Golden Point

I like that idea personally, but before they implement that I'm going to do a Vossy and call for any points in extra time not to be included in the for/against on the ladder.

Consider this possible scenario. Come the final round and there is one match remaining that will decide 8th place. The team that is currently in 9th place enters the round one win behind 8th spot (who lost earlier that day), and their for/against is 3 points worse than the 8th place team. They are down by a field goal, and as full-time expires, they get an offside penalty straight in front and 10 metres out. Now instead of taking the gift 2 points for the easy win, the captain knows that if they take that they still end up outside the 8 by 2 for against points. So instead, he takes the tap and goes for the field goal, to send the match into extra time, where they go for the try rather than a field goal or penalty in an attempt to finish the season with a +/- one better than the 8th place team.

Or even worse than that (at least they are still going for the win), imagine going into the final regular season match of the season, but it's the 8th place team that is playing, and they are on equal points with a +/- 3 points better than the 9th place team.

They score under the posts after the full-time hooter to make the score 18-16 down. The conversion will send the game into extra time. The captain knows though, that with an 18-16 loss they make the top 8 by one solitary +/- point. However if they send the match into extra time and the opposition scores a golden try, they end up missing the top 8 by 1 solitary +/- point. So the captain decides he will forfeit the kick for goal and the referee calls full-time (or he intentionally misses the conversion attempt). What does the NRL do? There is reasonable argument that the captain intentionally lost the game at that point. But he has also guaranteed they make the top 8, when there was a small chance they wouldn't had they made the conversion. Does the NRL suspend the player or impose sanctions on the club?

I guess the same thing can happen if a team is down by 4 and chooses to take a kick for penalty goal after full time rather than attempt to go for a winning try (and was down by 3 +/- points).

I hope they also discuss doing away with golden point altogether. Two points for a win, one each for a draw. Seems simple enough.

- May be salty because in the 3 golden point games I only had 1 player in each. Garner, Murray and Vaughan, and only had Cam in the almost golden point game.

I'd prefer golden try to golden point with the 3-1 point split. @Dip while very specific examples if you're club had a captain that savvy you'd be minor premiers not battling for 8th. But seriously in both those scenarios good on the captain to know and exploit the rules for the best possible outcome. It's a circular what if argument, what if there wasn't golden point and he did the same with 5 minutes to go, how is it any different to the team who after scoring with a minute on the clock and down by 3 don't take the kick so they get the kick off and a chance to win. Vossy is the master of inane arguments, your better than that.

Yeah golden try is a good point, so we could actually have some proper footy at the death rather than ~20 mins of missed field goal attempts and referees that allow one team to be grossly offside, then turn around and penalise the other team when not offside ala Tigers vs. Broncos or Raiders.

EDIT: Though even with golden try, we're still gonna get 13 regular minutes of missed FG attempts from the likes of the Tigers anyway.

To me, it is inevitable that we will have Golden Try eventually.

All those commentators and coaches that want to go back to how it was when we had draw's, forget how empty it left fans at the end of 80 mins.

Golden Try solves the current issue of Golden Point becoming a boring field goal shoot out and thus you always have the exciting scenario Dip/Vossy mentioned earlier.

Importantly, I think the fact only one team get's the points, would also become less of an issue as you would feel more justice losing to a try rather than a flukey field goal.

In the interim and before they make the smart move to Golden Try, they immediately need to change a missed field goal that goes dead giving the other team a 7 tackle set.

What is wrong with 1 point for a golden point loss, 2 fire a golden point win.

Ideally I'd just ditch golden point altogether. But if it has to stay, that is my ideal compromise.

I think golden try would just result in a lot of GP draws. Which is great for fantasy, but not sure it's what the NRL is after

I'd go with golden try but you can still win by a field goal after 90 minutes.

Milchy wrote:
I think golden try would just result in a lot of GP draws. Which is great for fantasy, but not sure it's what the NRL is after

Drop offs

Milchy wrote:
What is wrong with 1 point for a golden point loss, 2 fire a golden point win.

Ideally I'd just ditch golden point altogether. But if it has to stay, that is my ideal compromise.

I think golden try would just result in a lot of GP draws. Which is great for fantasy, but not sure it's what the NRL is after

The purists and annoying people like Vossy (no offence @Dip) will argue that it makes the game worth 3 points and every other game is only worth 2 which isn't fair. Because what if it was the last game of the season and ........................... choose your own adventure, turn to page 42.

I agree golden try would result in a lot of draws which would be a fairer result, but agree not what the NRL want and to OSM's point the emptiness of a GP draw isn't going to be any better than a regular time draw

Don't understand the obsession some people have with equal points for every game.

Soccer, cricket, union, ice hockey all have the same thing. I don't see it ever really being discussed as a problem

If people are worried about shenanigans on the last day of the competition, then in the final round we could always have every game kick off simultaneously.

But that would screw with the TV schedule. And in the quest for competition integrity, some things are more negotiable than others

Milchy wrote:
If people are worried about shenanigans on the last day of the competition, then in the final round we could always have every game kick off simultaneously.

But that would screw with the TV schedule. And in the quest for competition integrity, some things are more negotiable than others

The bigger issue with GP imo isn't points being awarded to losers, but that both teams should get a chance with the ball. If the receiving team score on their first set, the other team should get a possession to reply. If they fuck it, game over. If they tie it up, continue extra time until someone doesnt score. if they outscore the other team, they win. The toss shouldnt be important in who wins.  

And FG attempts or kicks within 20m shouldn't be a 7 tackle set if they go dead either.

I hate golden point. Fuck it off.
Obv we need a result in finals games, so use it then (or some form of it) but fuck it off in the regular season. If a side isnt good enough to win in 80 mins, why give another 5-10 mins to play it out?

The last 5-10 will turn back into a field goal fest anyway.

I've honestly got no drama with it,  couldn't care less. But agree 100% with Ryno,both teams should get at least a chance with the ball, so if team A kicks off and team B kicks Scores in any way on the first set, then team B kicks off and team A must score on that set. If team b,who has first possession in extra time, forces a repeat set via a 40/20 or forced drop out,  then its game on.

As to golden try, what happens if a team kicks a field goal or penalty goal and play continues because it's Golden Try and nobody scores a try in the extra 10? Who gets the win? I see that scenario being more likely in golden try than a team scoring, so what really changes? In an 80 minute games when scores are locked after 70 it becomes a field goal-a-than anyway.

And what if a team kicks 7 field goals in golden try and then the opposition score a try, do the try scorers win or the team with the most points win?

In a golden try scenario, no points would be awarded for anything other than a try.

Unless you've got Greg Inglis out there, no one's gonna be kicking possession away on field goal and penalty goal attempts when they count for nothing.

I get why we have this golden point thing but I don't think it takes into account player welfare or the fact that a draw is a valid result.

Ice wrote:I've honestly got no drama with it,  couldn't care less. But agree 100% with Ryno,both teams should get at least a chance with the ball, so if team A kicks off and team B kicks Scores in any way on the first set, then team B kicks off and team A must score on that set. If team b,who has first possession in extra time, forces a repeat set via a 40/20 or forced drop out,  then its game on.

As to golden try, what happens if a team kicks a field goal or penalty goal and play continues because it's Golden Try and nobody scores a try in the extra 10? Who gets the win? I see that scenario being more likely in golden try than a team scoring, so what really changes? In an 80 minute games when scores are locked after 70 it becomes a field goal-a-than anyway.

And what if a team kicks 7 field goals in golden try and then the opposition score a try, do the try scorers win or the team with the most points win?

If it's golden try you need to score a try to win.
Kicking a field goal or penalty goal in extra time golden try would be like Greg Inglis kicking a field goal when he's down by 2. It wouldn't win you the game. The secret is in the word "try".
As a coach you would take the player out behind the grandstand and American History X stomp that mofo, then trade him to the Knights.