Countbacks to settle Super finalists

[travelling_gerry]

Wayne Smith | April 28, 2009


Article from: The Australian

WINS will not be used to separate Super 14 semi-final contenders that finish equal on competition points.
With only three rounds remaining and nine teams separated by only seven points, it seems inevitable that play-off berths and even home semi-finals will be decided by a countback if two or more sides finish tied.

Astonishingly, the three-stage SANZAR process to separate sides that finish equal on competition points does not at any point consider which side won the most matches.

An Australian Rugby Union spokesman said yesterday that in the event of teams finishing in a tie, positions would be decided initially by a countback of points for and against.

If both teams had an identical points differential, officials then would fall back on the result of their head-to-head match during the pool round.

If this, too, failed to resolve the matter - as, for instance, in the case of the Western Force and the Crusaders, which played a 23-23 draw in Christchurch - the placings would be decided by tries scored throughout the season.

Yet, as could well be the case, that could mean the Auckland Blues, currently only one point out of the top four despite having won only five matches - but with 10 bonus points to their credit - could pip the Waratahs and Brumbies, both of which have six wins at present but only four and three bonus points respectively.
With three rounds to go, the Blues and Waratahs have an identical points differential of 12, while the Brumbies, despite having an extra win, are almost impossibly placed with a points differential of minus 52.
"That doesn't seem to make sense," Waratahs coach Chris Hickey said yesterday. "Rugby is, after all, first and foremost about winning matches."

Most critics are satisfied there is a place for continuing with the system of rewarding attacking rugby by awarding a bonus point to sides scoring four tries in a match, but there is a growing dissatisfaction with the allocation of a bonus point to sides losing by seven or less.

The rationale for the bonus point is to encourage sides that are being beaten to keep fighting, but as one Super 14 chief executive wryly observed yesterday, "there already is an incentive in place to encourage players to keep putting in a big effort ... it's called not getting dropped".

Reds coach Phil Mooney also questioned whether sides should be rewarded for losing, even though his own team has picked up three of its six bonus points this season by going close against the Stormers, Waratahs and Highlanders.
"There's logic in having a bonus point for scoring four tries but I think, personally, it's better if you only reward try-scoring, not sides that finish within seven," Mooney said.

"There was the example of the Crusaders losing 20-10 to the Cheetahs on the weekend but getting a penalty right on the bell, kicking the goal and scoring a bonus point because the match finished at 20-13.

"Good luck to them, because that's the rule, but I'm not sure it added anything to the match."


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...015651,00.html

[travelling_gerry]

geezz...its not like this scoring system hasn't been in for years.

[zimeric]

The blues leapfrogged us this round due to lax defence from the Reds who couldve done us a HUGE favour by keep them down to 3 tries and beyond 7 points! - Sometimes it hurts (cough Hurricanes this year & all of the losses in the 2006 season)

i still like it - it gives teams the chance to save face a little and they get rewarded for a good game that really couldve gone either way..

[shasta]

You've got to question a points system that has rewarded the Crusaders with a bonus point for losing 0-6 in Dunedin this season. Both sides should have had one deducted for being boring. But it's worth just as much as the winning one we got against the Tahs. Maybe there should be some try scoring requirement to gain a losing bonus same as the one for winning.

[Swee_82]

But it's worth just as much as the winning one we got against the Tahs. Maybe there should be some try scoring requirement to gain a losing bonus same as the one for winning.

Say what? We were only awarded 2 tries in the Tahs game, so were dudded the 4 try bonus point, and handed the <7 losing point to the reTAHds.

[shasta]

Say what? We were only awarded 2 tries in the Tahs game, so were dudded the 4 try bonus point, and handed the <7 losing point to the reTAHds.

Dunno why I wrote Tahs. I was thinking of last week.

[jargan83]

bit of a nothing article from Wayne Smith, you would think that there would be some very long odds for two teams to finish a season with the same points differential after 14 rounds

[GIGS20]

ANd he's not arguing against the system of determining the finalists so much as arguing against the losing bonus point.....or bonus points altogether.

The way I understand it, Bonus points are there to encourage two things which (usually) produce entertaining rugby, tryscoring and close matches. sometimes this system backfires (0-6 is one example) but in general it's rewarding the teams which are playing entertaining rugby....it's possibly one of the things that makes Southern Hemisphere rugby what it is, teams chase the bonus point in every match (Saders definately had it in mind this weekend, knowing the penalty would give them a point)

I think Smith and Hickey are pulling each other and whingeing that it's the system that has cheated the 'Tahs out of any chance of a finals spot, rather than their boring playing style!

Cry me a river!

[Burgs]

Yeah, I think it is time for the bonus point system to be tweaked just a little.
The two things I would argue for would be for the losing margin points to require the team to have scored at least once and that the try bonus point be for five tries.
There can be four tries by a team in a match and still be a pretty boring match.

[.X.]

We scored 8 tries last week - where is our second bonus point???

[mudskipper]

Yeah, I think it is time for the bonus point system to be tweaked just a little.
The two things I would argue for would be for the losing margin points to require the team to have scored at least once and that the try bonus point be for five tries.
There can be four tries by a team in a match and still be a pretty boring match.

I like the bonus system but when a team has 10 bonus points but a few loses it becomes a negative in the comp... especial as the season is only 13 games...

Perhaps pay 5 points for a win,
1 bonus point 4 tries and
1 bonus point loss within 7 points...

At least a win would have a bit more worth on the table...

[Sheikh]

Wayne Smith | April 28, 2009

"That doesn't seem to make sense," Waratahs coach Chris Hickey said yesterday. "Rugby is, after all, first and foremost about winning matches."

The Waratah's coach actually said this? You enter a competition knowing the rules and then, when the results might go against you, you complain. Is it just me, or does this smack of:
"If i can't win I want my ball back and I'm going home!"

Jesus, Chris, grow some.

[gustafsl]

Maybe it's just because the Force have lost sooooo many matches within 7...but I like the losing bonus point. Sure it seems ridiculous in both the Crusaders examples (6-0 loss, and kicking a penalty after the final siren). But who can argue against the Force not getting one in the game against the Hurricanes (losing 3 minutes after the final siren).

One thing I don't like is the double bonus point (4 tries and losing under 7). Just seems a bit ridiculous in games such as the Force v Hurricanes where the Hurricanes won and got 4 points, but the Force still got 2. Perhaps some rule where you can only get 1 bonus point would be good.

[Sheikh]

One thing I don't like is the double bonus point (4 tries and losing under 7). Just seems a bit ridiculous in games such as the Force v Hurricanes where the Hurricanes won and got 4 points, but the Force still got 2. Perhaps some rule where you can only get 1 bonus point would be good.

No, I'm happy with that, and not just because we got the points. We came so close to the win, that 2 points (equivalent to a tie) is OK*. I'm not sure about awarding extra bonus points for big wins, though. Sounds good in principle - get a point for winning by more than, say, 20, but there's already a bonus point for this (4 tries) and it might encourage teams to pile on the points against weak opposition.

[* Well, no obvisouly it's not "OK" - I'm spitting teeth about it, but a team deserves somthing for all the work involved in scoring 4 tries and only a narrow defeat.]