AF, the evidence on this thread shows that you - and the people you claim agree with you - are in a minority.

A draw IS a result. It's called 'a draw'.

Have you never been to see your team play, watch them claw their way back from a 24 point deficit and draw in the dying moments? When you have, then you will know why the draw has to stay. That is a 'result' by any definition that you care to come up with.

Stupid idea from start to finish.

Seen it or similar enough times, left me feeling 'meh'. Better than losing, not halfway to winning, and that's the point. And if you're calling me stupid, you're calling the people who run some of the most successful sports leagues (including THE most successful RL competition in the world) stupid as well. I may be in a minority here, but then so were a lot of people with good ideas when they started off - the Pankhursts, Martin Luther King, Jesus. Now I'm not saying I'm Jesus... [size=50I'll leave that to others to decide.[/size

Diavolo Rosso, cheers for engaging. I share your reservations about the artificiality to an extent, but in the end, it comes down to whether you feel it could be incorporated as part of the home advantage that we already accept as part of the game.

Quote af="af"Draws are usually good, for 79 minutes and 59 seconds. But it's not just me who thinks there's a problem with them. If only I'd been born one hundred and ten years earlier, I would have suggested this at the George and you'd all be poo-pooing anyone who suggested getting rid of it. Born in the wrong century and the wrong country by the looks of it, the Seppos have the right idea - a tie is like kissing your sister ( I don't have a sister, I'll have to take their word for it). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tie_(draw) I don't doubt RL can survive keeping the draw. I think it could have survived not bring in the 40:20. But that's not a reason not to bring either of those rule changes in.'" What the f**k are you on about?. Or what are you actually on?

Quote af="af"Draws are usually good, for 79 minutes and 59 seconds. But it's not just me who thinks there's a problem with them. If only I'd been born one hundred and ten years earlier, I would have suggested this at the George and you'd all be poo-pooing anyone who suggested getting rid of it. Born in the wrong century and the wrong country by the looks of it, the Seppos have the right idea - a tie is like kissing your sister ( I don't have a sister, I'll have to take their word for it). en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tie_(draw) I don't doubt RL can survive keeping the draw. I think it could have survived not bring in the 40:20. But that's not a reason not to bring either of those rule changes in.'" What the f**k are you on about?. Or what are you actually on?

you're right, it's a poor post - here's a second draft.

###

Draws are usually good, for 79 minutes and 59 seconds. But's its the last second and its aftermath that are the problem and its not just me that thinks so.



I suspect that had since 1895 the convention been that an away side had to outscore their opponents in order to gain the competition points, few would have a problem with it and few would be calling for draws to be introduced as a concept.

I don't doubt RL can survive keeping the draw. I think it could have survived not bring in the 40:20, and a number of other tweaks of varying levels of significance that have been made to the game. But that's doesn't make for an argument against bringing any of those rule changes in.

Absolutely ridicules idea, with no merit at all. Also, there is nothin wrong with a draw

The objection I have is that if hoours are even after 80 minutes, then they deserve to be even. If the Bulls were to send the reserves to Saints and score a try in the last minute to tie the game with the kick, they would deserve their point. Under the 0.5 point system they couldn't win by then, because they'd be too far behind, despite only having scored 6 points less.

Most of the rest of the world want 20-20 cricket, instant gratification, and don't "get" draws. Stuff 'em. As well as RL, we have cricket, and we have boxing, and we get draws. Draws are fine. As for the Aussies ludicrous golden point, on the one hand we have players complaining about burn out, injuries due to fatigue etc., on the other hand teh Aussies are prepare to make them play overtime and risk their health just to see who can get in position to kick a field goal. I find that ludicrous, and grossly unfair on the "losing" team.

I don't know where the idea came from that everyone wants to see a win/lose outcome. Some do, but I'm sure the majority don't.

If we get it in RL, maybe we should move on to boxing. Draw after 12 rounds? Fight another 5, next knock-down wins.

Hate the idea, and really don't see the point of contriving a result that didn't actually happen. Might as well toss a coin.

You don't watch a lot of NRL do you?

The clue is in the name

'Golden POINT'


The concept isn't known as 'Golden field goal'


The 'point' can be any sort of score whether it's a penalty, a field goal or a try.


Back in your box

Instead of knackering the players out to artificially produce a win/lose result, perhaps the coaches of the two teams should be required to fill in a tie-breaker before the match, like "In the unlikely event of a draw, I think my team should win this match because..." (no more than 15 words, and the judges' decision is final). Special weight given to ones that rhyme or have clever word play ("The Giants should win this game because, Most of our players don't come from Oz"). There could be a panel of adjudicators who judge the merit of each coach's tie-breaker immediately after the game, like the Pools Panel in football. It would be like awaiting a video ref decision, only one that involves literary criticism. Imagine the tension!

Or leave it as a draw, which, after all, is a result.

No, only all the games broadcast


You don't say. We have a resident genius on board folks. Stephen Hawking, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, your deductive powers just took a helluva beating.

A draws a great result. Hypothetically say two teams finish 2nd and third on equal points (as last year), and there being 5 points difference between them (cant remember what it was but it was something close). Now say if that second placed team had scored those points in 5 minutes overtime, why on earth should they have been allowed 2165 minutes in their season to score them when the other side only had 2160?? Silly. As for your idea.. dont get me started, a team in a brutal sport being handed the points for.. well.. nothing, makes a mockery of the 80 minutes played previously.

As for 40/20s I dont like them either, rewards a poor team imo

Why?

Can you for once use your moderation powers correctly and either lock this thread as stupid , or ban him for a few days , please