6N 2016 - Should we have a bonus point system?

Quin_Dub · 23-03-2015 01:05PM #1

After the final week-end and the style of play, volume of points/tries scored lots of people are calling for bonus points to be introduced in the 6N's to encourage teams to play a more open style..

Whilst I understand the sentiment , I just don't think that bonus points would work because of the game format..

In all the other tournaments that use BP's the games are played home & away so everybody gets a chance to play everybody at home..

If this years comp had BP's England would have finished on 18 points , Wales on 17 and Ireland on 16.

Another potential option would be to base it off overall Points difference...

So, thoughts?

Should we look for an alternative measure of success or leave it like it is?

23-03-2015 01:11PM

Bonus Points as in pro12. Score 4 tries, get a TBP, lose by 7 or less, get a LBP.

In order to 'preserve the sanctity' of a Grand Slam, award 3 additional Grand Slam Bonus Points for any winners. This means that a Grand Slam will always win a tournament, whilst BPs could be used as another mode for differentiation/ tie breaking in non-GS years.

rrpc · 23-03-2015 01:13PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Bonus Points as in pro12. Score 4 tries, get a TBP, lose by 7 or less, get a LBP.

In order to 'preserve the sanctity' of a Grand Slam, award 3 additional Grand Slam Bonus Points for any winners. This means that a Grand Slam will always win a tournament, whilst BPs could be used as another mode for differentiation/ tie breaking in non-GS years.

Would it really make any difference though?

Might you only see teams going for the bonus on the last weekend because it's down to the wire and they suddenly mean something like the points difference did last weekend?

Quin_Dub · 23-03-2015 01:16PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Bonus Points as in pro12. Score 4 tries, get a TBP, lose by 7 or less, get a LBP.

In order to 'preserve the sanctity' of a Grand Slam, award 3 additional Grand Slam Bonus Points for any winners. This means that a Grand Slam will always win a tournament, whilst BPs could be used as another mode for differentiation/ tie breaking in non-GS years.

But what about the fact that we don't have full home/away legs?

The teams that get Italy at home perhaps have an unfair advantage in a given year for example?

Agree that something would have to be done to ensure that a GS winner will always be champions though...

ThisRegard · 23-03-2015 01:16PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Bonus Points as in pro12. Score 4 tries, get a TBP, lose by 7 or less, get a LBP.

EOS pointed out this morning that if you use that system a team that gets the grand slam can fail to win the championship.

The relatively small number of games does not lend itself to such a system.

EDIT: Dammit, must read posts in entirety before I comment !

23-03-2015 01:17PM

rrpc wrote: »

Would it really make any difference though?

Might you only see teams going for the bonus on the last weekend because it's down to the wire and they suddenly mean something like the points difference did last weekend?

It creates a different dynamic to games. If England play Italy on the opening weekend, they know that without a Bonus Point win, any subsequent losses in the championship would be enough to all but knock them out of contention.

Likewise a Welsh team 13 points down with 6 minutes to play vs Ireland now set the 7 point gap as the 'win line' (as would Ireland) and the game changes to react to that too.

Ireland with 3 tries to their name in the 67th minute vs France and 15 points ahead without BPs in existence play a very different game compared to what they would if BPs were up for offer.

So long as scheduling is 'random' and 'fair', the advantages/disadvantages of scheduling should (in the long run) even themselves out.

sydthebeat · 23-03-2015 01:19PM

No

CatFromHue · 23-03-2015 01:20PM

With Bonus points on Friday the table would have been

Eng (3 wins + 1 TBP) 13
Ire (3 wins + 1 LBP) 13
Wal (3 wins + 1 LBP) 13

In the RWC pools, where there are bps, the rules are:

The winner of the match between the two teams (would not apply if more than two teams were tied);
Difference between points scored for and points scored against in all pool matches;
Difference between tries scored for and tries scored against in all pool matches;

so it would still have come down to points difference

irelandrover · 23-03-2015 01:24PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

After the final week-end and the style of play, volume of points/tries scored lots of people are calling for bonus points to be introduced in the 6N's to encourage teams to play a more open style..

Whilst I understand the sentiment , I just don't think that bonus points would work because of the game format..

In all the other tournaments that use BP's the games are played home & away so everybody gets a chance to play everybody at home..

If this years comp had BP's England would have finished on 18 points , Wales on 17 and Ireland on 16.

Another potential option would be to base it off overall Points difference...

So, thoughts?

Should we look for an alternative measure of success or leave it like it is?

Is this true? I thought all would have finished on 18 points. Ireland would have a losing bonus point against Wales and the try bonus point against scotland.

vienne86 · 23-03-2015 01:26PM

No for me. The fact that we don't play everyone home and away would bias things.

ArmaniJeanss · 23-03-2015 04:38PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Bonus Points as in pro12. Score 4 tries, get a TBP, lose by 7 or less, get a LBP.

In order to 'preserve the sanctity' of a Grand Slam, award 3 additional Grand Slam Bonus Points for any winners. This means that a Grand Slam will always win a tournament, whilst BPs could be used as another mode for differentiation/ tie breaking in non-GS years.

I disagree with your Grand Slam bonus.
Fundamentally if you think the standard bonus system is a good idea that encourages try scoring (and keeps losing teams competing for longer) then I think you have to let it play out as normal and accept what result it gives you.
And if that means a team with 4W1L+5bps winning the championship ahead of a 5W+0bps team then so be it. The first team has likely played in line what the bonus system intends, the other team will hopefully learn their lesson and adapt in future.
Artificially saying "hey we don't like this tried and trusted bonus system when it gives us this particular outcome" is just wrong imo.

Pudsy33 · 23-03-2015 04:41PM

The lack of home and away fixtures makes the bonus point system unworkable. There really shouldn't even be a discussion on it.

23-03-2015 04:46PM

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I disagree with your Grand Slam bonus.
Fundamentally if you think the standard bonus system is a good idea that encourages try scoring (and keeps losing teams competing for longer) then I think you have to let it play out as normal and accept what result it gives you.
And if that means a team with 4W1L+5bps winning the championship ahead of a 5W+0bps team then so be it. The first team has likely played in line what the bonus system intends, the other team will hopefully learn their lesson and adapt in future.
Artificially saying "hey we don't like this tried and trusted bonus system when it gives us this particular outcome" is just wrong imo.

That's not what the 3BPs for a Grand Slam is saying.
It's saying, "Anyone who wins a Grand Slam wins the tournament. In the case when there is no Grand Slam winner (often), the team that has won 'most well' and lost 'most well' will more than likely be the winner of the tournament".

The chances of a team winning a Grand Slam and another team managing to pip them at the post with BPS is really extremely small. However, legislate for that eventuality at the beginning and it means there's no weirdness if/when it ever comes about.

henryporter · 23-03-2015 04:46PM

We might not have ended up with the 3 games that we did last Saturday if there was a bonus point system - however the preceding 12 games might have been better if there was.

dub_skav · 23-03-2015 04:47PM

I love the logic.
We've seen the most exciting day of rugby ever under an existing system, let's change something

23-03-2015 04:48PM

dub_skav wrote: »

I love the logic.
We've seen the most exciting day of right ever under an existing system, let's change something

No, actually the logic is "How can we try to get that kind of collection of games more often"?

The preceding weekends were anything but exciting.

Pudsy33 · 23-03-2015 05:00PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No, actually the logic is "How can we try to get that kind of collection of games more often"?

The preceding weekends were anything but exciting.

That's not true though, Wales vs England, Ireland vs England, Ireland vs England, were all good games. It wasn't a bad tournament.

Neil3030 · 23-03-2015 05:06PM

A few points in no specific order, from the conservative's perspective:

- I can't see how losing bonus points will change anything. A team down by 13 should have just as much concern over their net points total as they should securing a bonus point. The last two titles have been decided on a points difference of less than a score. Well coached/captained teams will chase games until the death regardless of whether losing bonus points are introduced or not.

- The Six Nations is not built on the interests of the neutral observer, it's built on history and the emotional investment of the fans of each team. While the France/England game saw plenty of tries, the real drama was in the points difference, and who would wind up winning the tournament.

- Tries are not the only thing to enjoy about rugby, and there are already plenty of tournaments that weight more heavily on teams scoring them if that is your thang.

- Saturday wasn't simply a function of the winning teams chasing games with the shackles off. Italy were dreadful in the second half and allowed Wales to walk in tries; France defended terribly for large patches of the game; Scotland probably made the best account of themselves of the three losing teams.

Webbs · 23-03-2015 05:21PM

Neil3030 wrote: »

Scotland probably made the best account of themselves of the three losing teams.

:eek::eek: Italy second half and Scotland pretty much whole game had their bags packed and were on their holidays. At least France gave it everything

As for BPs, with no home and away its not a runner for me.

bilston · 23-03-2015 05:42PM

Webbs wrote: »

:eek::eek: Italy second half and Scotland pretty much whole game had their bags packed and were on their holidays. At least France gave it everything

As for BPs, with no home and away its not a runner for me.

France conceded 53 points, (53 points!!!) previous to the weekend they had the best defence in the competition. France attacked in a care free manner but defensively they were quite poor.

MikeSD · 23-03-2015 06:05PM

All 3 of us would have finished on 18.

twinytwo · 23-03-2015 08:46PM

its not broken so dont try to fix it

23-03-2015 08:58PM

No because its not a balanced schedule. If everyone was playing everyone home and away like in the Pro 12 or European Cup I'd say yes but England had 3 home games this time, we have 3 home games next year etc.

Swiwi. · 23-03-2015 09:07PM

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why (change?)... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not give it a go?

It would be risky and there are pros and cons. The pros might be that you could end up with 5 weekends like the one just passed, but the cons are all the reasons many of you have outlined above.

I really don't see this ever being trialled.

Maybe the Q is how to avoid such classic games as this year's Italy v France clash? And for that, there may not be an answer.

Rightwing · 23-03-2015 09:37PM

It's a no brainer to bring it in.

More attack minded rugby for starters.

Winning championship on points differential after 5 games is a little shallow.

Italy & Scots aren't up to much. That's being kind to them. 2 or 3 teams will be finishing on 8 points for the forseeable future under current system.

nice_guy80 · 23-03-2015 10:11PM

Financial Bonus for the teams would do the trick.

Then you'd see them fight for every point

andyman · 23-03-2015 10:37PM

No chance.

The possibility of a team winning the Grand Slam but not the championship is one that sickens me if I'm honest

thomond2006 · 23-03-2015 11:50PM

dub_skav wrote: »

I love the logic.
We've seen the most exciting day of right ever under an existing system, let's change something

Bingo! It's fine as it is. If teams don't like it, then just go and win all 5 matches and make it irrelevant!

Teferi · 24-03-2015 12:24AM

andyman wrote: »

No chance.

The possibility of a team winning the Grand Slam but not the championship is one that sickens me if I'm honest

This isn't an issue at all. If they trialled bonus points they'll obviously just make a Slam worth 10000 bonus points and then a Slam always wins.

CatFromHue · 24-03-2015 12:28AM

I suppose the question is does the bonus point system make the Rugby Championship (what a ****e name btw) a more attacking competition?

I'm not so sure tbh as I think all the teams play to their strengths, which is their sterotypical strengths.

brevity · 24-03-2015 12:36AM

As someone who is quite unfamiliar with the history of rugby, why is it important that the GS wins the 6 Nations?

pickarooney · 24-03-2015 06:18AM

CatFromHue wrote: »

I suppose the question is does the bonus point system make the Rugby Championship (what a ****e name btw) a more attacking competition?

I'm not so sure tbh as I think all the teams play to their strengths, which is their sterotypical strengths.

And South Africa's strength is their strength.

tritriagain · 24-03-2015 07:00AM

You are assuming that the 3 teams would have played the same game type with the bonus points in place. Which would clearly not be the case.

tritriagain · 24-03-2015 07:05AM

CatFromHue wrote: »

With Bonus points on Friday the table would have been

Eng (3 wins + 1 TBP) 13
Ire (3 wins + 1 LBP) 13
Wal (3 wins + 1 LBP) 13

In the RWC pools, where there are bps, the rules are:

so it would still have come down to points difference

Sorry my above list was in reply to this.

Podge_irl · 24-03-2015 07:15AM

Saturday was an amazing day of rugby only in context. In case people didn't notice, the three games were basically blowouts.

Maybe it's just me, but taken in isolation the first half of the Wales-Italy game was a lot better than the second because it was still a contest.

Quin_Dub · 24-03-2015 08:58AM

Podge_irl wrote: »

Saturday was an amazing day of rugby only in context. In case people didn't notice, the three games were basically blowouts.

Maybe it's just me, but taken in isolation the first half of the Wales-Italy game was a lot better than the second because it was still a contest.

I agree - Definitely not one of those that believe that more tries automatically means more entertainment..

The England France game, if we removed the Irish interest in the Points differential, wasn't that great in my view.

Yes, there were a few really good scores - Debatys in particular , but overall the game was totally helter-skelter and the defensive skill on display was non existant.

In terms of overall skill and rugby abilities the Ireland-Wales game was the game of the Championship for me.

Basketball scores in Rugby have never really appealed to me personally.

.ak · 24-03-2015 09:03AM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I agree - Definitely not one of those that believe that more tries automatically means more entertainment..

The England France game, if we removed the Irish interest in the Points differential, wasn't that great in my view.

Yes, there were a few really good scores - Debatys in particular , but overall the game was totally helter-skelter and the defensive skill on display was non existant.

In terms of overall skill and rugby abilities the Ireland-Wales game was the game of the Championship for me.

Basketball scores in Rugby have never really appealed to me personally.

I thought apart from excitement the Wales v Ireland game was poor. So many errors from Ireland it was hardly two teams at their best.

In comparison to last year I thought England v Ireland or France v Ireland were brilliant games, two teams going at it hammer and tongs. The England game for me was the best, despite us losing, it was a case of who blinked first. Probably features the two best tries also. The difference between sides being a momentary lapse in concentration.

Best game this year for me was France v Wales. But the ability for teams to break records when the need was upmost on the final day was something special. I disagree with Matt Williams, it's a rare thing we witnessed and introducing bonus points won't change that.

shuffol · 24-03-2015 09:58AM

Don't think bonus points would make much difference to the quality of the games, the last 2 championships have been decided on points difference, we already have a competition where every score is vital.

Rightwing · 24-03-2015 10:30AM

brevity wrote: »

As someone who is quite unfamiliar with the history of rugby, why is it important that the GS wins the 6 Nations?

The ultimate goal is the GS. That's the pinnacle. The 6N is a distant second, just like the triple crown is a distant 3rd.

Podge_irl · 24-03-2015 10:38AM

Rightwing wrote: »

The ultimate goal is the GS. That's the pinnacle. The 6N is a distant second, just like the triple crown is a distant 3rd.

Yeah, everyone looked devastated about not winning the ole GS on Saturday. And England definitely didn't care about missing out on the championship cause sure it wouldn't have been a GS anyway.

Grandslam is important because it means you're pretty definitively the best. A championship is a close second to that - it being such a comparatively short tournament (as opposed to a full season league) obviously means winning all your games is a possibility so it's something that is strived for.

Rightwing · 24-03-2015 10:43AM

Podge_irl wrote: »

Yeah, everyone looked devastated about not winning the ole GS on Saturday. And England definitely didn't care about missing out on the championship cause sure it wouldn't have been a GS anyway.

Grandslam is important because it means you're pretty definitively the best. A championship is a close second to that - it being such a comparatively short tournament (as opposed to a full season league) obviously means winning all your games is a possibility so it's something that is strived for.

Void point. Did everyone looked devastated when we won triple crowns?. That doesn't mean it is almost as good as a GS.

Are we the best in the 6N ? I don't know. Maybe Eng, maybe Wales or maybe us.

Podge_irl · 24-03-2015 10:47AM

Rightwing wrote: »

Are we the best in the 6N ? I don't know. Maybe Eng, maybe Wales or maybe us.

Yes. That's why we won it two years in a row.

A Grandslam is obviously better than a 6N championship without one, but to call the championship a "distant second" is absurd.

dub_skav · 24-03-2015 10:55AM

Rightwing wrote: »

Void point. Did everyone looked devastated when we won triple crowns?. That doesn't mean it is almost as good as a GS.

Are we the best in the 6N ? I don't know. Maybe Eng, maybe Wales or maybe us.

Were we the best team in '09?
We deserved our grandslam, but we scraped through a few games by the grace of BOD.
A grand slam is nice because it's rare, I don't think it proves anything though.

Rightwing · 24-03-2015 10:56AM

Podge_irl wrote: »

Yes. That's why we won it two years in a row.

A Grandslam is obviously better than a 6N championship without one, but to call the championship a "distant second" is absurd.

When you have 3 teams finishing on 8 points and all 3 running up cricket scores on the final day, to me at any rate, there is a huge difference between the 2.

Rightwing · 24-03-2015 10:59AM

dub_skav wrote: »

Were we the best team in '09?
We deserved our grandslam, but we scraped through a few games by the grace of BOD.
A grand slam is nice because it's rare, I don't think it proves anything though.

It proves 1 thing, and 1 thing only. Unbeatable in that campaign. Unbeatable teams are always remembered.

.ak · 24-03-2015 04:25PM

Rightwing wrote: »

Void point. Did everyone looked devastated when we won triple crowns?. That doesn't mean it is almost as good as a GS.

Are we the best in the 6N ? I don't know. Maybe Eng, maybe Wales or maybe us.

Well it's us. Winning is winning. We're the best NH side in world rugby right now.

... I'm don't really want to get involved in the discussion, I just wanted to say the above, and it felt great. :pac:

.ak · 24-03-2015 04:27PM

Rightwing wrote: »

When you have 3 teams finishing on 8 points and all 3 running up cricket scores on the final day, to me at any rate, there is a huge difference between the 2.

There isn't really. All teams had the opportunity to win it - we were just better.

I think the whole GS thing is just a nice bonus for 'bragging rights'. Winning the trophy is the priority.

Webbs · 24-03-2015 05:11PM

Rightwing wrote: »

When you have 3 teams finishing on 8 points and all 3 running up cricket scores on the final day, to me at any rate, there is a huge difference between the 2.

Agreed is a big difference between the two.
I guess its because as a kid starting to watch rugby, the championships weren't decided on points difference and the be all and end all was the Grand Slam. Still feel that way, far more gutted say this year when Wales lost to England first off meaning no Grand Slam possibility. Was a bit meh come last day, if we won on points great but if as turned out we only lost on points then just shrug of the shoulders no where near as dissapointed

Rightwing · 24-03-2015 05:11PM

.ak wrote: »

There isn't really. All teams had the opportunity to win it - we were just better.

I think the whole GS thing is just a nice bonus for 'bragging rights'. Winning the trophy is the priority.

No, the GS is the ultimate in NH rugby. It sets you apart from everyone else.

Winning the championship is great, as is the triple crown, regardless of how it is done, but for me the GS is the creme de la creme. Wales and Eng also had a great tournament.

That's how I see it anyway, but then again I do like to set high standards.

Rightwing · 24-03-2015 05:15PM

Webbs wrote: »

Agreed is a big difference between the two.
I guess its because as a kid starting to watch rugby, the championships weren't decided on points difference and the be all and end all was the Grand Slam. Still feel that way, far more gutted say this year when Wales lost to England first off meaning no Grand Slam possibility. Was a bit meh come last day, if we won on points great but if as turned out we only lost on points then just shrug of the shoulders no where near as dissapointed

Interesting. That's exactly how I felt.

Maybe there is a difference between younger people and posters like yourself and myself.

Uno my Uno. · 24-03-2015 05:28PM

I think the Idiosyncrasies of the tournament are part of what makes it so great, no home and away legs, no bonus points. Home advantage is already a big factor in the competition because there are no return legs. Bonus Points would magnify that too much, any team playing Italy and Scotland at home in the same year would have a greater advantage over other teams.

6N 2016 - Should we have a bonus point system?

Should we introduce a Bonus Point system for the 6N's? 106 votes

Comments