Bonus Points in 6N'S

Thoughts guys.

I think it worked well in teh world cupand should go forward into the 6n's

I dont think its a runner as you could get a grand slam but still not win the competition. This could be overcome with points for wins in all your matchs but it just makes the thing very messy. Also it didn't work in the World Cup as tonga had a better record then france but still could not qualify without a lot of luck. They are unfair really in small groups they are more suited to leagues or the H Cup.

so you didnt think it worked in the world cup then irish?

good point with the gs- but as you say just give 5 pts for a gs and you have sorted it.

I think bonus points work in respect to round robin events in the fact that there is allways something to play for till the end iof the game. It didnt really work in the tonga/france game due to france knowing they only needed a point to go through and only did the bear minimum. But in the 6n's you are not playing for the knock outs.

I suppose thats through but I don't like the idea of it really. It has its pros and cons and I just think there are more cons than pros. It could also give an advantage to France in particular as they tent to rack up more points then most due to the rugby they play unlike say Italy who target 1 or 2 may=tchs and can get hammered in others.

It might be fairer to bring it in when the teams are more at the same level say when Italy improve which they hopefully will in the next few years. Then maybe but not now.

I thought bonus points only come into consideration if there is a tie on points

No bonus points are counted in the points total in the same way as points for winning or drawing.

bonus points in the world cup or other domestic comps use bonus points as part of the points make up.

it was 4 for a win. bonus points awarded if you scored 4 or more tries against the opposition, and 1 bonus pt if you lost by 7pts or less

if there then is a tie on points it would go down to individual records

Wouldnt it be better to use it as a tie breaker?

Grandslam team would win it outright, 2 teams losing 1 game but one of those teams scored more bonus points would finish ahead and so on?

So last 5 season Six Nations would have looked like this. Two changes in total positionally

2011

England 9
France 8
Ireland 8
Wales 7
Scotland 4
Italy 4

Makes little difference.

2010

France 10
Ireland 7
England 7
Wales 5
Scotland 4
Italy 3

Still no difference

2009

Ireland 11
England 9
Wales 9
France 7
Scotland 3
Italy 0

Wales move from 4th to third

2008

Wales 11
England 8
France 6
Ireland 7
Scotland 3
Italy 4

No Change

2007

France 10
Ireland 10
England 7
Italy 6
Wales 2
Scotland 3

No Change

2006

France 10
Ireland 9
England 8
Scotland 6
Wales 5
Italy 2

England move from 4th to 3rd

The 6Ns is about the only major tournament that does`nt use the bonus point system.
It is true that a Grand Slam may not be enought to win the title if they were in place in theory.
But in practice it is unlikely,I think only one 3Ns has been decided by bonus points wins which is the nearest equivalent.
Anythings got to be better than trydifference when teams brag about being better than another.and the difference may be one or two or whatever.

Some people are suggesting bonus points as an alternative to points difference as a tie breaker. I don't like points difference, I remember in 2009 when there was a three-way tie (for 2nd) and England came top of it solely becuase Nick Mallet one of the worst ideas in the history of the game world in playing Bergamasco as scrum half against England. Why not use head to head result to decide tie-breakers?

irfon17 wrote:Some people are suggesting bonus points as an alternative to points difference as a tie breaker. I don't like points difference, I remember in 2009 when there was a three-way tie (for 2nd) and England came top of it solely becuase Nick Mallet one of the worst ideas in the history of the game world in playing Bergamasco as scrum half against England. Why not use head to head result to decide tie-breakers?

This ^

We have to think why bonus points are in existence in the first place. Surely it is about entertainment and making sure teams don't just give up, but also for rewarding attacking intent and a thirst for tries? However, for me the 6N is exciting enough, teams go all out to do the best they can anyway. When have you seen a 6N game where a team on 3 tries decides not to bother any more? Maybe in the league over a long season, but the 6N is the pinnacle of most players seasons so I don't think there is a problem with motivation and going all out to do the best they can. Therefore, for me the bonus points are not needed.

irfon17 wrote:Some people are suggesting bonus points as an alternative to points difference as a tie breaker. I don't like points difference, I remember in 2009 when there was a three-way tie (for 2nd) and England came top of it solely becuase Nick Mallet one of the worst ideas in the history of the game world in playing Bergamasco as scrum half against England. Why not use head to head result to decide tie-breakers?

That wouldn't be much help if in a three-way tie team A beat team B, but had lost to team C, who in turn had lost to team B. You're then stuck with a circular rock, scissors, paper type problem.

With respect,it`s not a case of tie breaking etc.BUT bringing the 6Ns in line with other major toournaments.
Personally I don`t like the bonus system anyway for ANY tournament it was bought in by TV companies.
To make Rugby more SEXY for want of a better word ,IF for example there had been no bonus points system in RWC.
Teams would have to play EVERY game to win instead of just going through the motions.On Saturday France deserved to win the match and all the pundits were screaming "we wuz robbed by the ref".
BUT did they deserve to be RWC champs,after losing two pool matches and strolling thru the knockout stages?
Dallagio said the All Blacks had`nt been tested pre final,the most biased hogwash ever.
They went unbeaten in the harder side of the draw,including a bruising SF against Australia.
Whilst France cruised through the easier side,in the second half the AB`s were running on empty but kept on plugging.
THEY at least played to win every match France were magnificent Saturday,
BUT they created one try and took it same as the ABs,there Goal kicking was abysmal as was the ABs.
People should ask how they became from chumps to nearly champs no bonus points would have meant a loss at the pool stage probably.

The 6N is fine as it is with no need for a BP gimmick. It would be patently unfair as it would accentuate the existing imbalance in home and away games.

BTW the losing bonus point system is inherently unfair anyway as it doesn't directly hurt the winning side. It would be fairer if the winning side 'lost' a point for the losing side to gain one.

It only makes sense in a tournament that is played home and away.

Was it actually all that important in the RWC?

In order to stop a grand slam winning team coming second you'd need to have 7 points for a win, which would make the bonus points more or less irrelevant.

Not true. Grandslam team could win 5 getting 20 points.
2 other teams could win 4 and get 6 bonus points, putting them on 22.

You could theoreticaly finish third on a grandslam.
Yes it rsraely happens but its daft, and the comeptition doesnt need it.

I dont mind the idea of them beinbg used only when the teams are level or the head to head record being used to split except in the event of a 3 way tie as in the world cup pools.

The smaller the number of games each side plays in a comeptition the greater the impact of bonus points. I wouldnt want them in their standard form for the 6 nations.

greybeard wrote:It only makes sense in a tournament that is played home and away.

Was it actually all that important in the RWC?

In order to stop a grand slam winning team coming second you'd need to have 7 points for a win, which would make the bonus points more or less irrelevant.

no you wouldnt- just award 5 pts to any gs winner- makes it very simple

i think the point of bonus points in my eyes is simple. It could make each game more important and have better rugby to the end- so teams can fight for the odd bonus point- not just run the game down.

you guys are missing the point here- its not just about the 'scoring' its the impact it could have on the games.

THAT MYSTIROAKEY would be an excellent idea.the 6Ns is unique and should stay that way.The losing bonus point has always been a bit of an enigma for me personally.

Bonus points were introduced into competition to reward teams for enterprising play and encourage losing teams to keep playing in the hope of gaining a losing point.

Neither of the above are required in International Rugby IMO, the incentive to do well is already there.

6N is a tremendous Rugby Tournament and certainly doesn't need tinkering with in this respect.

It does point to a contradiction with bonus points.

Whilst sometimes it does encourage teams to attack and go for the xtra try or try and get within 7 it can also lead to teams settling for the bonus point loss or trying to deny the opposition a bonus point rather than trying to win/win as big as possible.

Id rather have a system as currently where teams are encouraged to try and win games. Crazy I know.

At a very basic level, doesn't having a bonus point system more accurately reflect the state of the two sides in a game? A seven point margin is probably still a reasonable benchmark (on average) as to whether a defeat has been comprehensive or not.

And if you've managed to score 4 tries, then the least you should get is a bonus.

And I think that there should be an extra rule that says if Scotland score 4 tries in a match, they automatically win the tournament...

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:It does point to a contradiction with bonus points.

Whilst sometimes it does encourage teams to attack and go for the xtra try or try and get within 7 it can also lead to teams settling for the bonus point loss or trying to deny the opposition a bonus point rather than trying to win/win as big as possible.

Id rather have a system as currently where teams are encouraged to try and win games. Crazy I know.

So maybe only keep the 4 tries bonus then?

its all about opinions. the consensous is on here that it wouldnt be a good idea. I think it could be, but lets not get into irrelevances- like impacting on gs winners and the like(easily fixed). It is all about will it improve the games or not, or will it even make a difference- many of you feel it wont and the formula is good therefore dont fix it if it aint broke- fair enough