6 Nations to introduce bonus points in 2017

by **RDW** Wed 30 Nov 2016, 11:13 am

http://www.rbs6nations.com/en/news/30434.php#hlum6IDwQOvpZVgD.97

A very big change!

6 Nations wrote:The Six Nations Council today announced the introduction of a bonus points system in the RBS 6 Nations, The Women's Six Nations and the Under 20s Six Nations Championships.
Read more at http://www.rbs6nations.com/en/news/30434.php#4Yb3FfZqxK5XQ8cY.99

This system will be implemented on a trial basis in all three Championships in 2017 and will be reviewed post Championships.

As part of their review of the Championships, the Council took the decision to implement a bonus point system to encourage and reward try scoring and attacking play.

Competition points will be awarded in all matches on the following basis:

(i) The Union that wins the Match shall be awarded four Match Points or (if it scores four tries or more in the process) five Match Points.

(ii) The Union that loses the Match shall be awarded no Match Points or (if it scores four tries or more in the process or loses by a margin of seven points or fewer) one Match Point or (if it scores four tries or more in the process and loses by a margin of seven points or fewer) two Match Points.

(iii) Unions that draw a Match shall each be awarded two Match Points and any of them that scores four tries or more in the process shall be awarded a further one Match Point.

(iv) A Union that wins all five of its Matches (a "Grand Slam") shall be awarded a further three Match Points.

Pat Whelan, Chairman of the Six Nations said: "We have been looking at the feasibility of a bonus point system for a while and examining what kind of bonus point system would work best, given the unique properties and format of our Championships.

"We needed to ensure that whatever bonus point system we selected would work with the already proven structure of the Championships and would serve to materially improve what is already there.

"We are happy that the system that we have decided to trial is the one best suited to our Championships and we are delighted to be going ahead with this new development.

"We believe that the initiative will enhance our competitions for fans, teams, broadcasters and all of those for whom the Championship means so much."

John Feehan, Chief Executive of Six Nations said: "The drama and excitement of the last weekend of the RBS 6 Nations Championship is unique and is, more often than not, driven by a number of teams on equal Championship points all competing for first place on the table.

"It is important for us to ensure that any bonus point system which is implemented would not, in any way, take away from this unique dynamic.

"At the same time, we are also conscious that we must reward try scoring and an attacking style of play that will deliver more tries and greater rewards for fans and players alike.

"We are very excited about the potential that this new development will bring to the Championships and we look forward to trialling it next February and March."
Read more at http://www.rbs6nations.com/en/news/30434.php#4Yb3FfZqxK5XQ8cY.99

by **RDW** Wed 30 Nov 2016, 11:16 am

The main criticism of this in the past has been that a team could win a Grand Slam and not win the Championship, but they have adddressed that by giving an additional 3 points if any team wins all their games.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 30 Nov 2016, 11:20 am

My other criticism would be we don't play home and away matches so you can end up for instance a few years back where England battered Scotland at Murrayfield but were denied more tries (only got 2 from memory) by a horrendous worm ridden pitch. Worth a trial though.

by RuggerRadge2611 Wed 30 Nov 2016, 11:23 am

I had to do a bit of number crunching to see if a slam would automatically win the championship but it does. Just.

If Ireland win the grand slam but fail to secure any try scoring bonus points they will score 23 points.

4 points x 5 games plus 3 for the slam.

If England win all their games with try scoring bonus points (apart from their game with Ireland but still secure a losing bonus point for tries and being within 7 points) their final score will be 22.

5 points x 4 games plus 1 for tries against Ireland and plus 1 for being within a converted try of Ireland in the decider.

I just used Ireland and England as examples in this particular case. I Pondered using Italy and Scotland but then thought the writing would instantly lack credibility.

by spaynter Wed 30 Nov 2016, 11:39 am

The points from last year's tables were

England 10
Wales 7
Ireland 5
Scotland 4
France 4
Italy 0

Would become:

England 24 (1 TB, 3 GSB)
Wales 16 (1 TB, 1 LB)
Ireland 13 (2 TB, 1 LB)
Scotland 10 (2 LB)
France 8
Italy 1 (1 LB)

Some close games but the only team to get a try bonus when not playing Italy, were Ireland against Scotland.

Will be interesting to see how it changes attitudes.

by munkian Wed 30 Nov 2016, 11:44 am

So teams that have Italy and Scotland (sorry guys) as home games get even more of an advantage ?

by Guest Wed 30 Nov 2016, 11:47 am

I don't think there's a need for it personally. In a season long league (like the Pro12, English Prem, etc.) then yes a team might need the incentive to not give up and go for a bonus point (either via tries or losing by <7) to help relegation or get them a step closer to playoffs. It's a whole season and every little helps.

However, in a representative game such as International rugby the teams shouldn't need an incentive to not give up, to not try to score tries. They should be flogged and whipped if they were to do that as it is a lack of respect for the jersey and the history that goes with it. "Shall we bother trying to finish within 7 points". Has anyone really asked that question in a 6N game? "Shall we bother trying to score this try or shall I just knock-on on purpose so that we stick with 3 tries?" I exaggerate a bit for effect here, but ask yourself this: Do they really need the incentive? If so, there's something really wrong with the game!

by RuggerRadge2611 Wed 30 Nov 2016, 11:53 am

munkian wrote:So teams that have Italy and Scotland (sorry guys) as home games get even more of an advantage ?

Bravely spoken. Especially after the dirge Wales served up this autumn. kiss

Wales had us (Scotland) at home last year and failed to secure a bonus point whereas Scotland attained a losing bonus point in that match if we were using the updated rules, so I'm not entirely sure I take your meaning.

by marty2086 Wed 30 Nov 2016, 11:53 am

Think the change is to address the so called gulf between the 6Ns/NH and the RC/SH as they are deemed to be more attacking and the NH teams less so

by little_badger Wed 30 Nov 2016, 11:56 am

If it makes teams even slightly try to score more tries then I am for it, for instance a scrum in the oppo 22, you have 3 tries already, instead of milking the penalty you try to go for the bonus point.

by SecretFly Wed 30 Nov 2016, 11:56 am

Griff wrote:I don't think there's a need for it personally. In a season long league (like the Pro12, English Prem, etc.) then yes a team might need the incentive to not give up and go for a bonus point (either via tries or losing by <7) to help relegation or get them a step closer to playoffs. It's a whole season and every little helps.

However, in a representative game such as International rugby the teams shouldn't need an incentive to not give up, to not try to score tries. They should be flogged and whipped if they were to do that as it is a lack of respect for the jersey and the history that goes with it. "Shall we bother trying to finish within 7 points". Has anyone really asked that question in a 6N game? "Shall we bother trying to score this try or shall I just knock-on on purpose so that we stick with 3 tries?" I exaggerate a bit for effect here, but ask yourself this: Do they really need the incentive? If so, there's something really wrong with the game!

I don't think I like the idea. One end of the 6N can be different to the other end. Depending on when you meet the presumed weaker sides in the sequence can have a big impact on the scoreline you'd be expecting from them. Some sides, like Wales, start slow and keep getting stronger. Italy have tended to give it a big hoosh at the beginning before trailing off and offering little by the end.

Like Griff says, I think it's a bit of an insult really. The toughness and intensity and skill levels of the 6N has been improving naturally over recent years. Do these players really need more incentive to 'entertain'?

by munkian Wed 30 Nov 2016, 11:57 am

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
munkian wrote:So teams that have Italy and Scotland (sorry guys) as home games get even more of an advantage ?

Bravely spoken. Especially after the dirge Wales served up this autumn.

Wales had us (Scotland) at home last year and failed to secure a bonus point whereas Scotland attained a losing bonus point in that match if we were using the updated rules, so I'm not entirely sure I take your meaning.

Bless, beat Tonga and you think you're people Hug

by Guest Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:04 pm

munkian wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
munkian wrote:So teams that have Italy and Scotland (sorry guys) as home games get even more of an advantage ?

Bravely spoken. Especially after the dirge Wales served up this autumn.

Wales had us (Scotland) at home last year and failed to secure a bonus point whereas Scotland attained a losing bonus point in that match if we were using the updated rules, so I'm not entirely sure I take your meaning.

Bless, beat Tonga and you think you're people

Actually it was the mighty mighty Georgia. laughing

by RuggerRadge2611 Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:04 pm

munkian wrote:
RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
munkian wrote:So teams that have Italy and Scotland (sorry guys) as home games get even more of an advantage ?

Bravely spoken. Especially after the dirge Wales served up this autumn.

Wales had us (Scotland) at home last year and failed to secure a bonus point whereas Scotland attained a losing bonus point in that match if we were using the updated rules, so I'm not entirely sure I take your meaning.

Bless, beat Tonga and you think you're people

We didn't play Tonga, but if we did I'm sure we'd cuff them too Wink

by Guest Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:07 pm

England over the years have been accused of playing boring, up your jumper rugby. But lately (in the 6N specifically) they've been playing some super attacking, running rugby with lots of tries scored. Yet bonus points have not been brought in yet. So why are they now playing wider and a more attacking style of rugby? More to do with skills and coaching perhaps as there's no bonus point incentive currently.

Look at the All Blacks. They didn't used to play up the jumper rugby before the 4N had bonus points. Neither did Aus. They always play that way because they're coached to and have the skills to do it. Adding bonus points won't give a team the skills to do it. We're just trying to engineer a 7s style of game to widen the market to more people who need tries and points to be entertained. For shame, 6N organisers.

by the-goon Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:11 pm

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
munkian wrote:So teams that have Italy and Scotland (sorry guys) as home games get even more of an advantage ?

Bravely spoken. Especially after the dirge Wales served up this autumn.

Wales had us (Scotland) at home last year and failed to secure a bonus point whereas Scotland attained a losing bonus point in that match if we were using the updated rules, so I'm not entirely sure I take your meaning.

3 wins from 4? Awful stuff, so bad in fact the rankings have reflected this... with them going up in the rankings. Overtaking SA.

Wales aren't playing pretty rugby but they are winning, and haven't lost to anyone below them in the rankings for a while. Prob since 2013 when they lost to Japan.

by Cyril Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:13 pm

2013, 2014 and 2015 6 Nations were all decided on points difference, so while there hasn't been bonus points there has been an incentive to score big, especially towards the end of the tournament (for those still in the race).

by Don Alfonso Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:13 pm

More than ever, it will become about who has three games at home, and against whom. Not convinced. Not at all.

Was it two years ago we had the most amazing, heart-in-mouth, "Wales must surely win overall now, no, It's Ireland, no England will do it, no - it's Ireland after all" final day? And we're changing the system?

by SecretFly Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:14 pm

Griff wrote:England over the years have been accused of playing boring, up your jumper rugby. But lately (in the 6N specifically) they've been playing some super attacking, running rugby with lots of tries scored. Yet bonus points have not been brought in yet. So why are they now playing wider and a more attacking style of rugby? More to do with skills and coaching perhaps as there's no bonus point incentive currently.

Look at the All Blacks. They didn't used to play up the jumper rugby before the 4N had bonus points. Neither did Aus. They always play that way because they're coached to and have the skills to do it. Adding bonus points won't give a team the skills to do it. We're just trying to engineer a 7s style of game to widen the market to more people who need tries and points to be entertained. For shame, 6N organisers.

Griff hits the nail centrally on the head again. Wink

The ITVisation of Rugby! Get the folk that watch the X Factor and Jeremy Kyle int'rested, innit.

by marty2086 Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:15 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Griff wrote:England over the years have been accused of playing boring, up your jumper rugby. But lately (in the 6N specifically) they've been playing some super attacking, running rugby with lots of tries scored. Yet bonus points have not been brought in yet. So why are they now playing wider and a more attacking style of rugby? More to do with skills and coaching perhaps as there's no bonus point incentive currently.

Look at the All Blacks. They didn't used to play up the jumper rugby before the 4N had bonus points. Neither did Aus. They always play that way because they're coached to and have the skills to do it. Adding bonus points won't give a team the skills to do it. We're just trying to engineer a 7s style of game to widen the market to more people who need tries and points to be entertained. For shame, 6N organisers.

Griff hits the nail centrally on the head again. The ITVisation of Rugby! Get the folk that watch the X Factor and Jeremy Kyle int'rested, innit.

Whats wrong with more people watching the sport?

by munkian Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:16 pm

Don Alfonso wrote:More than ever, it will become about who has three games at home, and against whom. Not convinced. Not at all.

Was it two years ago we had the most amazing, heart-in-mouth, "Wales must surely win overall now, no, It's Ireland, no England will do it, no - it's Ireland after all" final day? And we're changing the system?

Agreed, Italy always seem to roll over for England at Twickenham apart from in 2013 maybe.

If they want to shake things up, let Georgia in.

by SecretFly Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:18 pm

marty2086 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Griff wrote:England over the years have been accused of playing boring, up your jumper rugby. But lately (in the 6N specifically) they've been playing some super attacking, running rugby with lots of tries scored. Yet bonus points have not been brought in yet. So why are they now playing wider and a more attacking style of rugby? More to do with skills and coaching perhaps as there's no bonus point incentive currently.

Look at the All Blacks. They didn't used to play up the jumper rugby before the 4N had bonus points. Neither did Aus. They always play that way because they're coached to and have the skills to do it. Adding bonus points won't give a team the skills to do it. We're just trying to engineer a 7s style of game to widen the market to more people who need tries and points to be entertained. For shame, 6N organisers.

Griff hits the nail centrally on the head again. The ITVisation of Rugby! Get the folk that watch the X Factor and Jeremy Kyle int'rested, innit.

Whats wrong with more people watching the sport?

What's wrong with the sport I love?

Let's have beach balls instead of rugby balls for extra colour and that the kids will like more.
Let's have cheerleaders for the dirty old (and young) men.
Let's have 4 Quarters to help Americans acclimatise more.
Let's call tries 'goals', just to comfort the minds of drop-in football folks.

by Guest Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:19 pm

Who doesn't want to score big? Wales have had some massive wins against Italy in the last few years. Why? Not because there was an additional point on offer but because we could and we did. We tried it, we found that our game plan that day cut them to ribbons and rather than say "we're bored now, lets just stop" we kept trying and got 50+ point scores. But every game I'd say we do the same. We don't plan on having a 15-17 arm wrestle with Ireland or England. I'd say we genuinely go into those games wanting to score as many tries as possible. That's why we play backs and not 15 forwards, right? But on those occasions where we have an arms wrestle we just have evenly matched teams who will not let each other get the space to cut free and score a load of tries. Extra points won't or shouldn't change that. Defenses won't suddenly part like the red sea to let the other team get their point. And the attacking time I imagine will still be trying as hard as they can to get the try, bonus point or not. I just think it's not needed.

by BigTrevsbigmac Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:32 pm

little_badger wrote:If it makes teams even slightly try to score more tries then I am for it, for instance a scrum in the oppo 22, you have 3 tries already, instead of milking the penalty you try to go for the bonus point.

Agreed & it also rewards teams that have sometimes a few close losses where currently there is nothing.

by marty2086 Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:38 pm

SecretFly wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Griff wrote:England over the years have been accused of playing boring, up your jumper rugby. But lately (in the 6N specifically) they've been playing some super attacking, running rugby with lots of tries scored. Yet bonus points have not been brought in yet. So why are they now playing wider and a more attacking style of rugby? More to do with skills and coaching perhaps as there's no bonus point incentive currently.

Look at the All Blacks. They didn't used to play up the jumper rugby before the 4N had bonus points. Neither did Aus. They always play that way because they're coached to and have the skills to do it. Adding bonus points won't give a team the skills to do it. We're just trying to engineer a 7s style of game to widen the market to more people who need tries and points to be entertained. For shame, 6N organisers.

Griff hits the nail centrally on the head again. The ITVisation of Rugby! Get the folk that watch the X Factor and Jeremy Kyle int'rested, innit.

Whats wrong with more people watching the sport?

What's wrong with the sport I love?

Let's have beach balls instead of rugby balls for extra colour and that the kids will like more.
Let's have cheerleaders for the dirty old (and young) men.
Let's have 4 Quarters to help Americans acclimatise more.
Let's call tries 'goals', just to comfort the minds of drop-in football folks.

Going beyond your pedantic and stupid post

This is a points system already in use in the sport you love so its not a radical change
Also some teams already have cheerleaders plus calling tries goals would get confusing as you already have drop goals, though as its ironic as tries were originally called touchdowns and changed so reverting to their original name would make more sense given the appeal of the US/American football crowd thumbsup

by bsando Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:38 pm

I think this will now encourage teams to utilize the driving maul more often instead of going for 3 points. Especially Italy who scored a good one against SA this autumn.

by Cyril Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:42 pm

bsando wrote:I think this will now encourage teams to utilize the driving maul more often instead of going for 3 points. Especially Italy who scored a good one against SA this autumn.

Excellent, so try bonus points will encourage 'up-the-jumper' rugby Wink

by **Rugby Fan** Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:45 pm

I'm not that keen on the idea. Bonus points seems more suited to a season long league, or the home and away format.

The Six Nations is a series of one-off matches, which can be played in very different conditions.

by tigertattie Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:46 pm

marty2086 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Griff wrote:England over the years have been accused of playing boring, up your jumper rugby. But lately (in the 6N specifically) they've been playing some super attacking, running rugby with lots of tries scored. Yet bonus points have not been brought in yet. So why are they now playing wider and a more attacking style of rugby? More to do with skills and coaching perhaps as there's no bonus point incentive currently.

Look at the All Blacks. They didn't used to play up the jumper rugby before the 4N had bonus points. Neither did Aus. They always play that way because they're coached to and have the skills to do it. Adding bonus points won't give a team the skills to do it. We're just trying to engineer a 7s style of game to widen the market to more people who need tries and points to be entertained. For shame, 6N organisers.

Griff hits the nail centrally on the head again. The ITVisation of Rugby! Get the folk that watch the X Factor and Jeremy Kyle int'rested, innit.

Whats wrong with more people watching the sport?

What's wrong with the sport I love?

Let's have beach balls instead of rugby balls for extra colour and that the kids will like more.
Let's have cheerleaders for the dirty old (and young) men.
Let's have 4 Quarters to help Americans acclimatise more.
Let's call tries 'goals', just to comfort the minds of drop-in football folks.

Going beyond your pedantic and stupid post

This is a points system already in use in the sport you love so its not a radical change
Also some teams already have cheerleaders plus calling tries goals would get confusing as you already have drop goals, though as its ironic as tries were originally called touchdowns and changed so reverting to their original name would make more sense given the appeal of the US/American football crowd

Tries have always been called tries, not touchdowns!

In the olden days, you didn't score any points from a try. When you got the ball down over the try line, you were awarded an attempt to kick a goal! So you were given a "try" at goal!

by Guest Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:47 pm

Why try to fix what isn't broke?

Stupid idea put into practice by stupid people feeling the need to justify their own existence.

by bsando Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:49 pm

Cyril wrote:
bsando wrote:I think this will now encourage teams to utilize the driving maul more often instead of going for 3 points. Especially Italy who scored a good one against SA this autumn.
Excellent, so try bonus points will encourage 'up-the-jumper' rugby

Exactly! It's all part of the plan to preserve NH rugby and put a stop to this rise of positive NH play.

by **RDW** Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:49 pm

From memory there have been complaints in the last few 6N that the winner was decided by whoever beat Italy the most (and to a certain extent, Scotland).

Question is - will this remove that complaint?

by SecretFly Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:54 pm

marty2086 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:

Griff hits the nail centrally on the head again. The ITVisation of Rugby! Get the folk that watch the X Factor and Jeremy Kyle int'rested, innit.

Whats wrong with more people watching the sport?

What's wrong with the sport I love?

Let's have beach balls instead of rugby balls for extra colour and that the kids will like more.
Let's have cheerleaders for the dirty old (and young) men.
Let's have 4 Quarters to help Americans acclimatise more.
Let's call tries 'goals', just to comfort the minds of drop-in football folks.

Going beyond your pedantic and stupid post

This is a points system already in use in the sport you love so its not a radical change
Also some teams already have cheerleaders plus calling tries goals would get confusing as you already have drop goals, though as its ironic as tries were originally called touchdowns and changed so reverting to their original name would make more sense given the appeal of the US/American football crowd

Thanks for the response - pedantic and stupid at the same time? That's an achievement.
But back to the stupid point that you still felt the need to discuss the details of - why should Rugby Union continue to keep changing to chase after people who don't love the sport by threatening to push away fans that already do? Why should our concept of the game suffer to attract the casuals? Money? Money is always the answer?

Like Griff says, the incentive is already there to score plenty of tries - these players are fighting for International careers and they know competition for places is always there. But I love the strategy and tactics of rugby. It's smarter than other field sports because there are so many ways to skin a cat. We risk taking all that middle of the field mayhem and plotting out of the game and allowing the sport to become simply Rugby League by another name. Apologies for being stupid enough to be cautious about that.

by marty2086 Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:55 pm

tigertattie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Griff wrote:England over the years have been accused of playing boring, up your jumper rugby. But lately (in the 6N specifically) they've been playing some super attacking, running rugby with lots of tries scored. Yet bonus points have not been brought in yet. So why are they now playing wider and a more attacking style of rugby? More to do with skills and coaching perhaps as there's no bonus point incentive currently.

Look at the All Blacks. They didn't used to play up the jumper rugby before the 4N had bonus points. Neither did Aus. They always play that way because they're coached to and have the skills to do it. Adding bonus points won't give a team the skills to do it. We're just trying to engineer a 7s style of game to widen the market to more people who need tries and points to be entertained. For shame, 6N organisers.

Griff hits the nail centrally on the head again. The ITVisation of Rugby! Get the folk that watch the X Factor and Jeremy Kyle int'rested, innit.

Whats wrong with more people watching the sport?

What's wrong with the sport I love?

Let's have beach balls instead of rugby balls for extra colour and that the kids will like more.
Let's have cheerleaders for the dirty old (and young) men.
Let's have 4 Quarters to help Americans acclimatise more.
Let's call tries 'goals', just to comfort the minds of drop-in football folks.

Going beyond your pedantic and stupid post

This is a points system already in use in the sport you love so its not a radical change
Also some teams already have cheerleaders plus calling tries goals would get confusing as you already have drop goals, though as its ironic as tries were originally called touchdowns and changed so reverting to their original name would make more sense given the appeal of the US/American football crowd

Tries have always been called tries, not touchdowns!

In the olden days, you didn't score any points from a try. When you got the ball down over the try line, you were awarded an attempt to kick a goal! So you were given a "try" at goal!

Actually I was wrong it was called a run in

http://www.englandrugby.com/twickenham/world-rugby-museum/rugby-history/why-a-try/

by marty2086 Wed 30 Nov 2016, 12:58 pm

SecretFly wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:

Griff hits the nail centrally on the head again. The ITVisation of Rugby! Get the folk that watch the X Factor and Jeremy Kyle int'rested, innit.

Whats wrong with more people watching the sport?

What's wrong with the sport I love?

Let's have beach balls instead of rugby balls for extra colour and that the kids will like more.
Let's have cheerleaders for the dirty old (and young) men.
Let's have 4 Quarters to help Americans acclimatise more.
Let's call tries 'goals', just to comfort the minds of drop-in football folks.

Going beyond your pedantic and stupid post

This is a points system already in use in the sport you love so its not a radical change
Also some teams already have cheerleaders plus calling tries goals would get confusing as you already have drop goals, though as its ironic as tries were originally called touchdowns and changed so reverting to their original name would make more sense given the appeal of the US/American football crowd

Thanks for the response - pedantic and stupid at the same time? That's an achievement.
But back to the stupid point that you still felt the need to discuss the details of - why should Rugby Union continue to keep changing to chase after people who don't love the sport by threatening to push away fans that already do? Why should our concept of the game suffer to attract the casuals? Money? Money is always the answer?

Like Griff says, the incentive is already there to score plenty of tries - these players are fighting for International careers and they know competition for places is always there. But I love the strategy and tactics of rugby. It's smarter than other field sports because there are so many ways to skin a cat. We risk taking all that middle of the field mayhem and plotting out of the game and allowing the sport to become simply Rugby League by another name. Apologies for being stupid enough to be cautious about that.

The game is always changing, that's what you are missing. What you love about the game didn't always exist.

Im not saying these changes will work but they aren't changes to the sport but to a competition and its a change to what is essentially the last hold out and a change that embraces one of the great selling points of the 6Ns, the Grand Slam.

by GLove39 Wed 30 Nov 2016, 1:03 pm

Terrible decision, makes what's an already unfair tournament, now grossly unfair.
raspberry

by SecretFly Wed 30 Nov 2016, 1:09 pm

marty2086 wrote:

The game is always changing, that's what you are missing. What you love about the game didn't always exist.

Nope. That the game constantly wants to change, is what I'm highlighting - not missing - highlighting.

Let it continue the attempt - Lord knows we've had many debates on this site over the years about the two strands of argument (let's create rules to loosen up the game and take away the stodgy stuff in the middle v let's love the game we have with the stodgy purist/esoteric stuff in the middle)

Two sides of a coin. I'm highlighting, not missing. So let the boys in control continue their attempts to keep things changing but I'll keep trying verbally to apply the brake as much as possible.

by marty2086 Wed 30 Nov 2016, 2:08 pm

SecretFly wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

The game is always changing, that's what you are missing. What you love about the game didn't always exist.

Nope. That the game constantly wants to change, is what I'm highlighting - not missing - highlighting.

Let it continue the attempt - Lord knows we've had many debates on this site over the years about the two strands of argument (let's create rules to loosen up the game and take away the stodgy stuff in the middle v let's love the game we have with the stodgy purist/esoteric stuff in the middle)

Two sides of a coin. I'm highlighting, not missing. So let the boys in control continue their attempts to keep things changing but I'll keep trying verbally to apply the brake as much as possible.

No it is constantly changing as there are regular rule changes

by No9 Wed 30 Nov 2016, 2:18 pm

Tinkering around the edges for tinkering sake..

We all know Grand Slams are hard to come by, so the real issue will be title wins, and this system could see a team wining 3 games but with all BPs beating a side who wins 4 games but no BPs.. To me that doesn't sound right.

I guess what they really want to do is find a way to separate a draw at the end, so if both sides on 4 wins, then give them a BP and they'll play for it.... UH!!! So they score the BP and that's it game over. Look at last year, when Wales had to score a set number of points, surely that had more tension than trying to score 4 tries.

We already have a robust way of separating the drawn spots, being points difference. We don't need BPs. It may work in a league, but the 6 Nations doesn't need it.

I think this is nothing more than the media meddling, saying we need to build tension for viewing figures... If they understood Rugby or more to the point the 6 Nations, they'll realise they don't need gimmicks, the tradition of the tournament sells itself.

by cascough Wed 30 Nov 2016, 2:20 pm

little_badger wrote:If it makes teams even slightly try to score more tries then I am for it, for instance a scrum in the oppo 22, you have 3 tries already, instead of milking the penalty you try to go for the bonus point.

If it's a tight game though, say 5 points, would they not make it a 2 score game first and kick the 3? Since due to the GS bonus a tight win is still king?

by Gooseberry Wed 30 Nov 2016, 2:27 pm

No9 wrote:Tinkering around the edges for tinkering sake..

We all know Grand Slams are hard to come by, so the real issue will be title wins, and this system could see a team wining 3 games but with all BPs beating a side who wins 4 games but no BPs.. To me that doesn't sound right.

I guess what they really want to do is find a way to separate a draw at the end, so if both sides on 4 wins, then give them a BP and they'll play for it.... UH!!! So they score the BP and that's it game over. Look at last year, when Wales had to score a set number of points, surely that had more tension than trying to score 4 tries.

We already have a robust way of separating the drawn spots, being points difference. We don't need BPs. It may work in a league, but the 6 Nations doesn't need it.

I think this is nothing more than the media meddling, saying we need to build tension for viewing figures... If they understood Rugby or more to the point the 6 Nations, they'll realise they don't need gimmicks, the tradition of the tournament sells itself.

My thoughts too. Not something I was massively enamourmed of and not something that will actually make the darndest bit of difference from the way its been implemented. All in though no harm no foul so meh.

The only positive is we can do away with the 6 monthly requirement to have a dull repetitive conversation when somene suggests it on here as if they were the first to think of it.

by SecretFly Wed 30 Nov 2016, 2:27 pm

marty2086 wrote:

No it is constantly changing as there are regular rule changes

Yes? Again, what part of that do you think I'm not getting? Constant rule fiddling.

by TightHEAD Wed 30 Nov 2016, 2:42 pm

Hate this experiment.

As sad before the 6 Nations is a series of one off games played in different conditions.

I take it from now on Wales will have to play with the roof open otherwise they will be gaining an unfair advantage.

by mid_gen Wed 30 Nov 2016, 2:46 pm

I'm looking forward to seeing how it pans out. I've never really thought points difference was a satisfying way to decide the tournament.

by **RDW** Wed 30 Nov 2016, 2:50 pm

mid_gen wrote:I'm looking forward to seeing how it pans out. I've never really thought points difference was a satisfying way to decide the tournament.

That's one of the problems with the 'old' system - for example Italy could get a guy red carded in the 3rd minute and ship 100 points to England, giving England a huge advantage in the championship. The current system isn't ideal either.

Whether BPs are the way forward we probably can't say for sure until the tournament pans out!

by SecretFly Wed 30 Nov 2016, 2:55 pm

RDW_Scotland wrote:
Whether BPs are the way forward we probably can't say for sure until the tournament pans out!

What would need to happen for it not to pan out and for the control boys to drop the idea the following year?

There'll always be moaning about something after a season - and undoubtedly part of that will now be the bonus point system destroying one side's campaign in an 'unfair' way, given the many 'unfair' elements already in the competition as it stands.

But there'll be complaints. Will anyone genuinely listen and revert to the old way? I'm not so sure anything in the modern world is designed to go 'backwards' once having taken the decision to move 'forward',

by **RDW** Wed 30 Nov 2016, 2:57 pm

SecretFly wrote:
RDW_Scotland wrote:
Whether BPs are the way forward we probably can't say for sure until the tournament pans out!

What would need to happen for it not to pan out and for the control boys to drop the idea the following year?
I

There'll always be moaning about something after a season - and undoubtedly part of that will now be the bonus point system destroying one side's campaign in an 'unfair' way, given the many 'unfair' elements already in the competition as it stands.

But there'll be complaints. Will anyone genuinely listen and revert to the old way? I'm not so sure anything in the modern world is designed to go 'backwards' once having taken the decision to move 'forward',

It would probably take something strange like a team winning the Championship despite having 1 less win than someone else. It could happen...(I think)

by Guest Wed 30 Nov 2016, 3:04 pm

TightHEAD wrote:Hate this experiment.

As sad before the 6 Nations is a series of one off games played in different conditions.

I take it from now on Wales will have to play with the roof open otherwise they will be gaining an unfair advantage.

It's never Wales' choice anyway.

by SecretFly Wed 30 Nov 2016, 3:08 pm

RDW_Scotland wrote:
It would probably take something strange like a team winning the Championship despite having 1 less win than someone else. It could happen...(I think)

Oh I think they'll have at least pre-empted that one and somehow have a bonus points system that factors in that 'market toxic' possibility.

I just think the new way might give the impression that more, not less sides aren't capable of competing at the level. You know the usual calls that happen at the end of every season: "The Italians don't deserve to be let stay in the competition.", "The Scots, God love them, they're struggling, when we might be better off asking the Georgians to join us."

We all know about all that lingo that goes on at the end of every season. I think the bonus point sneers will only add to those divisive comments and slurs.

by tigertattie Wed 30 Nov 2016, 3:20 pm

it's easy to fix.

if two teams are tied at the top with four wins, which ever of those two teams that beat the other becomes champ!

If it's a three way tie then it's points difference!

Imagine if Scotland hump Wales, France and Italy by more than 7 points and scoring 4 tries in each game then narrowly lose to Ireland and England by less than 7 points, Scotland Scoring 4 tries in each game, Ireland and England scoring 3 and the winning points were cons or goal kicks! Ireland beat England but are also beaten by France.

Ireland and England would have 4 wins
Scotland would have 3 wins but would be crowned champs??????????

It just wouldn't seem right!

by Sponsored content