Bonus Points

There been a lot of talk about whether the 6 Nations should like all other major tournaments introduce the BP system well for this year it wouldn't have made any difference to the top of the table but it does mean Scotland wouldn't have finished last.


1 Ireland 5 4 0 1 119 56 8
2 England 5 4 0 1 157 100 8
3 Wales 5 4 0 1 146 93 8
4 France 5 2 0 3 103 101 4
5 Italy 5 1 0 4 62 182 2
6 Scotland 5 0 0 5 73 128 0

1 Ireland 5 4 0 1 119 56 2 10
2 England 5 4 0 1 157 100 2 10
3 Wales 5 4 0 1 146 93 2 10
4 France 5 2 0 3 103 101 3 7
5 Scotland 5 0 0 5 73 128 3 3
6 Italy 5 1 0 4 62 182 2

Not at all, Scotland didn't win a game, Italy did so a point system shouldn't be in place to make that irrelevant.

If you go with BPs then surely wins have to be worth four points (that seems the universal system wherever BPs are awarded), so Scotland would still have finished last, and the table wouldn't have been affected at all...

What about LBPs?! Would that have made much difference?

I'm not sure about BPs at international level. Usually BPs are given in season long leagues to encourage teams not to give up if they are heading for defeat. To get that 4th try or finish within 7 points can help them later on in the season. But at international level I don't think teams need encouragement not to give up. The players are representing their country so should be busting a gut in every game to do as well as they can.

The only thing it might do is encourage teams to throw it about a bit. But as points difference comes into it as on Saturday then we already have that incentive to score big so not sure BPs are needed in addition.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:If you go with BPs then surely wins have to be worth four points (that seems the universal system wherever BPs are awarded), so Scotland would still have finished last, and the table wouldn't have been affected at all...

Yes you'd have to go 4 points as someone could feasibly do the grandslam with no BPs and still lose to a team with 4 wins and a load of BPs. I think?

Very good idea to have a bonus point for tries scored in a match - have never seen the merit in one for keeping the margin respectable.

In any event, if you're going to have a bonus point system, you have to make a win worth exponentially more. One win can't be the same value as a side scoring four tries and finishing within seven points but still losing.

If try scoring was influencial, England would have won the Title and the Wooden Spoon!

Winning Must be retained as Major Influence in deciding competitiveness. Defence is as fine an art as attack.

I would like to see bonus points. And an automatic 5 points for winning the grandslam. Attacking endeavor must be rewarded.

Bonus points should never come in to the 6N while it remains in its current format. We have just had the most exciting finish where every point counts so that should be as clear an argument for not having them as it's possible to make.

Even with 4 points for a win a team could still win the grand Slam but not the Championship. Five wins = 20 points against four wins including TBPs and one LBP = 21 points.

The bonus point system is inherently flawed at the moment because there is no direct incentive for the winning side to stop the losing side get a LBP. Any award of a LBP should come from the winners tally and that would make that point hard fought.

The imbalance between home and away fixtures plus the shortness of the tournament would skew the bonus points further by allowing the weather to have a big impact. I can't see any good argument for changing a system that is so obviously working.

The Great Aukster wrote:Bonus points should never come in to the 6N while it remains in its current format. We have just had the most exciting finish where every point counts so that should be as clear an argument for not having them as it's possible to make.

Even with 4 points for a win a team could still win the grand Slam but not the Championship. Five wins = 20 points against four wins including TBPs and one LBP = 21 points.

The bonus point system is inherently flawed at the moment because there is no direct incentive for the winning side to stop the losing side get a LBP. Any award of a LBP should come from the winners tally and that would make that point hard fought.

The imbalance between home and away fixtures plus the shortness of the tournament would skew the bonus points further by allowing the weather to have a big impact. I can't see any good argument for changing a system that is so obviously working.

So award the team the grand slam bonus of 5 points and there is no problem

The Great Aukster wrote:Bonus points should never come in to the 6N while it remains in its current format. We have just had the most exciting finish where every point counts so that should be as clear an argument for not having them as it's possible to make.

Even with 4 points for a win a team could still win the grand Slam but not the Championship. Five wins = 20 points against four wins including TBPs and one LBP = 21 points.

If bonus points were there, would teams have been pushing for tries in other games too, rather than just leaving it until the final weekend (or against Italy)?

Also like IronMIke said, go to a 5pts a win, 3pts a draw, 0pts a loss, 1bp for 4 tries, 1bp for losing by 7 or less, then the Grand Slam (25pts) would still be a winner, even if the second place team picked up bps in all games (25pts - 20pts for the wins, 4bps from tries, 1bp from loss), on games won.

The Great Aukster wrote:Bonus points should never come in to the 6N while it remains in its current format. We have just had the most exciting finish where every point counts so that should be as clear an argument for not having them as it's possible to make.

Even with 4 points for a win a team could still win the grand Slam but not the Championship. Five wins = 20 points against four wins including TBPs and one LBP = 21 points.

The bonus point system is inherently flawed at the moment because there is no direct incentive for the winning side to stop the losing side get a LBP. Any award of a LBP should come from the winners tally and that would make that point hard fought.

The imbalance between home and away fixtures plus the shortness of the tournament would skew the bonus points further by allowing the weather to have a big impact. I can't see any good argument for changing a system that is so obviously working.

Well said.

So let me get this straight then Scarlet.  Sides could still win a GrandSlam without masses of tries?  Just as now.

I can't see the need for bonus points for tries as that bonus points system already exists without a name - it's called winning the Title.

Tries are points.  Ireland regrets they didn't take some of their try chances through the competition, they'd have slept easier before that final day.  Sides already know they want points and the quickest way to collect them is tries, if you can get them.

But if tries formally became important - defences wouldn't necessarily collapse, they'd perhaps ironically become tighter still.  If a try means a formal advantage, then killing off the potential of that advantage becomes equally important

I don't see why a losing team should be rewarded for losing 15-8 as opposed to 15-7.

Fly, I've been keen on BPs in the 6Ns since BPs became a thing. While I agree that defences will try to avoid giving tries away, I would also argue that teams trying to score tries tend to not focus on the defence as much.

Hammersmith, that is how bonus points work mate. Losing 15-8 means if the game went on play longer you could possibly have pulled it back to a draw.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Fly, I've been keen on BPs in the 6Ns since BPs became a thing.  While I agree that defences will try to avoid giving tries away, I would also argue that teams trying to score tries tend to not focus on the defence as much.

Hammersmith, that is how bonus points work mate.  Losing 15-8 means if the game went on play longer you could possibly have pulled it back to a draw.

What difference does that make, you didn't have enough time to pull it back to a draw and shouldn't be rewarded for still losing, if a 15-7 game went on for 3 minutes longer the losing team could have either won or drawn.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Fly, I've been keen on BPs in the 6Ns since BPs became a thing.  While I agree that defences will try to avoid giving tries away, I would also argue that teams trying to score tries tend to not focus on the defence as much.

Hammersmith, that is how bonus points work mate.  Losing 15-8 means if the game went on play longer you could possibly have pulled it back to a draw.

What difference does that make, you didn't have enough time to pull it back to a draw and shouldn't be rewarded for still losing, if a 15-7 game went on for 3 minutes longer the losing team could have either won or drawn.

That is how the bonus point system works.

ScarletSpiderman wrote: I would also argue that teams trying to score tries tend to not focus on the defence as much.

You have to if they are good though.  If there is no way through, there is no way through.  France's defence became non existent.  And England's wasn't much better.  Last Saturday was by no means a day that will be repeated regularly.  It had its special circumstances, four sides in a mood to rumble and the jitters of the day got to everyone.  But coaches would be screaming at the mistakes in virtually all three games had it been a 'normal' day.  Those kind of performances, where discipline in defence becomes negligible (even in bonus point competitions) do not win titles.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Fly, I've been keen on BPs in the 6Ns since BPs became a thing.  While I agree that defences will try to avoid giving tries away, I would also argue that teams trying to score tries tend to not focus on the defence as much.

Hammersmith, that is how bonus points work mate.  Losing 15-8 means if the game went on play longer you could possibly have pulled it back to a draw.

What difference does that make, you didn't have enough time to pull it back to a draw and shouldn't be rewarded for still losing, if a 15-7 game went on for 3 minutes longer the losing team could have either won or drawn.

That is how the bonus point system works.

Your point being what? We should use a hugely flawed system just for the sake of it being how it works?

Hammersmith, the system isn't flawed. It works perfectly well in other competitions, even the RWC pool stages use them. To be honest if you don't like the system you can pick holes in it all day long, the same with anything.

Fly, the unbreakable defence issue is here already like you say, I think it's a bit like the debate we had about big lumps v little chaps on the wing. We are heading towards a XV man game of league (as Schmitt-ball meets Warren-ball), at the moment, and encouraging rugby like on display on Saturday may be the only way to avoid it.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Hammersmith, the system isn't flawed.  It works perfectly well in other competitions, even the RWC pool stages use them.  To be honest if you don't like the system you can pick holes in it all day long, the same with anything.

Fly, the unbreakable defence issue is here already like you say, I think it's a bit like the debate we had about big lumps v little chaps on the wing.  We are heading towards a XV man game of league (as Schmitt-ball meets Warren-ball), at the moment, and encouraging rugby like on display on Saturday may be the only way to avoid it.

The system is inherently flawed when you are still being rewarded for losing and it does not work perfectly well in anything, a team should get points for winning and drawing that is it.

Each unto their own

Griff wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:If you go with BPs then surely wins have to be worth four points (that seems the universal system wherever BPs are awarded), so Scotland would still have finished last, and the table wouldn't have been affected at all...

Yes you'd have to go 4 points as someone could feasibly do the grandslam with no BPs and still lose to a team with 4 wins and a load of BPs.  I think?

Give 5 points for a win, 2 points for a draw, 1 point for 4 tries, no losing bonus points and teams level on points separated by results between the two teams first and then tries scored, and then points difference.

Winning all five games certain to win the title with a minimum 25 points, still incentive to attack.

You could still go unbeaten (4 wins and a draw) and lose the title to a high-scoring team though.

Notch why dispatch the lbp, as results between teams would ensure a team with a gs come out on top anyway

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Notch why dispatch the lbp, as results between teams would ensure a team with a gs come out on top anyway

No, not necessarily

Team A wins all 5 games, never scores four tries- 5 x 5 points, 25 points
Team B loses to Team A by less than seven points, despite scoring four tries- 2 points from that. Other 4 games are bonus point wins, 4 x 6 points + the 2 from their loss, 26 points

Team B wins the title despite Team A winning all their games. It's a long shot but its only mathematically certain for the Grand Slam winner to always win the championship without losing bonus points or if the base points for a win is increased further.

Ah I missed the possibility of a double bp loss. I stand corrected, sorry.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Hammersmith, the system isn't flawed.  It works perfectly well in other competitions, even the RWC pool stages use them.  To be honest if you don't like the system you can pick holes in it all day long, the same with anything.

I don't like bonus points. It denied Tonga and Georgia the possibility of making the quarter finals in the 2011 World Cup.

George may not have made it but bonus points meant they went into their last games with nothing to play for. Take away bonus points and Tonga would have qualify ahead of France on head-to-head record. Tonga went into the last game against France with only pride to play for. Both teams ended up with 2 wins and 2 loses.

I also read that had the Six Nations had bonus points... England would have won the title in 2002 despite France winning the Grand Slam.

You have to ask what bonus points would bring to the 6N?

Test rugby in it's purest form is simply one team against another, mano a mano to see who wins the battle. Diluting the importance of winning by stratifying it into a series of artificial points classifications undermines the fundamental nature of Test rugby. There were no bonus points at Bannockburn or Waterloo.

Absolutely spot on, it's one of the worst ideas possible and it's introduction to any sport is atrocious.