Having seen it for the first time yesterday, I must admit that it seemed an anticlimax to the game.

Both sides seemed to be clueless about how to score other than by a drop goal. The less said about
those attempts the better.

Personally, I would have no issue with specific periods of extra time, played out in periods of 10 minutes
if it avoided what I saw yesterday.

It put RL in a very poor light with nobody at Wakefield capable of getting the ball off the ground and poor directional and length in Castleford's case.

With Castleford having experienced it before, against Halifax, I would welcome your views.

Good luck in the next round from a Wakefield fanatic.

works for us

I respect your opinion. However, it's perhaps a 'marmite' type of thing. Love it or loath it.

I went to the game and during the extra time, I was stressed as hell, but strangely enough loving it at the same time. A few friends, who are non rugby followers, watched it on the tv because they knew we were at the game and were absolutely 'drawn in' by the tension which the sudden death aspect brings.

So for me, yes, I like it!

I would prefer 'golden try' extra time, kicked penalties and drop-goals don't count. The tension would be the same, but the play would be more structured. I'm sure one team could score a try in 20 mins with tiring squads

Even though we have won twice with the Golden Point i am completely against it, i view it the same as penalty shoot outs in soccer if it's the first meeting. All drawn games should go to replays first and then by all means bring in the Golden Point. To expect players in our game to take the physical punishment they do for a further 10 or maybe 30 minutes is pushing the boundaries too far and could result in serious injuries. I admit it is exciting for all spectators but you have to consider the well being of the players. As for the idea of the first try we could have been playing for an extra 40 minutes or more on saturday the way the teams cancelled each other out.

A necessary evil in deciding knockout games. Hopefully Saturday's debacle will shut up the people who think drawn league games should go to golden point.

personally, I'd play 10 min each way of ordinary extra time and only go to GP if it's still tied then. In league games a draw is a fair result

I think it is a mixed blessing - We complain about athlete burn out and playing too many games, so if World Cups and Champions League finals can have penalty shoot-out, then we should live with it.

From a supporter perspective, we have won 2 from 2 golden point, so we should be happy - I actually think the very strong wind on Saturday made it look more amateur hour than it needed to.

On balance, leave it be I think - to use a TM expression though, I think we dodged a bullet on Saturday, we almost conspired to lose a game we were strongly competing in!
But I would rather win ugly than like at Saints be galant in defeat. Either Hull club please at home, I don't fancy any of the other balls away in tonight's draw.

Mmm, tough one. Off of the top of my head I'd say two 10 minute periods of extra time and end of that seperate them by tries scored; then next try winner!
Then make the players shake the hand of every fan present to thank them for staying!

It's helped us out twice now, Halifax and Wakey.

Steady I find this interesting. I know Cas would have won based upon try's on Sat, but had the number of try's been the same we could of still been there come Sunday afternoon, the way the two teams were playing during ET. Wakefield certainly looked out on their feet more than we did, during the first half of ET. But would this be beneficial to either side in a game like this? Especially when there are league matches to play later the same week!

Saying that I do think that something different should happen, rather than straight into sudden death. What tho I'm not sure! Should we go back to the good old days of replays if drawn after full time?

I've been to both of our cup games where we've been in sudden death, and I must admit I love the tension and excitement that it brings, but it certainly isn't good for the heart!

I'd have to say my view is the complete opposite. It was the most exciting bit of RL i have ever seen and although there were many mistakes, awful kicks etc it just made it all that little bit better. Every time each team got the ball you were glued to the screen waiting to see what they could pull out of the bag.

It may have been tension-filled but I don't think it was a very good spectacle.

Both sides seemed to take the title of golden point literally - believing the only way to win was with a single point! This led to numerous woeful attempts at a drop goal from positions where even the most accomplished drop-goal exponent in the game wouldn't have fancied his chances.

I've seen golden goal used in football games and this usually has the same effect - both sides play ultra cautiously as they're frightened to death of making a mistake that could give their opponents the upper hand.

Even though we won under this rule I'd prefer the old system of 10mins each way of extra time and only then go to the golden point.

Both teams should have continued playing Rugby and not taking impossible shots at the posts.
Even though we lost, there is no doubt that it was compelling stuff, albeit poor quality, at times.(talking about the extra time)

What kind of spectacle would it be if you were expecting players to play the game for 110 minutes? We could never expect that and it would be highly dangerous. Don't be stupid.