Payten calls for Golden Point

[Hugh Jarse]

If there's a draw after 80 minutes, to determine a winner both teams have to:

a) renovate a house in Melbourne's inner suburbs.

b) make a crockenbush.

c) perform a Queen medley.

d) give each other a makeover.

Any of the above ideas will make for a better spectacle than "golden point", deliver rugby to new markets and drive up the ratings....

Before any of these must be an option involving beer consumption. Plenty of variations as a tie break.








BTW its croquembouche.

 

[Wilson]

Steak challenge, points equal to the weight consumed * number on your back

 

[Omar Comin']

There's nothing wrong with a draw. Teams push for a win within the 80 minutes and the game ends. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

When draws are so infrequent why bother changing things?

There being nothing wrong with something isn't always reason enough not to change it. Things that are fine can be improved.

But what's wrong with a draw is that it's a nothing result, it's deflating. And an extra 10 minutes would be good to watch.

You're right, they're infrequent, so I don't really care that much about this debate and will happily agree to disagree. I just think I'd rather see an extra 10 minutes of rugby then settle for the draw after 80. And for all the hyperbole in this thread from guys like Slim and Scoey, I don't think it's some huge ridiculous gimmick.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Not sure the mungoes think golden point is the answer they once thought it was.
A draw is part of life's rich tapestry.

 

[Braveheart81]

But what's wrong with a draw is that it's a nothing result, it's deflating. And an extra 10 minutes would be good to watch.

My experience from the NRL is that if your team wins in Golden point you feel like you got a bit lucky and if you lose you feel like you got a bit robbed.

Describing it as some sort of edge of your seat experience is really not the reality in my opinion.

 

[Slim 293]

BTW its croquembouche.

Autocorrect has failed me.........

 

[Omar Comin']

Your options of kicking up the middle of the field gives the oppo a wonderful counter attacking opportunity as they will have their back three and probably their 10 back there waiting. The majority of your team will be still retiring because they were in front of the kicker and you're in big trouble.

You'd be kicking from near enough to your 22, and any decent kicker will be able to kick it to the opponents 22. You'd have at least half a dozen chasers to put everyone else on side and you'd be able to get to the 3 or 4 counter attackers well before they got to half way. It's a neutral game from there. Even a lineout on half way is pretty much neutral. To say the game would be decided on a coin flip is just so ridiculous. You're basically suggesting that scoring points from a 50m lineout, or even a 40m lineout is some sure thing.

There's an argument to go for a short kick off if you have it. If you succeed in winning possession you have a huge advantage. If you don't, they have only a small advantage. On the other hand, a long kick off is perhaps likely to give you a small advantage but that's it.

The fanciful notion that a big ratings test like the bled would experience some sort of ratings explosion because people would drop everything to call/text/tweet everyone they know because the game had gone into extra time is ridiculous.

I never said there would be an explosion. I said there would be thousands switch on and that none would switch off. It's entirely true. Big sporting matches that are close always peak at the end. Mainly because there are many people that switch between channels, and if you get a very close finish they'll switch to it. This would be even more the case with sudden death as there's a break before it and people wouldn't miss it. There are plenty of people that check things like twitter regularly and it would trend. People would be texting their mates about the game, some of whom wouldn't have been watching it. This is the last I will say on it. If you insist on being wrong then that's fine!

 

[Bardon]

I'd rather not be changing rugby in order to attract someone with no real interest in rugby who's flicking through the stations and is just as likely to stop on some reality show.

A fundamental change to how games are resolved for the sake of someone like that just doesn't make any sense to me.

I don't see attracting floating viewers for less than 10 minutes on a one off basis on the back of a gimmick that will soon lose it's novelty value as a solid plan for an improvement to rugby.

We'd have changed our game in a way that doesn't sit well with the core rugby fans and the people who flick through the channels will still be flicking through the channels so there's no real long term benefit to rugby.

One thing that might come from implementing it though would be a scenario in some future year where the Wallabies are going into the final home Bledisloe game just needing a win to finally take the cup back.

Unfortunately the week before in a forward dominated contest against Argentina there was no winner and another 10 minutes of hard slog didn't decide the contest. Against NZ the Wobs start well and are leading going into the final quarter when the exerts of the week before and the extra 10 minutes in their legs cause them to fade. Back come NZ to clinch the win and deny Aus for yet another year.

Now the debate about how the golden point should be scrapped after a scenario like that would be one I'd love to read. But my love for rugby is too great so I'm very happy to forgo the little bit of fun that reading such a debate might bring me for the greater good of the worldwide game as a whole.

Also I have a soft spot for Aussies rugby fans so I wouldn't want you to be punished just for the fact that you happen to live in one of the few corners of the world where the majority of people haven't yet realised that union is better.

 

[Scoey]

This is the last I will say on it. If you insist on being wrong then that's fine!

I really don't mean to denigrate you but you really are coming across as someone who either doesn't like rugby all that much or doesn't know much about it (or both). I know you've said in the other law change thread that you've played/watched it for years or something similar but still, that's how you're coming across to me at least.

There is a fine line but a vast difference between progressive thinking and recklessness. Change has consequences potentially good and bad. If the good outweighs the bad then great. What people get caught up in though is the romantic view of what the good part of the change will be like and be so blinded by that that they can't or won't see the bad consequences.

Rugby as it currently exists is an excellent product and I would go as far as to say that it's almost perfect. The closer the game is to perfection the smaller the likely gains that change can bring and the less likely it will outweigh the bad consequences. It is delicately balanced and the suggestion of such a pointless endeavour as golden point or extra time as a means to satisfy a handful of people who aren't satisfied by the 80 minute contest that is the game ending in a draw, is so narrow minded it's scary.

But I'm happy to be wrong, if it means you won't comment any more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Omar Comin']

Scoey, I don't appreciate having my love of the game questioned. It's uncalled for and unnecessary. Do you think I would be on this site and involved in a discussion like this if I didn't love the game? And I think it's pretty rich being told I know nothing about the game from the guy who implied that getting to kick off in golden point is a near certain victory. I think that's rubbish, and I'm not the only person on this thread who said the advantage is not so clear.

When I spoke about you being wrong and not saying anything else on it I was specifically talking about golden point leading to a peak in viewership.

There is no right or wrong when it comes to whether there should be golden point or extra time to try and find a winner in a drawn game. It is down to opinion and my opinion is every bit as valid as yours. And debating opinions is what a site like this is about.

This site is dominated by conservative rugby people. I'm a rugby person and have been since I was 4 years old (I'm 27 now). But I'm not conservative and I like change and variation. I think rugby can be improved in numerous areas from the rules to competition structures, marketing, administration etc. Just because I believe it can be improved doesn't mean I don't love the game or understand the game. While, it may not seem the case on this site, there are plenty of rugby fans, and more fringe fans with views similar to mine.

 

[Scoey]

I genuinely wasn't trying to insult you but you spend a lot of time and energy debating changing Rugby; in the other thread and now here.
If they were all implemented, the changes that you have either suggested or supported would result in a significantly different game to Rugby as we know it presently.
Your reasons you have put forward have been things such as, "I think that 'X' are/is boring", "It could be more entertaining", "I felt flat" at a time where from where I sit, the vast majority of Australian Rugby fans are loving the game and worldwide, Rugby is huge.
You have to understand that what you have been doing paints a picture of one who really isn't that fussed on the game.
Yes I am conservative when it comes to changes to Rugby. I've watched the game evolve to the point it is at now and I honestly think we've just about achieved perfection. To the point where changing it any more, however small would take us further from perfection rather than closer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Omar Comin']

If they were all implemented, the changes that you have either suggested or supported would result in a significantly different game to Rugby as we know it presently.

Other than supporting the idea of golden point I've basically advocated getting rid of or reducing the number of penalty goals in the game - or at least trialling something to do that in the NRC. I think you exaggerate the significance of these changes. And I told you guys something to reduce penalty goals would happen in the NRC and now it is. Maybe it will turn out to be a poor change, but at least we'll find out now. If I feel I was wrong I will have no problem admitting it. But maybe it will work great and you will come to agree with me.

the vast majority of Australian Rugby fans are loving the game and worldwide, Rugby is huge.

My perspective is that rugby has been doing it tough in Australia and has been getting out-competed by the rival codes. I do think it's at the start of a revival, but that's largely due to changes in administration and playing philosophy. Further changes could make it more sustainable. And I'm more interested in global rugby developments than most Australian rugby fans. I watch test matches featuring tier 2 and 3 teams quite a lot. Rugby is not huge around the world but there is a huge runway ahead of it. IMO the main thing that holds it back is conservative administrators.

I've watched the game evolve to the point it is at now and I honestly think we've just about achieved perfection. To the point where changing it any more, however small would take us further from perfection rather than closer.

Well my opinion is that it's at a much better point, in terms of entertainment value, than it was around 2007. But I don't think it's near perfection or that there is even such a thing. Rugby will continue to evolve.

 

[Braveheart81]

My perspective is that rugby has been doing it tough in Australia and has been getting out-competed by the rival codes. I do think it's at the start of a revival, but that's largely due to changes in administration and playing philosophy. Further changes could make it more sustainable. And I'm more interested in global rugby developments than most Australian rugby fans. I watch test matches featuring tier 2 and 3 teams quite a lot. Rugby is not huge around the world but there is a huge runway ahead of it. IMO the main thing that holds it back is conservative administrators.

Rugby is booming around the world though and the biggest growth areas are in the emerging markets of the tier 2 and 3 teams, the women's game and 7s.

Rugby is doing it tough in Australia but I think it is the casual fans that we need to win back because there is little hope in convincing dyed in the wool NRL and AFL fans that rugby is actually the sport they should follow.

I think the way to win back the casual fans is for rugby here to be strong and for the Wallabies to be winning. It's the exact same thing as Australians tuning in to watch the Olympics because they want to see Australia win (or at least try to).

Things like the NRC are needed to improve the quality of rugby, not to attract a new fanbase. The NRC fanbase are going to be a mix of the diehards from club rugby, Super Rugby and the Wallabies.

The people who tune in and watch a couple of games a year of any sport are going to watch things like the Bledisloe Cup, RWC, Super Rugby Final (if an Aussie team is playing) State of Origin, NRL Grand Final, AFL Grand Final.

We need the casual fans to watch those games (well the rugby ones anyway) and then decide that they liked it enough to tune in for the next test match and so on.

 

[Pfitzy]

The lapsed rugby fans that were lost during the Deans era make up a good portion of the crowd we need to win back.

The casual fan will only come for success

 

[Braveheart81]

The lapsed rugby fans that were lost during the Deans era make up a good portion of the crowd we need to win back.

The casual fan will only come for success

I agree.

My guess is that many of the lapsed rugby fans still watch things like the Bledisloe. They've just stopped going to games live.

These fans are far easier targets than the people who would have looked at their options on Saturday night and thought why the fuck would I watch the Bledisloe Cup when I can watch the Roosters play the Tigers? Ermagherd... NRL!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Scrubber2050]

Golden Point: Australia would, judging from last weeks decisions only go for a try.

Therefore leave it as it is. - there are few drawn games anyway. If you cannot get enough points over 80 minutes and its drawn at that point then it has been a very equal contest.

 

[Braveheart81]

Golden Point: Australia would, judging from last weeks decisions only go for a try.

Why do you say that? I think the Wallabies would have attempted a drop goal within the next phase or two after that final penalty on the first phase.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Why do you say that? I think the Wallabies would have attempted a drop goal within the next phase or two after that final penalty on the first phase.

mate, it was a bit of tongue in cheek.

Hooper should have taken the points when they were available - costly fucking mistake IMHO

 

[Braveheart81]

mate, it was a bit of tongue in cheek.

Hooper should have taken the points when they were available - costly fucking mistake IMHO

I agree. In those conditions I would have taken every possible shot at goal. That said, we turned down one difficult attempt in the first half and the second one that was turned down had a viable tactical decision behind it (getting a backrower taken off) and we got another shot immediately afterwards.

Still, we didn't know that would have happened so I would have taken the first shot and just proceeded with Kaino on the field.

 

[Richo]

The NFL has an interesting approach for overtime in the regular season,* where a draw is still possible but 'modified sudden death' applies. Basically, if you receive the ball on a kick off and score a touchdown, you win. If you only kick a field goal, then the team that kicked off receives the ball and has a chance to equalize with a field goal or win with a touchdown. If they equalize, then it goes to true sudden death. If after the overtime period of 15 minutes there is no winner, then a tie is declared. Ties are rare, but in a truly tight contest are very possible.

It's good because it encourages teams to play attacking football on their first possession, since a field goal just gives the ball back to the opposition and actually creates the conditions for potentially losing.

Not sure I'm keen on the idea for rugby, but it's interesting to discuss variations beyond the Golden Point (which I agree sucks).

*In the playoffs, they keep playing overtime periods until one side wins.