Bonus points in Six Nations?

[TRF_Ezequiel]

Bonus points in Six Nations?

The world's oldest international championship is the only major tournament not to include bonus points for scoring four tries or losing by a margin of seven points or less as in the World Cup and the southern hemisphere's Rugby Championship.

http://planetrugby.com/story/0,25883,16016_8382973,00.html

 

[Teh Mite]

Win the Slam but not the ***le... Crap idea.

 

[Amobokoboko]

I hope they don't change it.

 

[SpanishBob]

It is a mater of time, but I have no doubt that bonus points in 6N are just around the corner. The game is always more and more defensive and bonus points encourage a more offensive game. The teams are scoring less and less tries every year and something has to be done in order to make the tournament attractive to new sponsors. As I said it will happen sooner than later.

 

[TRF_Ezequiel]

I think they should keep it the way it is. The Six Nations builds on tradition. It's not like the RWC of the Tri-Nations/Rugby Championship which don't even exist for 30 years.

 

[smb64]

I like the way it is to be honest. It would be ridiculous if a team could get a grand slam and not win the tournament.

 

[LittleGuy]

I like it the way it is and wouldn't change it but to be fair it's very unlikely that a team could get a grand slam and still not get the ***le. Five wins without any try bonus points would give the leader 20 points, the 2nd place team would have to go 4-1 and would have to get at least 5 bonus points, so try bonuses in every single one of their games, or perhaps in all of their wins and then a losing bonus point in their loss. Possible but not probable, especially considering the conditions the Six Nations games are frequently played in.

 

[psychic duck]

I agree very much with what Little Guy says.

It would be highly unlikely this would change the rankings much at all apart from separating teams on equal wins.

I checked quickly past 6 Nations tables. The only year it would have made a difference to the winner would have been 2007, where Ireland would have won on 19 points to France's 18 points, rather than France winning by a points difference of +69 to Ireland's +65.

It is very rare and improbable that a side would get the 5 bonus points it needs, and for the other not to get a single one for them to eclipse them.

England came close in 2002 though, they scored a bonus point try in 4 wins, and a bonus point loss to France. Meaning they could have won, but France also got one try bonus point so France would have won by head to head.

Also there would be an easy solution for this. Just making a rule so winning a Grand Slam equals extra 5 points would guarantee the Grand Slam winners the Championship.

 

[Big Ewis]

Little Guy's right but still...just the very principle (beyond the mere odds and probabilities of it happening) of finishing undefeated and still being second is just not possible...'not possible' as in utterly ridiculous. Like, wtf it's called the "Grand Slam"...

But yeah, psychic duck's idea works...to make absolutely sure the Grand Slam winner's the ultimate winner no matter what, an extra 5points or wtvr for going undefeated to insure his finishing first...

 

[Helmy]

From a Southern Hemisphere point of view, where every competition played seems to get bonus points, I think competitions would be better without them. Maybe competitions with bonus points should consider copying the 6N, as opposed to the other way round...

 

[j'nuh]

Bonus points make sense over a long sequence of matches between numerous teams, where teams are judged on their performance over a long season, but no thanks when we're talking about such a small number of games.

 

[nickdnz]

From a Southern Hemisphere point of view, where every competition played seems to get bonus points, I think competitions would be better without them. Maybe competitions with bonus points should consider copying the 6N, as opposed to the other way round...

The reason for them is an incentive for attractive rugby. If you look at the matches they're more or less even on total tries scored and average tries per match - however if you remove Italy and to a lesser extent Scotland - there are considerably less tries scored. Basically it rewards positive rugby - where as from a neutral perspective some of the 6 Nations games can be very dull.

 

[j'nuh]

The reason for them is an incentive for attractive rugby. If you look at the matches they're more or less even on total tries scored and average tries per match - however if you remove Italy and to a lesser extent Scotland - there are considerably less tries scored. Basically it rewards positive rugby - where as from a neutral perspective some of the 6 Nations games can be very dull.

I don't think bonus points will make a difference to how interesting a game is. No team goes into a game looking for a bonus point (especially when it makes such a negligible amount of difference), and if a team gets to the point where they can consider the bonus point, then the game probably doesn't need an incentive to open up anyway.

 

[Tony Manx]

......where as from a neutral perspective some of the 6 Nations games can be very dull.

That can be any sport and does not give any further credence to the argument for introduction of further dumming down measures to a great tournament and game................yesterday we saw Varndell yellow carded for a supposed tip tackle which was nonsense and was a sop to the over officious linesman and PC brigade who are poisioning the game and soon we will be into touch rugby, with no scrums and only seven players on the firld to give them more room to run around!!.

 

[Teh Mite]

An LBP in a tournament where the winners only get 2 is also stupid.

 

[TRF_heineken]

I think they should keep it the way it is. The Six Nations builds on tradition. It's not like the RWC of the Tri-Nations/Rugby Championship which don't even exist for 30 years.

Yes but neither does the SIX Nations...

 

[Teh Mite]

Where's that fellow who normally turns up at this point saying the laws need to be changed? Maybe by playing without a ball, 5-tackle limits or the addition of pads and helmets?

 

[j'nuh]

sigesige00?

Probably out campaigning to change every pitch worldwide to 100m x 70m.

I miss that guy.

 

[ZeFrenchy]

I don't usually agree with PR, but they wrote a good piece on this. (link here)
BPs make sense when you have home and away schedules, where the home team is likelier to win and therefore BPs make an actual difference. I think that in the 6N, it would have little to no positives, and maybe not many, but huge, negatives.
It is unlikely that bonus points affect the final table, therefore they are unlikely to influence the way teams play. On the other hand, the mere possibility that a grand slam winning side may finish second is enough to discard the idea. A rule change that might have a bigger effect and no undesired secondary effects is to make tries scored (or try difference) the primary tie-breaker.

 

[Dougydeluxe]

Don't change the 6 Nations. Its greatest comes from the fierce rivalry between countries, thats what adds to the level of games