Six Nations: Bonus Points to be Considered

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/05/six-nations-bonus-points

So a grand slam means you may not win the championship?

Its about time! Makes for better rugby. Hopefully goes ahead. The lowest score you can get with 5 wins would be 20, the highest you can get with a defeat is 22. It's very unlikely a Grand Slam wouldn't win the championship but it is possible.

Of course, you could just award three additional bonus points for a Slam. Thereby making it impossible to win five games and not the championship.

Don't you need home and away fixtures in the same tournament to ensure bonus points work fairly?

Having Italy at home is a big advantage in terms of bonus points.

I'm generally against it, but it could improve some games.

"So a grand slam means you may not win the championship?" -- That's the obvious elephant in the room. If bonus points come in, there'll have to be an exception that crowns any team that beats ever other as the winner, even if another team has more points. Bonus points will only really count when every side loses at least one game.

Glas a du wrote:So a grand slam means you may not win the championship?

i am sure they would give enough bonus points for a GS to make sure that doesnt happen

Would Wales have had any in '08 and '12?

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:Don't you need home and away fixtures in the same tournament to ensure bonus points work fairly?

Having Italy at home is a big advantage in terms of bonus points.

I'm generally against it, but it could improve some games.

That's why I'm against it as well. Stick to tradition, keep it as it is.

You just know that they are also planning to extend the 6N for home and away games sometime in the future.

eirebilly wrote:You just know that they are also planning to extend the 6N for home and away games sometime in the future.

How can they do that? There isn't enough time in the season

They will find a way. I can just feel that they will try and introduce it within the next few years.

Only work if points for a win were raised so a grandslam team would finish top, also reckon it will be a few years before it is introduced.

Anything that keeps the men at the top away from "tweaking/cocking up" the rules of the game is good.

if it aint broke .......

EngInAuck wrote:if it aint broke .......

eirebilly wrote:You just know that they are also planning to extend the 6N for home and away games sometime in the future.

Two-year tournament?

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:You just know that they are also planning to extend the 6N for home and away games sometime in the future.

Two-year tournament?

Sounds good, it will confuse the likes of you when to jump on the band wagon.

Problem with all this is that it's not the 6N that is broken, all is going well, rivalries to the hilt, plenty of publicity/interest, the games are generally of a high standard (except the obvious 1 or 2)

Surely the HC and Rabo situation is the key issue in NH rugby, lets ensure all thats sorted before we start messing with the worlds premier competition!!

Yes.

I am not saying that i want a home and away 6N series, not by a long shot. I just have this feeling that is the direction that they are going in.

How will this work in the 6ns? when the 6ns is only one game played. (England play Scotland)once. So i dont see how it could work to be honest.

Surely if it is to work then each team will have to play each other at least twice. once home and once away.

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:Don't you need home and away fixtures in the same tournament to ensure bonus points work fairly?

Having Italy at home is a big advantage in terms of bonus points.

I'm generally against it, but it could improve some games.

As it is in terms of points difference, our current separator. As it would be if you were just looking at wins.

One quirk of the 6 Nations is every team plays 5 games, so there is a slight imbalance. It didn't matter so much when Italy were pants, but now they're developing to the stage where they can be competitive (especially at home), playing Italy at home becomes a real advantage.

Give more bonus points for winning the slam? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having bonus points in the first place? To encourage teams to score tries so they could lose a game and still make up for it with bonus points and win the tournament?

The standard of 6 Nations rugby is very poor. The most entertaining rugby on show in Europe is in the HC. The current 6 nations set up encourages low risk, defensive rugby. It's boring. And the quality of rugby is nowhere near what it should be. I was delighted when Ireland won the slam, but they did it by not passing the ball and waiting for opposition mistakes.

Bonus points encourage more attacking rugby, which will make it better to watch, boost ratings, and ultimately make more money. That's why it will have to come in for the good of the game. The 6 Nations has been awful for years.

We cant have a team winning all games but not winning the 6n's..

so bonus points for winning that is the only way around it.

but i dont agree that it will defeat the purpose at all.. We will still see attacking rugby and a fairer way of placeing 2nd 3rd etc...

The real new GS could be winning all games plus all bonus points with it...

Can we tell the corporate interests to Frank Bough for a change!

I don't think bonus points have done anything to encourage a higher average of mass try scoring more entertaining games in any competition..!

The entertainment level is more frequently aided or abetted by the quality of the referees interpretation coincided with the teams playing abilities.

I wouldn't say refereeing is much of a problem in the 6Ns. It's normally not too bad.

Isn`t the 6Ns one of the only MAJOR Tournaments not to use the bonus points system.6Ns home and away works out alternate years anyway just as now so it would even itself out.Also if you are good enough to win a Grand Slam you should also be able to obtain the odd bonus point to.

The problem with bonus points is the less games you have the more of an effect they have in skewing the table. The 6 nations has less games per team than any other major competition that uses them.
If its only used to separate teams when they have an equal number of wins ( only way to avoid the grandslam 2nd problem) then why would points scored or difference do less to encourage attacking rugby?
Indeed bonus points encourage the weaker teams to be even more defensive in their mindset and try to keep the game tight just as much as they encourage the stronger teams to go all out on attack
The home/away issue is another again.

When it comes down to it its unlikley to make the world of difference which system is used but the tournament works well as it is

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:The problem with bonus points is the less games you have the more of an effect they have in skewing the table. The 6 nations has less games per team than any other major competition that uses them.
If its only used to separate teams when they have an equal number of wins ( only way to avoid the grandslam 2nd problem) then why would points scored or difference do less to encourage attacking rugby?
Indeed bonus points encourage the weaker teams to be even more defensive in their mindset and try to keep the game tight just as much as they encourage the stronger teams to go all out on attack. The home/away issue is another again.

When it comes down to it its unlikley to make the world of difference which system is used but the tournament works well as it is

Yeah, that can be true and it works both ways. It's a bit like the argument that reducing the number of points awarded for a penalty would result in a more attacking, less penalty-heavy game when it would actually result in sides happily giving away penalties.

Yet more pointless tinkering by people who should have more to do. A stupid suggestion for such a short competition. I don't agree that the 6n's is boring. I know, why don't we have a play off as well. At the end of the current format the top 4 can play off to see which 2 play in the final !

I'm against the TBP and LBP for the six nations. As people have said it will mess up the table.

With my irish hat on we play France and England at home in the same year so that is usually when we hope to do a slam.
With the bonus points if we won all the games we would likely only pick up one TBP

There are no dead rubbers in the 6 Nations. It's championship or bust, so who cares how you sort out 2-6th?

Completely against the idea.

The bonus point system is used in conjunction with a home and away system.

If the whole structure of the 6 nations was changed to home and away though then bonus points might be considered.

Glas a du wrote:There are no dead rubbers in the 6 Nations. It's championship or bust, so who cares how you sort out 2-6th?

I think most countries either want the Slam or avoid the spoon. As we saw last year, once the French aren't going to win they just avoid not coming last.

I'm not against the idea of tweaking a tournament but I'd like a bit more of a rationale than simply "all the other major tournaments do it".

An RFU man says commercial partners would like to see it. Why? If they think there is something wrong with the current Six Nations then it would be good to have it spelled out clearly. We'd then be able to decide whether they have a point and, more importantly, whether bonus points would be the right answer.

I love the tournament but I can't say I've found it a compelling spectacle for a few years now. That's largely because my team, England, has been so mediocre for so long. If I was Welsh, Irish or French then my perspective would probably be very different.

Actually, it's striking just how many Grand Slams have been claimed since Italy joined - eight in thirteen years. In four of the remaining five years, a team had a chance in the last week but fell at the final hurdle. Slams used to be much rarer in the Five Nations era (although the pace was picking up).

Commercial partners can hardly be worried about a lack of drama in the final weeks, then. Even in the single year a Slam wasn't on the line, any one of four teams had a mathematical chance of winning the championship going into week five.

Yes but the point is, even if you lose your first two games, the motivation for your next three is no less, because they are your neighbours. Every match is a derby. This is one competition where you dont have to worry about all the teams giving their all on every occasion and throughout the match (apart from the French from time to time...and the Italians in Twickenham...but that just adds something and wouldnt change for bonus points).

It can't be the answer that someone that wins all 5 matches doesn't win the tournament.

The only way it would work is if you signficantly increase the points gained for a win.

4 points for a win, 1 point for 4+ tries, 1 point for <8 losing deficit.

Team A wins 5 games no bonus points = 20 points.
Team B wins 4 games, 4 bonus try points, 1 losing = 21 points.

Team B wins on overall points.

5 points for a win, 1 point for 4+ tries, 1 point for <8 losing deficit.

Team A wins 5 games no bonus points = 25 points.
Team B wins 4 games, 4 bonus try points, 1 losing = 25 points.

Team B wins on points diff. Unless head to head is counted first (difficult if 3 teams beat each other and end up on same points).

6 points for a win, 1 point for 4+ tries, 1 point for <8 losing deficit.

Team A wins 5 games no bonus points = 30 points.
Team B wins 4 games, 4 bonus try points, 1 losing = 29 points.

Team A wins on points.

viewtothegym wrote:

EngInAuck wrote:if it aint broke .......

Exactly.

So 2 points for a draw? Would that be enough of an incentive over an LBP? would 3 points be too much of a benefit for a draw, being half? should it be 2.5 for a draw?

Oh hang on, it's not necessary, lets not bother...

I think the 6N is the most boring tournament my favourite teams compete in, the rugby is dire and if there is something that could spice it up that would be great.

Even if it was just the LBP, where a team can't coast because they are winning by 11 points with 5 minutes to go and just see out the game. The losing team would have a real target to aim for also.

I'd also be in favour of making the 6N a two year tournament.
Exact same as it is now except there is a winner every 2 years rather than every year. That means you have the home and away thing and it adds weight to the achievement

viewtothegym wrote:

EngInAuck wrote:if it aint broke .......

with this article!

fa0019 wrote:It can't be the answer that someone that wins all 5 matches doesn't win the tournament.

The only way it would work is if you signficantly increase the points gained for a win.

4 points for a win, 1 point for 4+ tries, 1 point for <8 losing deficit.

Team A wins 5 games no bonus points = 20 points.
Team B wins 4 games, 4 bonus try points, 1 losing = 21 points.

Team B wins on overall points.

5 points for a win, 1 point for 4+ tries, 1 point for <8 losing deficit.

Team A wins 5 games no bonus points = 25 points.
Team B wins 4 games, 4 bonus try points, 1 losing = 25 points.

Team B wins on points diff. Unless head to head is counted first (difficult if 3 teams beat each other and end up on same points).

6 points for a win, 1 point for 4+ tries, 1 point for <8 losing deficit.

Team A wins 5 games no bonus points = 30 points.
Team B wins 4 games, 4 bonus try points, 1 losing = 29 points.

Team A wins on points.

Youre forgetting that in losing a game you could still also earn a 4th try BP (admittedly this pretty much never happens)..so even in your final scenarios you get two teams on equal points.

Its needlesly complicated and doesnt achieve anything that points aggregate/difference does in a short competition.

Worst case scenario is a team chosing to kick for a 7 point loss to get the BP that wins them the title rather than go for the try to win the game

It would add a new "superslam" to aim for though, win every game and get a 4 try BP ( I doubt any team has ever achieved that historically)

pete (buachaill on eirne) wrote:
I'd also be in favour of making the 6N a two year tournament.
Exact same as it is now except there is a winner every 2 years rather than every year. That means you have the home and away thing and it adds weight to the achievement

The problem with that is that if you lose say 4 or 5 of your first year games (Italy, Scotland I'm looking at you here) the 2nd year is going to be a bit of a damp squib. That would have a negative impact on some attendances and general interest. At least with yearly tournaments you can wipe the slate clean. Yes, the results could all end up getting mirrored in the 2nd year, but it's very unlikely.

I have never seen anybody complain about the point system currently utilized by the 6N so whats the point in changing anything?

well i argued for the points system a year or two ago..


i think it will be a good addition..

move with the times or get stagnant.

I hate the saying if it isnt broke dont fix it.. Constant evolotion is the way forward..

No. Change for change's sake is wrong, especially since the bonus points system will add nothing, but in fact will detract from the competition.

its your opinion that it will detract. but not mine and not many others.. there is no fact about it

It will detract in the same way as buying bogof offers in the supermarket detracts from the experience, you will have been manipulated. Crudely. With a corporate dildo.

In leagues with bonus points, number of wins is normally the first separator if points are level. So any situation that has a team with 4 wins level on points with a team with 5 wins would see the team with 5 wins come out victorious.

Conceivably with any competition with more than 4 games it is possible to win all your games and not win the overall tournament (assuming no play-offs). If home-and-away ties were brought into it, we could have more permutations where a team could win all their games and still not win. In fact, there could be a situation where a team could win all 10 games and finish 3rd:

(Team A wins 10 matches with no bonus points, 40 points)
Team B wins 7 matches (losing to Team A twice and Team C once) with 10 try bonus points and 3 losing bonus points, 41 points
Team C wins 7 matches (losing to Team A twice and Team C once) with 10 try bonus points and 3 losing bonus points, 41 points
Team A comes third, teams B and C separated by points difference).

For me, if bonus points were brought into play, any attempt to force the table so that a team picking up 5 wins would automatically win would, for me, destroy the point of having bonus points. What if my team wins 3 games and your team wins 2, yet your team finishes ahead on bonus points? How is that not the same situation?

For me, in a 5-game, home-or-away 6 Nations with bonus points, a Grand Slam could only be awarded if a team first won the 6 Nations AND THEN if they had done it by winning all 5 games. Otherwise, congratulations on winning all your games, but you don't have a slam.

Personally, I've always preferred the Top 14 bonus point system (not sure if they still use it), whereby the losing BP is as it always is, but the try bonus point is only for the winning team, and only if they score 3+ more tries than their opposition. I like this as losing teams can only claim 1 bonus point, and winning teams can't "bank" their bonus point early by scoring 4 tries, allowing for complacency later in the game. Under this system, a team that does score 4 tries early on will lose their bonus point if they let in two sloppy tries towards the end of the game.

Should bonus points come into the Six Nations? I don't see tradition as a strong enough reason to oppose it. I would support a trial run of maybe 2-4 years to see how it goes. My gut feeling is that we wouldn't see any team with less wins overtaking teams with more wins, more that it would be used as a separator if teams have equal wins. I suppose it could happen if one team had a record of say W:L:D - 3:2:0 and another team had a record or 2:2:1 that the team with less points under the old system could use bonus points to actually overtake a team with a better record, as only 3 more bonus points would be needed to overhaul them.

Having said all this, wouldn't it just be typical if they did bring it in and the first year they did one team won all 5 games and didn't win the Championship! Haha, there would be an uproar!

I agree that the French tbp system is better. It should be used in all competitions. Makes the tbp slightly closer to a teams grasp. But also allows an opposition that doesn't give up to deny it with tries of their own. So it's never sewn up with plenty of time on the clock.

There is only one reason why I want bonus points in the 6 nations. Because it might entice more ambitious attacking play out of the teams. I'd also move the tournament to the end of the season in the summer.