FA is Nigel Wood and I claim my £5.

Nah, Big Nige can count to 5.

[size=200WHOOSH![/size


* Introduce the Pace Man, who has to wear a large round yellow Paceman costume, with a 1 metre pink ribbon sewn on. Any team getting 20 points or more in front must nominate a Pace Man, like a Pace Car in Formula 1, and for 15 minutes any player on that team can only run forwards with the ball whilst holding the Pace Man's pink ribbon. The Paceman has a big gaping mouth and if he "eats" a defender then the defender must leave the field for the remainder of Paceman time.

* Introduce "Sumo Time". Any team getting 24 or more in front must make their backs all wear inflatable Sumo suits for 10 minutes

this is agreat example, i hate the system and have done since its inception, we got a bonus point on sunday at eagles despite never once being in the lead in the game.
Also some teams are now safe due to bonus points where under the old system they would not be ,against fev we took a pen in the last minute just to get a bonus point,its just wrong

I really like the idea. The practice seems to suck though.

Personally I have never been a fan of the bonus point as it is - don't think you should get a point for losing - Say if a side scores 5+ tries in victory they should get an extra point. Victory should be rewarded defeat should not....we lost to Fev at the weekend and were never in the game really if we had say scored again and lost 8-20 we would have got a point if Fev had won 4-40 they would have got nothing extra...

Apart from a better points For difference, as it has always been. And a psychological advantage.

Much as I dislike the bonus point, you are wrong, as a matter of simple arithmetic preventing one of your competitors from scoring 1 point means you are 1 point better off in the league than they are. It makes no odds whether YOU get 1 point or else they do NOT get 1 point, the result for your club is the same, the gap between the clubs is either reduced or increased by that point.

So as it stands in SL the winner takes the spoils and 2 points, the loser nothing. Draws are rare - less than 3% of the games this season so not really making much difference. To me if you where looking to inject additional excitement the bonus should go to the winner for say "x tries" or "x point" winning margin.

But to be honest it seems to me that a much simpler way of making games a better spectacle for the fans would be to referee the existing rules properly - how much better would Sunday's game potentially have been if the ptb and offside had been enforced as the rules say?

But the point of the bonus point is to try and make the leagues more competitive. You have a reason, once they've put twenty past you in the opening ten minutes, to keep on going. Having the better teams accelerate away even quicker defies the point of it.

That's why I like the idea of it. It just has some unintended consequences. Teams with more wins finishing lower than teams that never really lose but then again never really win either isn't really something we want.

Nah, FA's not Nigel Wood but with these ideas he'd be far more entitled to the £300k that Fat Nige!!!!

That seems to be the issue - what do you reward attack or defence. When you run onto the pitch both teams want to gain a points advantage on their opponents. If you give a bonus for winning big then the "better" team would go for it, whereas for the "defending" team it is to their advantage to restrict the scoring and their opponents getting an extra point. My problem with given a "losing" bonus point is that it reduces the net points advantage of winning.

But I would still come back to my point above - a much better way of improving the product would be to improve the referring - less offside, less interference at ptb - increase the speed and open the game up