What's the point? (Bonus)

Should bonus points be scrapped? For me they don't add anything to the game they just make tables skewed and favour the bigger teams who are more likely to score more tries and have closer defeats.

Just take a look at the groups to see my point.

Group A
New Zealand have won all their games so it doesn't affect them but the bonus points do heavily change the rest of the group.

France and Tonga have both played four games, won two and lost two and have 11 points and 9 points respectively. Canada in fourth have played three games won one, drawn one and lost one and currently have 6 points.

Now Canada hypothetically could beat New Zealand, have a better record than France, one defeat compared to two, and still not qualify for the quarter finals. Canada now have to win and score atleast four tries against the All Blacks to qualify. An open game surely won't help them? Without bonus points Canada could really go for a battling performance and might have caused a shock.

Currently France are going through to the knock out stage but without bonus points Tonga would be second on the head-to-head with France.

Group B
Now this group looks a little more clear cut. England have won all their games and top the group, Argentina will more than likely come second with three wins and Scotland third with two wins.

The big problem comes though when you look at the Argentina v George game. Scotland have played four games and won two. Argentina and Georgia have both played three but won two games and one game respectively.

Georgia could therefore beat Argentina and all three teams would have won two and lost two and Georgia should, in any normal situation, have a chance of qualifying for the quarter finals. However they currently have 4 points compared to Scotland 11 points and Argentina 10 points.

So even if Georgia do win and get a bonus point they still can't qualify for the next round or even the next World Cup. Therefore because of bonus points George effectively have nothing to play for against Argentina which is detrimental to their game, the World Cup and Scotland's chances of reaching the knock out stage.

Group C
Currently Australia have play four and won three. Ireland and Italy who play each other later have won three games and two games respectively. Once again though bonus points could have an affect on the final outcome of the group.

The likelihood is that Ireland will win and this will be irrelevant but should Italy win, all three teams would have won three games apiece and therefore should be level. However bonus points would almost certain see Australia win the group.

Group D
In this group the bonus point situation means Wales can effectively play for a narrow loss and still go through. A situation which can not be good from any sport. Fiji need to score a good amount of tries which could scupper their game plan.


I think the bonus point rule has really lessened some of these latter group stage games and that can't be good for any tournament?

I would disagree, the opposite is also true, a team may need a bonus point to make the quarters, and one thing the bonus point does do is seperate the teams who merely won with the quality teams who won by big scores.

I agree. But then those with the stronger teams will agree i suppose.
Rugby is an 80 minute game. Not just the last minute. A team that scores 80 nil over a team that scores by one point over the same is cleary the better team. And the two point each rule doesnt reflect the 80 minute performance.
The way the points are distributed perhaps could be altered.
For example namibia scoring four tries vs SA might be considered worth more than Sa with four over namibia.
Rankings would then be brought into it. It works in the irb rankings- ie concessions are made- home away, higher ranked etc.

So you are saying that it is ok if Georgia beat Argentina by 50 points, had a supreme points difference to Scotland and Argentina but only finished fourth in the group?

Canada could have lost fewer games than France put still not get through to the quarters. Surely Canada would have a better chance of beating New Zealand in a scrappy games down to kicks rather then an expansive game trying to get four tries?

Points difference can skew true performance, team A can win 1 match by 80 and lose all their other matches, or win matches without scoring any tries.

Take Scotland and argentina as an example, Even if they do end up on the same points, argentina played better during the tournament. You would rather see the better performing team go through, wouldn't you?

Without bonus points Georgia would have to beat Argentina by 18 points and they'd be in the quarter finals.

Under the current rules, they are playing Argentina with nothing to play for. How is that good for rugby or the World Cup?

Without bonus points, Tonga would almost certainly be in the quarters after beating France, barring a Canada win over New Zealand.

With bonus points France go through.

So you're saying teams should be rated on one peformance rather than all four.
Georgia needed to perform better in other matches which other teams clearly did. Not just one.

Taylorman wrote:So you're saying teams should be rated on one peformance rather than all four.
Georgia needed to perform better in other matches which other teams clearly did. Not just one.

I'm not sure you get my point.

Of course all games should count.

France and Tonga have played four games each and have both won two games.

My point is that they should therefore both have 8 points.

Head-to-heads would only count for the teams that have the same points.

If France has won all their games barring Tonga and Tonga had just beaten France, I'm not advocating Tonga go through then.

Canada could end up with two wins and a draw ie 10 normal points and not go from because France have picked up 8 normal points, lost an extra game, but got three bonus points.

How would that be fair on Canada?

Taylorman wrote:So you're saying teams should be rated on one peformance rather than all four.
Georgia needed to perform better in other matches which other teams clearly did. Not just one.

Actually I'm saying all four games should count and it is you that are saying one game should basically count.

I'm saying that if Georgia beat Argentina then Scotland, Georgia and Argentina would have all had two wins and two defeats and should therefore be on levels points.

You are saying that an extra point Scotland picked up in a game against England should be the difference.

Georgia are/ where already out of the world cup before playing four games. They should have alleast had the chance to still qualify.

Sorry i probaby dont get the point as im in the middle of getting to the ab match.
All good. Will post later as i think any shortcomings in the points system is worrh exploring.
It was as youd expect- someones idea.

Good to see Read back today too. And mils.

I'd have so you have to score 3 more tries than opposition. That means your defence comes into it as well

HammerofThunor wrote:I'd have so you have to score 3 more tries than opposition. That means your defence comes into it as well

That's a fair point.

I think they use it the French league but never seen the competition rules so can't back it up

Canada winning a close, tight game against NZ is fantasy.

What the bonus points does is make teams be strategic in their decisions. It also means you have to be the aggressor if you need to win by more than 4.