Bonus Points in Pool Stages

[tompaton7]

I really don't see their purpose here. Like sure, in a long season they are fine but we are playing four pool matches at World Cups. We could be in a situation if Scotland beat the Boks by 7 or less and the Boks manage 4 tries, that Japan could still win their next two games without bonus points and finish with 12 points behind South Africa's 13-14. Even though the Japs would have won a game more than them. Its an unlikely scenario but it makes me raise the question why bonus points should be in play? You can use tries scored as the next thing if points are level. What are people's thoughts on this?

 

[RedruthRFC]

I think you've got an interesting point - there isn't enough time for variance to level out in a World Cup pool, meaning that playing an opponent in torrential rain while others play the same team in glorious sunshine could be the difference between a quarter final spot and BFH.

However these type of scenarios are few and far between. BPs promote attacking rugby and keep games competitive for eighty minutes, so I can't see them being scrapped. Even pool matches in a World Cup are high pressure situations with little room for a blip, failing to secure a bonus point against a weak team is such a blip, so the team guilty of making it deserve to have their chances of qualification reduced IMO.

 

[Icemn]

ya i was thinking the same thing before this WC kicked off

i couldn't recall the bonus point system ever being used in the 2011 RWC

i think this favours the Lower ranked teams because usually for a loss they would get nothing but ow finishing within 7 points they get a point. So it forces them to just give that extra bit of endurance to grind out some play jsut to sneak into that 7point window

so its quite interesting BUT what next come 2019?

conference systems?

 

[Toko_11]

I was actually thinking about this since japan game... I think when it comes to pools.. if you beat a team and then win the same number of games as them... they shouldn't be able to overtake you that just makes it unfair imho..

so we need a better points system.. Id even like 5 pools of 4... more chance for the underdogs. and more exciting tournament.

 

[ncurd]

I like bonus points but I'm a guy who likes scenarios of what can be done.

Honestly though it's good I think as it adds an extra dynamic. England getting the bonus point against Fiji is actually working in their favour should they win this weekend.

SA get rewarded for loosing but trying to get tries instead of just securing the ball. Cost them the game though...

 

[Toko_11]

I like bonus points but I'm a guy who likes scenarios of what can be done.

Honestly though it's good I think as it adds an extra dynamic. England getting the bonus point against Fiji is actually working in their favour should they win this weekend.

SA get rewarded for loosing but trying to get tries instead of just securing the ball. Cost them the game though...

well the whole point of it was to make pools stages more entertaining when the minnows were horrible... but as they are improving I think we won't have that problem anymore but it could make the competition slightly unfair.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I think when it comes to pools.. if you beat a team and then win the same number of games as them... they shouldn't be able to overtake you that just makes it unfair imho..

That makes no sense. Imagine a 3 team group for simplicity.

A beats B
B beats C
C beats A

Using your logic it would be
-unfair if B qualifies and A doesn't
-unfair if C qualifies and B doesn't
-unfair if A qualifies and C doesn't

So, using that logic, no matter what the result is, it's unfair.

If everyone knows the rules from day one, they remain unchanged and they are applied equally to all, then it's fair pretty much by definition.

If RSA qualifies and Japan doesn't it's because RSA made enough merits in the rest of the games and Japan did not.

 

[Toko_11]

That makes no sense. Imagine a 3 team group for simplicity.

A beats B
B beats C
C beats A

Using your logic it would be
-unfair if B qualifies and A doesn't
-unfair if C qualifies and B doesn't
-unfair if A qualifies and C doesn't

So, using that logic, no matter what the result is, it's unfair.

If everyone knows the rules from day one, they remain unchanged and they are applied equally to all, then it's fair pretty much by definition.

If RSA qualifies and Japan doesn't it's because RSA made enough merits in the rest of the games and Japan did not.

well ofcourse putting it in a 3 team pool would make it unfair..

you need 4 or 5 team pool + the head to head rule..

A Beats B
B Beats C
C Beats A
A Beats C
D Beats everyone

D = 3 wins
A = 2 wins Qualifies by Head to head win vs B
B = 2 wins
C = 1 win

Under current rules if B gets a bonus vs C and A doesnt than B will advance instead of A... That I think is unfair.

 

[ncurd]

What about a 3 way tie like we could have in group A

A beats B, D & E
B beats C, D & E
C beats A, D & E

Oh dear system failure. You have to have something to differtiate the sides.

 

[Toko_11]

What about a 3 way tie like we could have in group A

A beats B, D & E
B beats C, D & E
C beats A, D & E

Oh dear system failure. You have to have something to differtiate the sides.

Points differential is still a rule i reckon ?

 

[ncurd]

Yeah but bonus points encourages loosing teams to keep trying and winning teams to go for trys improving the spectacle. Points difference only does that when Italy implodes on the last day of a 6 nations.

 

[Toko_11]

Yeah but bonus points encourages loosing teams to keep trying and winning teams to go for trys improving the spectacle. Points difference only does that when Italy implodes on the last day of a 6 nations.

there are ways to overcome that... like PD but only between the tied sides(like in basketball).. a.i exclude results from D&E

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

well ofcourse putting it in a 3 team pool would make it unfair..

It is exactly the same. They all beat the other two and the difference is by how much. In mathematical/logical proofs/demonstration what i did is called "simplifying without loss of generality".

 

[Toko_11]

It is exactly the same. They all beat the other two and the difference is by how much. In mathematical/logical proofs/demonstration what i did is called "simplifying without loss of generality".

Bringing math to a rugby forum is awfully unfair ! what is this ? Tesla headquarters ?

 

[barthelemy]

I think bonus point are quite cool, they put a bit of spice in the mix and they force some teams to score tries in some situation. Not sure it is changing the outcome but it could and this is not that bad.

 

[smartcooky]

Points difference as a sole means of separating ties is manifestly unfair in a tournament like this where the weaker teams know they are unlikely to win their pool as they have other motivations such as Georgia; gaining automatic qualification for 2019. Consequently, the teams, especially the Tier 2 teams will vary significantly in strength due to lack of depth.

 

[sigesige00]

I really don't see their purpose here. Like sure, in a long season they are fine but we are playing four pool matches at World Cups. We could be in a situation if Scotland beat the Boks by 7 or less and the Boks manage 4 tries, that Japan could still win their next two games without bonus points and finish with 12 points behind South Africa's 13-14. Even though the Japs would have won a game more than them. Its an unlikely scenario but it makes me raise the question why bonus points should be in play? You can use tries scored as the next thing if points are level. What are people's thoughts on this?

The bonus point system is totally unnecessary in any competition. If World Rugby want more try-oriented games, they should increase the value of tries (maybe more points for Conversions).
The consolation bonus point for losers is also unnecessary--there is total point difference.

 

[Toko_11]

Points difference as a sole means of separating ties is manifestly unfair in a tournament like this where the weaker teams know they are unlikely to win their pool as they have other motivations such as Georgia; gaining automatic qualification for 2019. Consequently, the teams, especially the Tier 2 teams will vary significantly in strength due to lack of depth.

I think that notion is getting old mate. That's how rugby worked in the previous decade, up until 2011 i guess. From now on though I don't think anyone will ever be satisfied with bonus points. That's why people are starting to doubt the scoring system and the points system.. In the world where we had defined tiers and levels of Rugby bonus points served their purpose, but they have no place in the future where every team is competing to advance from the pools.

I mean we can take Georgia-NZ for example.. no one in Georgia expects Lelos to win or get close to it, but If we get close enough to get bonus points everyone's gonna be mad about missing the historic victory.. think someone's gonna be happy about Bonus ? don't think so, Good performance shown ? yea definitely, but BP no. Remember Ireland-Georgia in 2007? I don't think anyone ever mentioned or cared about Georgia's bonus in that game including the Georgians. Everyone was ****** about not landing that final try.. and I do believe that will be the case for 90% of the teams.. spare perhaps Uruguay who for some reason enjoy being amateurs...

 

[smartcooky]

I think that notion is getting old mate. That's how rugby worked in the previous decade, up until 2011 i guess. From now on though I don't think anyone will ever be satisfied with bonus points. That's why people are starting to doubt the scoring system and the points system.. In the world where we had defined tiers and levels of Rugby bonus points served their purpose, but they have no place in the future where every team is competing to advance from the pools.

I mean we can take Georgia-NZ for example.. no one in Georgia expects Lelos to win or get close to it, but If we get close enough to get bonus points everyone's gonna be mad about missing the historic victory.. think someone's gonna be happy about Bonus ? don't think so, Good performance shown ? yea definitely, but BP no. Remember Ireland-Georgia in 2007? I don't think anyone ever mentioned or cared about Georgia's bonus in that game including the Georgians. Everyone was ****** about not landing that final try.. and I do believe that will be the case for 90% of the teams.. spare perhaps Uruguay who for some reason enjoy being amateurs...

But bonus points are there to break ties near the TOP of the table, not for some feel-good factor for Tier 2 teams. England's bonus point against Fiji could turn out to crucial because Australia and Wales didn't get one.

For example


Red team beats Tier 2 White team by 43-13 (White was at full strength)

Blue team beats same Tier 2 White team by 77-0 (White fielded a second string side)

This would give Red a +47 points advantage in the points difference.

I consider that to be an unequal playing field

 

[Toko_11]

But bonus points are there to break ties near the TOP of the table, not for some feel-good factor for Tier 2 teams. England's bonus point against Fiji could turn out to crucial because Australia and Wales didn't get one.

For example


Red team beats Tier 2 White team by 43-13 (White was at full strength)

Blue team beats same Tier 2 White team by 77-0 (White fielded a second string side)

This would give Red a +47 points advantage in the points difference.

I consider that to be an unequal playing field

Well than red team should beat that ugly blue team if it wants to advance!

I don't understand why there is always soo much resistance to change in Rugby.... if it works in all the other sports why would it hurt Rugby so much ?
and as I mentioned above.. In Euro basketball only the points scored between the first 4 teams of the pool are counted as tiebreakers.. last place team/score gets ignored.. and it works pretty well.

with the BP system you could win 2 games but lose out to a team that wins only 1 game if that game is against you!


4 + 2 + 1 + 1 = 8

4 + 4 = 8

Or even if it isn't against you

4+2+2+1= 9

4+4 = 8


that my friends is as BS as it gets... these things just go against sporting logic...

you win more games you should advance.. your team lost an important match ? tough luck.. try again next time.

If England wants to advance they should beat either Wales or Australia... and have a better PD than one of them..

if they don't then under what logic do they deserve to advance ?