New Points Proposals

[Old Frightful 5,621]

I'd like a change in the points awarded where, if you're playing a team called Widnes at their ground and you score the first try, anything that happens after that is irrelevant and you take home the two points.

[Liverpool Rover 427]

Another ridiculous Wood idea based on how "innovative" it is. Someone should sit him down and tell him that there is a reason no other sport has come up with anything like this before.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Liverpool Rover

[Oxford 3,763]

Now come on everyone don't beat about the bush, don't go round the houses, tell us what you really think, give it to us straight!

 

What do you really think of changing the points system?

[Fabou 299]

this thread can not be a serious one. 

the game caller, do you work for sky ? are you involved in this ? is there any proof of reliability on what we are discussing right now?

[Fabou 299]

Now come on everyone don't beat about the bush, don't go round the houses, tell us what you really think, give it to us straight!

 

What do you really think of changing the points system?

 

for me our game is intertaining the way it is. changing the point system will not help immproving the quality of the game. a win is a win, a loss is a loss, a draw a draw.

 

 

RU has some rules about the point systems, like the point/try difference (defensive bonus? i have no knoledge on this. so the clubs can lose but still get a compensation with a one point defensive bonus...), and this is because their game is so boring that they need to find something to entertain the public "outside" the game, so the clubs adapt their strategy to produce even less game and the fans have even more reasons to think that RU is like "chess", even if they fall asleep during the match. 

 

RL does not need this. RL must focus on improving the professional level and the fan awareness. changin the point system will not satisfy the existing public, will not rise new fans, will not help the quality/level of our game. so pointless. only my opinion.

[LeeF 1,441]

this thread can not be a serious one. 

the game caller, do you work for sky ? are you involved in this ? is there any proof of reliability on what we are discussing right now?

It's ok the OP thinks that Phil Veivers is funding it and that it is all sorted

[Spidey 2,521]

They've already tried one different system when the bonus point was on offer in the championships. It was soon ditched when the 8s came in. I doubt an even more ridiculous system should come in.

It's an 80 minute game - judge it on 80 minutes. There's a hundred reasons why a team could be winning at half time - it shouldn't entitle them to match points

Edited May 30, 2016 by Spidey

[Kris 622]

Interesting thought experiment

 

Hudds v Widnes

 

Hudds 2pts win first half

Widnes 2 pts 2nd half and 2 pts win = 4pts

 

That's 2pts difference!!!!!

Its only an issue if you are Leeds in which case its 6pts for everyone all season!

 

Seriously though how would it make it more competitive - the teams that have smaller rosters will get penalised most of the season - so you are penalising teams for not being as 'big' as others before they even hit the pitch

 

And in reality ring fence those teams with the ability to spend beyond the cap - which is allowed by the way i.e. marquee players, delayed payments, pension contributions - you don't have to be a genius to read the operating rules and see whats not there as well as what is

 

So its pretty pointless and badly thought through - it will make those teams at the bottom now and in future worse off, in the Giants case they would be further up the division (just) and wigan, with a 0 points differential, would be a few places lower, that's about it really.

 

Silly idea !

 

Now if you got 6 pts for a passing try, 5 for a kick try and 4 for a bomb try that would put the cat amongst the pigeons wouldn't it!

 

And even that's a silly idea

[Janner 49]

It's not a new idea, long before Nigel Wood the Woolies Cup pre season comp in Brisbane used to use a system of awarding points for portions of matches (can't remember the full details, it was either per quarter or half) in the qualifying league before the semies and final. The comp ran from the mid seventies until the launch of the Broncos in 1988.

They only played a few rounds of matches in the league part so it was usful for splitting teams who would have been level on the table using the traditional points system but it isn't really necessary over twenty odd rounds.

Also, if all games were played indoors with no elements to effect the game it might be fair but consider a game at Batley or Fev... Running up the hill into a gale with pouring rain in the first half then, the wind drops and rain stops for the opposition going uphill in the second.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Janner

[Vichyssoise 374]

We could always shorten the game to 40 minutes that would sort the players burn-out issue.

 

Or, if it remains an 80-minute game (a somewhat ludicrous idea), what about giving ladder points based on the aggregate scores of both halves divided by the number of mistakes per side ?... That would put the onus on ball control and smart play, hence improving the overall quality of the game.

 

I'd also like to see the mercy rule used. Down by 20 ? early shower and a point deduction on the ladder to boot. I think such an innovative idea would help improve the competitiveness of the games.

 

Disclaimer: I'm not in any way, shape or form, an adviser to Nigel Wood.

[Dave T 14,480]

I think i may be a simpleton but i like simple points systems. I like being able to look at a table and see easily how many wins behind a team is.

[cookey 1,020]

I do think the RFL should tell Sky that televised games will only take place on fri,sats and suns - they offer what they want on that basis,if someone offers more on that basis,so be it.

[Dave T 14,480]

I do think the RFL should tell Sky that televised games will only take place on fri,sats and suns - they offer what they want on that basis,if someone offers more on that basis,so be it.

i must admit that as an armchair supporter i love Thursday games. Its that or second Emmerdale!

I think Thursday games should be chosen carefully though and there maybe an argument to make it a strict 15mins HT and 7.45pm kickoff to bring the final hooter earlier.

[Padge 5,321]

The only more idiotic thing Woods could add to this is that teams play the first half at one team's ground and the second half at the other's ground.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Padge

[Lowdesert 2,547]

Haven't seen any other info regarding this. In my opinion BS.

[Padge 5,321]

Haven't seen any other info regarding this. In my opinion BS.

 

The OP does have form.

[Red John 291]

Would be good to understand more about this 'discussion' from an extremely unreliable source before we become outraged.

 

An eminently sensible policy Dave, and one I look forward to you adopting in all future Marwan related "discussions".

[Dave T 14,480]

An eminently sensible policy Dave, and one I look forward to you adopting in all future Marwan related "discussions".

fortunately Marwan gives us plenty of direct quotes, rather than Mick overhearing something. Strange that you raised this as though I have an issue with Marwan. Slightly overprotective as per, even on threads nothing to do with him. How strange.

[Johnoco 6,547]

How about... if you're winning after 10 minutes, 1 point... after 20, 2 points...etc up to 8 points for 80 minutes. And the opposite for losing with up to -8 points on offer.

But that's not all, the team with most negative points goes straight to the GF to face the team with the most positive points after 33 minutes (aggregate of all games) per game.

Then....

[JohnM 6,171]

....you lose a point for each penalty against you...

...and deduct 2 points if your coach moans about the ref.....

[Oxford 3,763]

 

RU has some rules about the point systems, like the point/try difference (defensive bonus? i have no knoledge on this. so the clubs can lose but still get a compensation with a one point defensive bonus...), and this is because their game is so boring that they need to find something to entertain the public "outside" the game, so the clubs adapt their strategy to produce even less game and the fans have even more reasons to think that RU is like "chess", even if they fall asleep during the match. 

 

 

I am not allowed to respond to your post Fabou, or comment or the "code war" police will be on my case!  But you made me laugh!

[USRLFAN 59]

I know this is clickbait!(I hope )  But it is quite possibly the worst suggestion about RL I've heard in years.  It's the definition of a gimmick.  I really can't believe this guy is in charge.

[The Daddy 1,958]

How about... if you're winning after 10 minutes, 1 point... after 20, 2 points...etc up to 8 points for 80 minutes. And the opposite for losing with up to -8 points on offer.

But that's not all, the team with most negative points goes straight to the GF to face the team with the most positive points after 33 minutes (aggregate of all games) per game.

Then....

You might be onto something here, better get down to Red Hall and run it by Nigel

[The Parksider 1,799]

Sky are the paymasters though and they're keen to explore the idea.

 

They never say what they are keen on in such detail

 

Sky pressure changed the points system in Speedway. 

 

Again how do you know this when they say nowt?

 

This is nowt to do with Sky. Nigel Wood proposed this system 16 years ago 

 

And here we have it.

 

Just like Wood and Solly said SKY were interested in the 3x8's it looks like they "make things up" to push their case.

 

Who'd a thunk it

[Dave T 14,480]

If Wood and Solly say Sky like something, that has far more credibility than anybody here saying it. Of course there is always the possibility of playing politics.

 

Sky have proven that they are interested in the 3 x 8 though by televising them, so hardly made up. We have evidence.