Golden Point

[Martyn Sadler]

12 hours ago, Spike said:

Already been featured in there bulletins 

Which three bulletins were they?

Although I'm not a proponent of the golden point, it's hard to argue with decent exposure.

[Davc1h]

As a Cas fan, I have seen both sides of the GP recently, albeit one of them in a semi final.

I quite like the idea of it to be honest and the excitement it generates cannot be denied.

Just wish my team(Gale aside) were better at it.

[Martyn Sadler]

20 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I was also thinking last night, maybe there is a case for not stopping the game at 80 mins. Just sound the hooter, let the teams know it is now sudden death, but if a team is pressing the line and winning the territorial battle, then they have the advantage. The game just goes on until we get something. I'm not sure it is necessary to stop the game, toss for a kickoff and then restart. It could flow more nicely.

Congratulations! That's the best idea I've seen. I think it could work well, at least until someone comes up with a logical reason why it wouldn't.

[Dave T]

Just now, Martyn Sadler said:

Congratulations! That's the best idea I've seen. I think it could work well, at least until someone comes up with a logical reason why it wouldn't.

Give me another five minutes!

[DavidM]

And after 90 minutes if nothing happens ... you get a draw . So what’s wrong with 80 minutes to get a result !

[JoneslessBishop]

Nothing wrong with a draw, but excitement for the fans and additional interest on Sky Sports News is even better. The more we fill air time the better bargaining position we are in for a new TV deal, and I reckon there will be a few more general sports fans with tune into SL if they think there is a chance of a golden point

[DavidM]

I find it a bizarre argument that we seemingly have so little faith in the general excitement and emotion of our game that we need to sell it and garner any exposure on golden point . If that’s the case our marketing and PR is woeful . We have the product without added gimmicks 

[wilsontown]

1 minute ago, DavidM said:

I find it a bizarre argument that we seemingly have so little faith in the general excitement and emotion of our game that we need to sell it and garner any exposure on golden point . If that’s the case our marketing and PR is woeful . We have the product without added gimmicks 

Indeed.

There are loads of draws in football and it doesn't prevent it being the world's most popular sport. There are few draws in RL as it is, and if a game ends in a draw it will already have been an exciting spectacle. It's fixing something that wasn't broken in the first place.

[Bramstein]

1 minute ago, wilsontown said:

Indeed.

There are loads of draws in football and it doesn't prevent it being the world's most popular sport. There are few draws in RL as it is, and if a game ends in a draw it will already have been an exciting spectacle. It's fixing something that wasn't broken in the first place.

I agree. It's clearly here to stay and I can live with it but I can't say I love the idea.

All the suggestions as to how it can be made better are solutions for a problem that need not exist.

[Dave T]

7 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Personal preference but I would go the exact opposite. The tension is in the wait. It shouldn't be glossed over it should be built up. This is important, its exciting, its dramatic. Slow it down, let the the tension build, put a bit of pomp and ceremony, a bit of theatre in place.

The hooter going, the game carrying on but the rules changing seems a bit like that old Budweiser advert with 'multiball' to me. 

Yes, I did consider this as part of my thinking. I would be happier with a minimum of 5 minutes, that way, you do get the tension and build up, the chat with the coach on the pitch, a quick recap of how we got here, but then let it play out for a few minutes rather than the 40-odd seconds it did last night.

[Damien]

29 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Personal preference but I would go the exact opposite. The tension is in the wait. It shouldn't be glossed over it should be built up. This is important, its exciting, its dramatic. Slow it down, let the the tension build, put a bit of pomp and ceremony, a bit of theatre in place.

The hooter going, the game carrying on but the rules changing seems a bit like that old Budweiser advert with 'multiball' to me. 

And after all that Golden Point is often just a damp squib, settled quickly on the toss of a coin, and leaving people disappointed with the outcome thinking is that it?

I'm sure there is a good analogy in there!

[mrfranco]

5 hours ago, Dunbar said:

As a result, I am happy to see a draw. It doesn't happen often and when it does, both teams have played out a close came and deserve to walk away with something. 

But you cannot argue with the theatre on show with that last kick... the unexpected result and the emotion. It brings something more newsworthy to the sport, we wouldn't have seen a draw on the news bulletins but we will see that kick.

All things considered, as it is a relatively uncommon, I am happy with the golden point being introduced. 

That's a fair and reasoned approach, but (as others have stated), it's a fairer way to do it to give each team a league point as previously, plus now giving them the chance to get an extra league point and a bit of delirium & importantly as you say some media attention for the game by adding golden point *on top of* the previous 1 point each for a draw structure.

This seems like the best of both worlds to me - so a team putting in a big fightback (like last night) to earn a point still gets it, but you still get the added excitement, etc. that people like about GP.

[Spike]

3 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Which three bulletins were they?

Although I'm not a proponent of the golden point, it's hard to argue with decent exposure.

The sky news one and they ran 2 stories on sky sports news 

[Damien]

11 minutes ago, Spike said:

The sky news one and they ran 2 stories on sky sports news 

So just the same as always then. I can't say I've seen any evidence of this increased exposure.

[Dunedan]

I didn't like the idea of golden point in league games when it was announced and I like it even less now we've lost because of it! Haha.

I don't have a problem with a draw. And I don't understand why a draw is acceptable after 90 minutes but not 80 minutes. If we are going to have something like this, then "golden try" would be better - otherwise have 5/10 minutes and whatever the score is then. The NFL changed their overtime rules a few years back to stop teams winning by kicking a long field goal without the other team having a possession - I'd be more inclined to something like that.

All that said, just have a draw after 80 minutes. That's a perfectly good result.

[Spike]

18 minutes ago, Dunedan said:

I didn't like the idea of golden point in league games when it was announced and I like it even less now we've lost because of it! Haha.

I don't have a problem with a draw. And I don't understand why a draw is acceptable after 90 minutes but not 80 minutes. If we are going to have something like this, then "golden try" would be better - otherwise have 5/10 minutes and whatever the score is then. The NFL changed their overtime rules a few years back to stop teams winning by kicking a long field goal without the other team having a possession - I'd be more inclined to something like that.

All that said, just have a draw after 80 minutes. That's a perfectly good result 

It adds to the excitement tho. Draws can still happen 

[Dunedan]

3 minutes ago, Spike said:

It adds to the excitement tho. Draws can still happen 

If someone could explain to me why a draw after 90 minutes is acceptable but a draw after 80 is not, I might be more on board. I guess I just don't see the point. Meh.

[Damien]

4 minutes ago, Dunedan said:

If someone could explain to me why a draw after 90 minutes is acceptable but a draw after 80 is not, I might be more on board. I guess I just don't see the point. Meh.

It is an odd one isn't it.

[deluded pom?]

4 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Congratulations! That's the best idea I've seen. I think it could work well, at least until someone comes up with a logical reason why it wouldn't.

Credit where it’s due Martyn. Gorbals suggested the same thing on page 1 of this thread.

[Martyn Sadler]

7 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

Credit where it’s due Martyn. Gorbals suggested the same thing on page 1 of this thread.

Thanks for pointing that out. Good ideas are not usually the province of just one individual.

[southwalesrabbitoh]

17 hours ago, Spike said:

I'm a fan and can prove to be an exciting end to the game. It should be rolled out across the championship and league 1 not just super league. Great end to the game today. 

I'm a fan of golden try. This is better than a draw though. I don't want to see any draws in sport.

[Dave T]

33 minutes ago, deluded pom? said:

Credit where it’s due Martyn. Gorbals suggested the same thing on page 1 of this thread.

Good spot. I think that Gorbals is a very smart poster.

[DavidM]

10 minutes ago, southwalesrabbitoh said:

I'm a fan of golden try. This is better than a draw though. I don't want to see any draws in sport.

At all ? They’re everywhere . You can play five days in a test and get a draw . They’re a fundamental part of sport . Even in premier league darts 

[southwalesrabbitoh]

1 minute ago, DavidM said:

At all ? They’re everywhere . You can play five days in a test and get a draw . They’re a fundamental part of sport . Even in premier league darts 

They have been, doesn't mean that draws should still be a part of sport. Cricket used to go on until there was a winning side. Draws are not a "fundamental" part of sport. How many joint winners of the FIFA and RL World Cup's have there been?

[whatmichaelsays]

16 hours ago, M j M said:

No, there's no need for it. It's thrilling all right but ultimately it's just a random ending to the game. Golden try I'd be less resistant to.

I wouldn't mind taking some inspiration from the NFL on this one. There is a lot of talk about the luck of the coin toss deciding the game, rather than the players themselves (not taking anything away from Dwyer).

The NFL changed overtime rules because the team that won the toss chose to receive, drove toward field goal range and dinked over the three points. Now, unless the first team in position scores a touchdown (or I think if the defence wins a safety?), both teams must have a chance to posess the ball before a FG can win the game. 

Perhaps consider something that resembles that - that in extra time or for the first 5 min half, only a try or penalty goal can win the game immediately? If a DG is scored, then play continues to the end of the half / end of extra time?