Bonus point system in 6 nations

[RugbyPUBtbilisi]

Every championship in the world, including world cup, use bonus point system which is fair enough to give 5 points for winning 50-10 and give 4 points for winning 10-9 and 1 point for losing less than 7 points.

it is not fair to give both teams equal points, because one of them scored 6 tries and second only one.

I saw the voting result on Guardian, and 65% voted against bonus point.
can someone explain why do they think like that?
is it better to keep this basic 2 - win, 1-draw
than: 4 - win, 2 draw,
4+1 for winning the match and scoring 4+ tries,
0+1 for losing the match with -7 difference.
0+1+1 for losing the match with -7 difference and scoring 4+ tries. (like SA-Japan SA - 2 points, Japan - 4 points)

 

[ncurd]

If someone scores six tries and the other only 1 they'll likely win on pd anyway.

Lets take a look at last year on your system...

Wales 1 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 5 = 18
England 4 + 5 + 0 + 4 + 5 = 18
Italy 0 + 0 + 4 + 0 + 0 = 4
Ireland 4 + 4 + 4 + 1 + 5 = 18
France 4 + 1 + 1 + 4 + 1 =13
Scotland 1 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 = 3

Oh wait it's PD an exactly the same result....not to mention part of the reason for the excitement that was the last game schenanigans was England had to keep scoring hence why they scored a mouth watering 7 tries against England.

I'm all up for it over a long period of time and more matches but in a 5 game tournament it's just messy. I wasn't really that keen on it in world cup as it led to some pretty stupid possible scenarios.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Nah, 5 one off games is a flawed system regardless of having a bonus point on offer or not, once there's no slam there's no real winner (unless Wales were to go unbeaten this year). Been wanting to say that for a while, especially with Ireland as double champions so I don't look bitta!

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

TBH I'm fine with it as it is.

 

[barkinghooker]

Championship could be over after 4 rounds with bonus points ? How about having the championship over two seasons? I'd be more up for bonus points then.

 

[dai_seven]

I'm against losing bonus points full stop - why reward a team for losing?
I am for rewarding teams that score 4 (or more) tries however so the idea of a losing bonus point when the team scores 4 (or more) tries is a good one.
I would also go further and have extra bonus points for more tries - at say 6, 8, 10 etc.
For the 6 Nations, it is strange that we don't have the bonus point system but as has been said it won't make much of a difference to whoever becomes Champions. And that is only down to the fact that none of the teams scores many tries unless against Italy.

 

[Which Tyler]

6N doesn't need BPs; it's simply too short. You also, of course, have the factor that introducing BPs could mean that a team can win the grand slam, and still not be champions.
RWC shouldn't have adopted them either.
You need at least 10 rounds before it's worth bothering with BPs; and personally, I'd be perfectly happy to ditch them from leagues as well anyway (along with play-offs to reward the losers)

Quite apart from that, rugby isn't about scoring tries, it's about scoring points. You don't win a match by scoring more tries than the other team, but by scoring more points.

 

[dai_seven]

You need at least 10 rounds before it's worth bothering with BPs; and personally, I'd be perfectly happy to ditch them from leagues as well anyway (along with play-offs to reward the losers)



Totally agree with ditching playoffs - how can a team that potentially ended up 4th in a league be crowned "Champions"?

 

[ncurd]

Playoff are good for one reason.

It stops bias from a team doing exceptionally well during international windows or poorly depending on how many players they lose to the national sides or their opponents have. Personally I'd stop playing league matches during international windows but that won' happen.

 

[Which Tyler]

Playoff are good for one reason.

Yes, but I still don't like them - and especially don't like them including 4 teams.
My usual suggested compromise is to just have a final, just the top 2 teams; and convert any league points advantage to score-board advantage at KO. League topper also gets the home dressing rooms.
So 2015 would have started Saints 1 - 0 Bath
2013-14 would have started Saracens 9 - 0 Saints
2012-13 would have started Saracens 3 - 0 Tigers
etc etc.
It's a league, it's supposed to be about being the best team in the country; and consequently, performance over the season should not be irrelevant come the end; not to play keep in touch for 22 matches, then win the last 2.

 

[RugbyPUBtbilisi]

2016 current situation in 6 Nations with bonus point system:
1 - England - 9
2 - France - 8
3 - Wales - 6
4 - Ireland - 3
5 - Scotland - 2
6 - Italy -1

 

[ncurd]

2016 current situation in 6 Nations with bonus point system:
1 - England - 9
2 - France - 8
3 - Wales - 6
4 - Ireland - 3
5 - Scotland - 2
6 - Italy -1

And what's your point? It means nothing mid way through as everyone has yet to play everyone. Also apart from he bottom two the table is exactly the same.

You've yet to say anything convincing for your argument.

 

[Slamdunk]

Nah, 5 one off games is a flawed system regardless of having a bonus point on offer or not, once there's no slam there's no real winner (unless Wales were to go unbeaten this year). Been wanting to say that for a while, especially with Ireland as double champions so I don't look bitta!

Its a strange viewpoint because, based on what youve said here Ireland should not really be competing in the 6 Nations at all - youve won just two grand slams in your history. You have 13 championships (tournament wins if you like) since the old four nations began and i find it weird that youd dismiss it all. Wales have 26 championships and 11 shared, thats a total of 38 years of success. I say success because its a competition and winning is the only aim. A Grand Slam is great (we should know, we have won a fair few) but it aint everything.

Thats like saying a Lions series is not a win unless its a whitewash. Its like saying only Arsenals 'unbeatables' have won the Premier League lol.

As for the bonus point argument, i dont agree with it but i do agree that we should trial an extra point for a try and an extra point for a conversion. Its during the game we need to see things implemented to get teams playing more rugby, not an extra point after it.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Its a strange viewpoint because, based on what youve said here Ireland should not really be competing in the 6 Nations at all - youve won just two grand slams in your history. You have 13 championships (tournament wins if you like) since the old four nations began and i find it weird that youd dismiss it all. Wales have 26 championships and 11 shared, thats a total of 38 years of success. I say success because its a competition and winning is the only aim. A Grand Slam is great (we should know, we have won a fair few) but it aint everything.

Thats like saying a Lions series is not a win unless its a whitewash. Its like saying only Arsenals 'unbeatables' have won the Premier League lol.

As for the bonus point argument, i dont agree with it but i do agree that we should trial an extra point for a try and an extra point for a conversion. Its during the game we need to see things implemented to get teams playing more rugby, not an extra point after it.

I don't think so at all, a three match test series is different to a league and a 38 game season is vastly different to a 5 game league. Points difference is a pretty arbitrary way to win anything considering a side goes into a game with the sole objective to win and the system is even worse over a period of five games. If a side can win outright by having more points on the table than the other sides it's well deserved but if a side wins because they managed to run up a big score against Scotland in perfect conditions while the 2nd placed side had to play them in a rainy Murrayfield and didn't seems pretty unfair to me. Winning on PD is purely circumstantial over a short period of time. To compare it to the EPL again, why were City better than United in 2012? They won, drew and lost the same amount of games but City scored more goals, why is 2-0 deemed a better win than 1-0 when both achieved their objective? Not playing everyone home and away makes it even worse. The 6nations is a great but deeply flawed tournament that only truly produces the best side as a winner when the grand slam is won, from an Irish point of view it just shows how rarely we've been the best side. I've seen ideas for four team, 6 game championships with promotion and relegation and think that would be the ideal structure to show us who the best side in a Europe is every year, it'd still be flawed mind you!

The structure of the championship is the reason why I still regard the triple crown as a better prize than the championship outright.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Playoff are good for one reason.

It stops bias from a team doing exceptionally well during international windows or poorly depending on how many players they lose to the national sides or their opponents have. Personally I'd stop playing league matches during international windows but that won' happen.

I get that argument, but it doesn't get anywhere near justifying play offs to me. And even that feels like its giving the big powerful boys a second bite of the cherry. Just wrong.

As for BPs in the 6N, I don't mind the idea. There are ways around the potential Grand Slam, coming second, issue.

 

[Which Tyler]

And what's your point? It means nothing mid way through as everyone has yet to play everyone. Also apart from he bottom two the table is exactly the same.

You've yet to say anything convincing for your argument.

What do you mean "apart from the bottom two"? it's exactly the same; and utterly meaningless.

 

[RedruthRFC]

What do you mean "apart from the bottom two"? it's exactly the same; and utterly meaningless.

I can see the value in seeing if things would have panned out differently over previous seasons with a bonus point system in place, but this is negated by the fact that in these previous seasons, teams (unless captained by Chris Robshaw!) may have taken different decisions in order to achieve a bonus points.

 

[ncurd]

What do you mean "apart from the bottom two"? it's exactly the same; and utterly meaningless.

Italy were above Scotland on the table I looked up earlier...no idea why it was the 'official' one. Must of been some stupid processing problem on a tablet or some rubbish.

So yeah his point is even more pointless I think I worked this out last season and I think in the past 4 years only once would the championship result have changed in England's favour.