50 it no longer matters

In the England v Wales game. England won 12 points to 6 to Wales. 

So am i right in thinking that Wales got a losing bonus point, and England even though they won did not get any bonus point/s for ( winning the game ) i mean?

Yes. England received 4 points for the win, and Wales took 1 losing bonus point.

Sent from Topic'it App

the Bonus Point system philosophy is aimed at TV MONEY. Encourage teams to score more tries, and more TV advertising revenue money will ultimately flow...because obviousloy more tries = more entertaining, right?

anyway.

i dont actually think it makes much difference in the 6N given all the other vagaries teams have to put up with

The bonus points system is ok. It means we don’t have a shared result like we did in the two years previous to England's last two wins (shared with Eng/Wales/Ireland and then England/Ireland). We need an absolute winner. Ireland need a win since 2009. The Dublin effect may take a while to drop off.

They did away with shared winners many years ago.

Cyril wrote:The bonus points system is ok. It means we don’t have a shared result like we did in the two years previous to England's last two wins (shared with Eng/Wales/Ireland and then England/Ireland). We need an absolute winner. Ireland need a win since 2009. The Dublin effect may take a while to drop off.

So if the end result is as I stated earlier, you'll be ok with that then ?

No9 wrote:And this is WHY Bonus Points should be scrapped...

If the following results are :-



And its not impossible that:-

• Scotland beat Ireland by 2, leaving Ireland pick up a LBP
  
• France beat England by 3, leaving England pick up a LBP
  
• Wales at home beat Italy taking a TBP
  

Then..

• Scotland beat Italy (away) but dont pick up a TBP
  
• England beat Ireland with Ireland getting  a losing BP
  
• Wales (knowing exactly whats needed) beat France at home and pick up a TBP.
  

None of this is impossible...


The the final table would be :-



Who really thinks if that happens, Wales should take the title with only 3 wins and Ireland 2nd place, also with 3 wins, and Scotland with 4 wins gets 3rd place.

Now, as a Welshman I'd be over the moon. As a rugby fan, winning the 6 Nations whilst winning less games doesn't sit well with me.

No9 wrote:And that's my point... England must not only win by 12 points (which will change by the last game) BUT also score 4 trys in both games.  Surly wining the games should be enough (and points diff of course). The BPs are just silly in this tournament.

If Ireland and England both finish with the same number of Wins, the title should be determined by points diff, as I accept in this day, you have to have a winner as sharing (as was ok in the good old days of the 5 Nations) is no longer accepted.

Of course, there's an argument to say, if drawn on match won, then maybe the result of the drawn teams decide it. That way, the title, assuming England and Ireland win next round, will be decided on the final game between them. Not sure about this, but think even this is better than BPs.

But England only have to climb a mini-mountain here because they haven't done enough in their first 3 games. They've done just enough to keep it notionally in their hands, but it will take quite an effort from here on in.

Of course if they'd secured a bonus point against Wales or Scotland, it would be that much easier now. The fact that they didn't is a failing of England, not a failing of the bonus point system.

Hypothetical scenario in which bonus points aren't in play:
Team A thrashes Team F by 60 points at home and Team B beats them by 30 away. Team C beats Team B by a point, but both teams win the remainder of their games (with no further try bonus points). On the last day, Team B has to beat Team A by 16 points to turn over the Championship.

The first separator in this instance is points difference, and this is uncapped. Turning a 30 point win into a 60 point win (in this instance based on home advantage against the weakest side Team F), means instead of having to beat a strong Team A by 8 points (and just deny a bonus point), Team B has to double that to win by 16 points, what World Rugby would term a thrashing.

Taking this to the extreme if Team A won by 100 points (say Team F got a player sent off early on and just capitulated), Team B would have to win by 36 points on the final day under points difference. On bonus points, it's still just 8.

Under points difference, every point has the same value, whether you're 1 point up or 100 points up. Bonus points try attempt to add a bit of context to when points are scored.

No9 wrote:

Cyril wrote:The bonus points system is ok. It means we don’t have a shared result like we did in the two years previous to England's last two wins (shared with Eng/Wales/Ireland and then England/Ireland). We need an absolute winner. Ireland need a win since 2009. The Dublin effect may take a while to drop off.

So if the end result is as I stated earlier, you'll be ok with that then ?

No9 wrote:And this is WHY Bonus Points should be scrapped...

If the following results are :-



And its not impossible that:-

• Scotland beat Ireland by 2, leaving Ireland pick up a LBP
  
• France beat England by 3, leaving England pick up a LBP
  
• Wales at home beat Italy taking a TBP
  

Then..

• Scotland beat Italy (away) but dont pick up a TBP
  
• England beat Ireland with Ireland getting  a losing BP
  
• Wales (knowing exactly whats needed) beat France at home and pick up a TBP.
  

None of this is impossible...


The the final table would be :-



Who really thinks if that happens, Wales should take the title with only 3 wins and Ireland 2nd place, also with 3 wins, and Scotland with 4 wins gets 3rd place.

Now, as a Welshman I'd be over the moon. As a rugby fan, winning the 6 Nations whilst winning less games doesn't sit well with me.

If Scotland go into a final day against Italy on 12 points with Ireland travelling to Twickenham on 15 points, and Wales and England below them on 11 and 10 points respectively and don't manage to pick up the bonus point, then they can have no complaints.

The system isn't perfect, but it is what it is. And knowing that going into the final day, failure to secure the 5 would again be their failing, not the failing of the bonus point system.

Surely the main point of the bonus points was to increase an 'attacking' mindset. In that respect for England I think it hasn't even registered. It's just about trying to get the win. I think that'll remain th target in the final 2 games.