Six Nations veto bonus points bid

I totally agree with this, if it ain't broke don't fix it. With a bonus point system in place, you could go the whole tournament unbeaten and still lose out, nah for me it is fine as it is, lets not play about with it, what does everyone else think ?

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/featured-post/24995/six-nations-veto-bonus-points-bid-as-unfair/

Agree with it. Absolutely no need for BPs IMO.

You would have to increase the points for a win to 4 ala ECC, SR and RC so that a team who wins all their matches will be champions regardless.
I think it could be positive, give more teams an opportunity to seek a win via piling on the points.

Do bonus points cause more attractive play? I think from Sunday's ECC matches you could suggest the answer is yes.

If it was ever to come in then they would have to make the Slam winner still won overall.

Good to hear. I've never felt bonus points are a necessary addition, only a popular trend established by club rugby. Some who follow club rugby week to week suffer from an impulsive desire to see those principles extended to international elements of the game as a result.

This in itself is no justification for applying the BP system to the 6N. The current points system is not in need of repair as it accurately reflects the overall performance levels of the teams involved over a whole campaign. Bonus points would bring in more negatives than positives. They'd incentivise losing by small margins and risk taking focus away from winning certain games outright.

A team should be ranked based on how many games they win and nothing more. Theoretically, one side could win less games than another side but still finish higher on points if BP's were involved. So it has more of an obscuring effect on the rankings than anything else.

One argument against bringing in a bonus-point system in the Six Nations is that you don't play your opponents home and away, and that could skew things. For example, teams playing Italy in Rome would (in theory!) find it harder to get a bonus point than the teams that play Italy at home.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:One argument against bringing in a bonus-point system in the Six Nations is that you don't play your opponents home and away, and that could skew things. For example, teams playing Italy in Rome would (in theory!) find it harder to get a bonus point than the teams that play Italy at home.

Yes I agree with this. All the bonus point system would do, is encourage more teams to go at Italy. Italy would be targeted as the bonus point game. This would do nothing for them.

that or create matches such as the soweto classic 2013.

fa0019 wrote:that or create matches such as the soweto classic 2013.

I think the fact it's the Soweto classic 2013 shows how rare those games are...

yappysnap wrote:

fa0019 wrote:that or create matches such as the soweto classic 2013.

I think the fact it's the Soweto classic 2013 shows how rare those games are...

Or Exeter on the weekend.

Or Munster's miracle match vs. Gloucester?

fa0019 wrote:

yappysnap wrote:

fa0019 wrote:that or create matches such as the soweto classic 2013.

I think the fact it's the Soweto classic 2013 shows how rare those games are...

Or Exeter on the weekend.

Or Munster's miracle match vs. Gloucester?

Again, those games were in tournaments where you played your opponents both home and away. I don't think it's right to bring in a bonus-point system in a competition where, because of how the away fixtures fall, some teams will (again, in theory) find it harder to get bonus points, through no fault of their own.

fa0019 wrote:You would have to increase the points for a win to 4 ala ECC, SR and RC so that a team who wins all their matches will be champions regardless.
I think it could be positive, give more teams an opportunity to seek a win via piling on the points.

Do bonus points cause more attractive play? I think from Sunday's ECC matches you could suggest the answer is yes.

Two things:

1) 4 wins with bonus points and one bonus point loss gives you 21 (or 22 with losing try bonus). Winning 5 games without bonus points gives you 20 points. So no, that won't stop it. You would need 6 points for a normal win, which is lessening the value of bonus points.

2) what would the games have been like without the bonus points? Picking isolated games, especially without taking account of other factors, is a waste of time.

Don't like bonus points in general. I'd rather them rule on the ruck properly to stop teams illegally slowing the ball down.

HammerofThunor wrote:1) 4 wins with bonus points and one bonus point loss gives you 21 (or 22 with losing try bonus). Winning 5 games without bonus points gives you 20 points. So no, that won't stop it. You would need 6 points for a normal win, which is lessening the value of bonus points.

2) what would the games have been like without the bonus points? Picking isolated games, especially without taking account of other factors, is a waste of time.

Don't like bonus points in general. I'd rather them rule on the ruck properly to stop teams illegally slowing the ball down.

I think thats what they should do. I actually came on here to suggest that exact plan. Not a big deal though; the incentive to score points for head to heads, or the incentive to score tries for head to head is much of a muchness really isn't it?

If we keep the current system I would rather teams were separated by

1) The result between the two teams
2) The number of tries scored
3) The number of points scored
4) Points difference

One example used was it would be very hollow if Wales beating England meant they weren't Champions when they finished level. But the year before last it was fine England beat Ireland, finished level with us and Ireland still won the title. Lancaster was done a disservice by not winning that Six Nations in hindsight. I think England had home advantage over us and though we could have won the Slam had we taken one chance we created in the first half for Trimble. A fraction of a second in the timing of the pass was the difference between winning and losing.

But we didn't score and England did beat us, and we still won the title. Right? The rules say yes but I think we can do better and shouldn't be afraid to try.

HammerofThunor wrote:1) 4 wins with bonus points and one bonus point loss gives you 21 (or 22 with losing try bonus). Winning 5 games without bonus points gives you 20 points. So no, that won't stop it. You would need 6 points for a normal win, which is lessening the value of bonus points.

2) what would the games have been like without the bonus points? Picking isolated games, especially without taking account of other factors, is a waste of time.

Don't like bonus points in general. I'd rather them rule on the ruck properly to stop teams illegally slowing the ball down.

I think thats what they should do. I actually came on here to suggest that exact plan. Not a big deal though; the incentive to score points for head to heads, or the incentive to score tries for head to head is much of a muchness really isn't it?

If we keep the current system I would rather teams were separated by

1) The result between the two teams
2) The number of tries scored
3) The number of points scored
4) Points difference

One example used was it would be very hollow if Wales beating England meant they weren't Champions when they finished level. But the year before last it was fine England beat Ireland, finished level with us and Ireland still won the title. Lancaster was done a disservice by not winning that Six Nations in hindsight. I think England had home advantage over us and though we could have won the Slam had we taken one chance we created in the first half for Trimble. A fraction of a second in the timing of the pass was the difference between winning and losing.

But we didn't score and England did beat us, and we still won the title. Right? The rules say yes but I think we can do better and shouldn't be afraid to try.

Losing bonus points are seriously flawed full stop because they reward the loser at no penalty to the winner. A cheaply gained LBP simply doesn't have half the value of a hard fought draw. In a five game tournament there are no 'swings and roundabouts' to even out over a season.

I't not just the imbalance between home and away fixtures either that invalidates the bonus point system. The beauty of the 6N is that it starts in Winter and finishes in Spring, but that dictates the likelihood for scoring bonus points. So a team that may get a losing bonus in heavy conditions in February may get hammered by the same team and concede a TBP in late March. Therefore the fixture list would have even a greater bearing on determining the champion than it already does.

I think all the matches on the final day should KO at the same time. I appreciate it messes up the viewing but it just aint fair.

RubyGuby wrote:I think all the matches on the final day should KO at the same time. I appreciate it messes up the viewing but it just aint fair.  

You're kidding right! I love watching all three games.

Now that the games are split on BBC/ITV they overlap anyway (except, ironically enough, the final weekend).

RubyGuby wrote:I think all the matches on the final day should KO at the same time. I appreciate it messes up the viewing but it just aint fair.  

Agreed.

The Great Aukster wrote:I't not just the imbalance between home and away fixtures either that invalidates the bonus point system. The beauty of the 6N is that it starts in Winter and finishes in Spring, but that dictates the likelihood for scoring bonus points. So a team that may get a losing bonus in heavy conditions in February may get hammered by the same team and concede a TBP in late March. Therefore the fixture list would have even a greater bearing on determining the champion than it already does.

Doesn't that go equally for every tournament though- I mean playing the Pro12 from September to May is even more extreme. Weather really does affect the Champions Cup.

The balance is really about home and away games being uneven. We can't play every game under laboratory conditions.

Retrospective bonus points would give England two more championships.

That would really annoy Gwlad.

I can't see any problems.

Cyril wrote:Retrospective bonus points would give England two more championships.

Its not Italian football! We don't just go around handing back trophies and changing history. But for the record Eddie O'Sullivan would have a few championships and Ireland would come out of it ahead. France the big losers.

Cyril wrote:That would really annoy Gwlad.

I can't see any problems.

Notch wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:I't not just the imbalance between home and away fixtures either that invalidates the bonus point system. The beauty of the 6N is that it starts in Winter and finishes in Spring, but that dictates the likelihood for scoring bonus points. So a team that may get a losing bonus in heavy conditions in February may get hammered by the same team and concede a TBP in late March. Therefore the fixture list would have even a greater bearing on determining the champion than it already does.

Doesn't that go equally for every tournament though- I mean playing the Pro12 from September to May is even more extreme. Weather really does affect the Champions Cup.

The balance is really about home and away games being uneven. We can't play every game under laboratory conditions.

Yes it applies to every tournament, but it would have more of an impact in the 6N. One game represents 20% of the possible points haul, whereas in the Pro12 it is less than 5%. The weather has such an impact on the style of play that is could become impossible to score even one try against opposition that on a fine day would be a TBP opportunity.

Currently the winner gets 4 and the loser 0 so it doesn't matter that much that the score line was 3-0 or 33-30 depending on the weather. Howevever with bonus points one game is worth 4-1 and the other 5 - 1 so the championship would be even more of a hostage to the weather fortunes.

Cyril wrote:Retrospective bonus points would give England two more championships.

That would really annoy Gwlad.

I can't see any problems.

I see yet again that you don't believe the wum rules apply to you. If there were retrospective points for 'WUMS by Cyril' you'd at least have a point. Currently you just don't.

Gwlad wrote:

Cyril wrote:Retrospective bonus points would give England two more championships.

That would really annoy Gwlad.

I can't see any problems.

I see yet again that you don't believe the wum rules apply to you. If there were retrospective points for 'WUMS by Cyril' you'd at least have a point. Currently you just don't.

Ah but the difference is that Cyril can be funny (in a laughing with rather than laughing at way)

Suppose that's true Aukster

Cyril wrote:Retrospective bonus points would give England two more championships.

That would really annoy Gwlad.

I can't see any problems.

Nah, the Welsh moral victory still outscores retrospective England BPs I'm afraid. It's like Top Trumps

I think the competition should be made into a 2 year thing. So you have a winner each year and then a proper winner over two years (therefore home and away). Basically bring it in line with the ENC.

I think the team with highest points difference and most wins should get an extra point.

Theoretically a grand-slam team could end with 20 points, while a team that won 4 lost 1 could get 22, so you'd need a 3-point bonus for winning all five to ensure that the grand-slam side still got the title.

Seems a bit of an unnecessary mess.

I really don't like bonus points. While I was glad Wasps finished top of their Rugby Champions Cup group and have got a home tie in the Quarter Finals, I find it ridiculous that they topped the group with 4 wins out of 6 games while Toulon finished second after winning 5 of the 6 games.

We could have a situation whereby a team wins the grand slam but not the six nations which is ridiculous. There's also an element of snobbery to bonus points, the idea that the only rugby worth playing is free flowing which, whilst we all like to see games full of tries and attacking play, ignores the facts that many of the most compelling games are low scoring dog fights. Let's not forget that in the New Zealand vs South Africa semi-final there were just two tries. Also in the six nations we've had the Calcutta Cup games of 2006 and 2008, which weren't try fests nor were they particularly high in skill but they were undoubtedly fascinating contests. Perhaps the Southern Hemisphere may laugh and sneer if we don't have end to end running rugby but if it came down to it I'd be very happy if in 2019 the Six Nations rucked and mauled the Southern Hemisphere into submission and knocked penalties and drop kicks over. Of course it's entertaining and great to watch if teams score tries repeatedly but let's not forget there's more than one way to play rugby.

What changed the 6N committee's mind in less than a year?

The proposal included bonus points for winning all your games so a grand slam would always win the championship even if you got no bonus points and someone else drew a game but got bonus points in every game

Their major problem with bonus points (below) hasn't changed though.

“The issue against bonus points is over the imbalance of home matches.

“Some countries have three, others have two. The Championship isn’t a league where all six teams are playing each other home and away in the same season.

“We would encourage all the teams to score more tries but we do not believe that bonus points in our Championship would add to the excitement. It would be inherently unfair."

100% Cyril.

TJ wrote:The proposal included bonus points for winning all your games so a grand slam would always win the championship even if you got no bonus points and someone else drew a game but got bonus points in every game

... so it took a year to come up with the extra three points idea to make a ridiculous suggestion marginally less so? This crowd wouldn't just have taken the Trojan horse inside the gates but tried to feed and water it.

I thought this was in the proposal from the beggining

It's been changed to help England retain the title, as they know they have very little chance to win in Dublin.

Barnes to ref Ireland Wales and Hartley getting only a 6 week ban, the RFU will stoop to any lengths to keep hold of the trophy.

As soon as I saw rodders had commented I knew what it would say.

So tiresome.

rodders wrote:It's been changed to help England retain the title, as they know they have very little chance to win in Dublin.

Barnes to ref Ireland Wales and Hartley getting only a 6 week ban, the RFU will stoop to any lengths to keep hold of the trophy.

It's all true!

After Ireland 'won' those two titles that were really ties we need to redress the balance.

By the way, England will make it 6 out 7 in Dublin (we really are on a roll against you lot)

Scottrf wrote:As soon as I saw rodders had commented I knew what it would say.

Great minds think alike .

Maybe they should go to a dance off to split tie breaks, then finaly Henson could get his recall to the Welsh squad.

Cyril wrote:

rodders wrote:It's been changed to help England retain the title, as they know they have very little chance to win in Dublin.

Barnes to ref Ireland Wales and Hartley getting only a 6 week ban, the RFU will stoop to any lengths to keep hold of the trophy.

It's all true!

After Ireland 'won' those two titles that were really ties we need to redress the balance.

By the way, England will make it 6 out 7 in Dublin (we really are on a roll against you lot)

What chance once England retain on points, it gets scrapped or tweaked for 2018 when Ireland have 3 home games.....

I predict here and now that an extra point will come available for the an away win or scoring 5 points on the road in 2018 to keep the title in twickers

rodders wrote:

Cyril wrote:

rodders wrote:It's been changed to help England retain the title, as they know they have very little chance to win in Dublin.

Barnes to ref Ireland Wales and Hartley getting only a 6 week ban, the RFU will stoop to any lengths to keep hold of the trophy.

It's all true!

After Ireland 'won' those two titles that were really ties we need to redress the balance.

By the way, England will make it 6 out 7 in Dublin (we really are on a roll against you lot)

What chance once England retain on points, it gets scrapped or tweaked for 2018 when Ireland have 3 home games.....

I predict here and now that an extra point will come available for the an away win or scoring 5 points on the road in 2018 to keep the title in twickers  

I'm liking the sound of this. The RFU can control the 6 Nations and the IRFU can continue to run the PrO'12. Deal?

rodders wrote:

Cyril wrote:

rodders wrote:It's been changed to help England retain the title, as they know they have very little chance to win in Dublin.

Barnes to ref Ireland Wales and Hartley getting only a 6 week ban, the RFU will stoop to any lengths to keep hold of the trophy.

It's all true!

After Ireland 'won' those two titles that were really ties we need to redress the balance.

By the way, England will make it 6 out 7 in Dublin (we really are on a roll against you lot)

What chance once England retain on points, it gets scrapped or tweaked for 2018 when Ireland have 3 home games.....

I predict here and now that an extra point will come available for the an away win or scoring 5 points on the road in 2018 to keep the title in twickers  

If they really menat business they'd try the same poo they pulled on Tigers and change the rules mid competition.

Cyril wrote:

rodders wrote:

Cyril wrote:

rodders wrote:It's been changed to help England retain the title, as they know they have very little chance to win in Dublin.

Barnes to ref Ireland Wales and Hartley getting only a 6 week ban, the RFU will stoop to any lengths to keep hold of the trophy.

It's all true!

After Ireland 'won' those two titles that were really ties we need to redress the balance.

By the way, England will make it 6 out 7 in Dublin (we really are on a roll against you lot)

What chance once England retain on points, it gets scrapped or tweaked for 2018 when Ireland have 3 home games.....

I predict here and now that an extra point will come available for the an away win or scoring 5 points on the road in 2018 to keep the title in twickers  

I'm liking the sound of this. The RFU can control the 6 Nations and the IRFU can continue to run the PrO'12. Deal?

Do the Welsh get to keep the Lions?

I thought the Welsh owned the Lions - they only invite a few others along as scapegoats and to provide a bit of craic.

NZ own World Rugby (those in black are whiter than white)
England own the 6 Nations (got to keep John Iverdale happy)
Ireland own the PrO'12 (those Irish refs and Friday kick-offs)
Wales own the Lions (jobs for the boyos and gatlandball forever)

How is the rest carved up?

It's ironic that those in the black claim poverty yet those in the red are raking it in.