• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The RWC has the dumbest system for awarding match points

Bahnz

International Coach
I'm not really a rugby follower, so can anyone tell me how the bonus point system for the world cup makes any sense?

Ok, I can kinda at least understand the bonus point for scoring tries. Rugby can be a pretty turgid sport to watch, especially in world cups when teams tend to be ultra defensive, so providing an incentive to toss the ball around and go for tries is understandable. But the bonus point for finishing within 7 is beyond stupid. I can't think of any other major sports tournament where a team gets points for only just losing. You don't get a point in cricket for losing by 1 run. You don't get a point in the soccer World Cup for conceeding a match losing goal in injury time. It's fair to use that stuff to decide who advances at the end of the group stage, but having it actually influence the number of points a team takes out of a match?

I bring this up now because I think it's totally rubbish that the points taken from this morning's upset results in Japan getting 4 points to SA's 2. Why on earth do SA deserve to take away half as many points as the team that beat them? It's utter rubbish, and could have serious implications for who advances at the end of pool play.
 
Last edited:

BackFootPunch

International 12th Man
Yeah I'm inclined to agree with you here. It does seem a bit farcical that SA end up with a couple of points which, along with likely bonus point victories over other teams in pool play, may well see them still finish top of their group. Theoretically, Japan could win their remaining three games and still finish behind SA because of bonus points.

It's a tough one though, because if this result had gone the other way and Japan had lost in injury time (and scored another try during the game) you probably wouldn't hear many people grumbling about Japan getting 2 points to RSA's 5.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
In all the other competitions with a bonus point, I thought a team could only ever get 1 per game?

That said, scoring 4 tries and losing is a very rare occurrence.
 

Zinzan

Request Your Custom Title Now!
In all the other competitions with a bonus point, I thought a team could only ever get 1 per game?

That said, scoring 4 tries and losing is a very rare occurrence.
Yeah, most of the Super rugby/Tri-nations tournaments in NZ overs the years has such a points system. 1 for scoring 4 or more tries and 1 for getting within 7 points.
 

91Jmay

International Coach
Because it means teams keep playing even if they aren't going to win with 5-10 minutes to go. If you can get yourself a point by scoring a try late on teams will go for it, where as if you are 12 points down with 5 mins to go for e.g the result is in the bag so game could peter out.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
The 6N is the only rugby tournament that doesn't do this and it's annoying because every 6 nations tournament now comes down to whether someone beat Scotland by 20 points or 27 points 3 weeks ago.

Bonus points system much more satisfying and has a positive impact on the games

Also there are lots of other sports that do this, the county championship for example
 

91Jmay

International Coach
Also would you really be happy if Japan had not won that game and the Saffers got 5 points and Japan 0? Hardly would have been fair.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think it's a great system. Only objection is that by making a try worth more than the equivalent points in penalties, it encourages cynical play- which is already one of the biggest problems with Union rules. But that only comes into play in very specific circumstances. Generally I really like it.
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
I think it's a great system. Only objection is that by making a try worth more than the equivalent points in penalties, it encourages cynical play- which is already one of the biggest problems with Union rules. But that only comes into play in very specific circumstances. Generally I really like it.
Generally think cynicism is well taken care of with the way the refs are happy to dish out yellow cards these days. Still issues I suppose but nothing compared to american sport, obviously.
 

Bahnz

International Coach
Also would you really be happy if Japan had not won that game and the Saffers got 5 points and Japan 0? Hardly would have been fair.
Um yes, perfectly happy and it would have been perfectly fair. Bonus points for losing participants is something that's fair for a primary school sports day, but has no place in a major international tournament.

I also think that if your goal is to promote try-scoring rugby, then it would be more effective to change the ratio of points awarded for a penalty kick compared to a converted try (perhaps so that it's more in line with league's 2:6 ratio) than offering a bonus point for scoring some arbitrary number of them.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
I instinctively hate any system which can give away different amounts of points for each game. I really think each game should be worth X points the system should merely determine how they are divvied up and not how many are actually awarded. If you want to give a bonus point for scoring a certain amount of tries, you really should be giving one for not conceding that same number so you don't end up with some games being worth X total and some games being worth X+1.

As long as that's satisfied I'm usually pretty cool with any system. It's not satisfied here so I agree with Bahnz but not for his reasons.
 

Howe_zat

Audio File
I also think that if your goal is to promote try-scoring rugby, then it would be more effective to change the ratio of points awarded for a penalty kick compared to a converted try (perhaps so that it's more in line with league's 2:6 ratio) than offering a bonus point for scoring some arbitrary number of them.
This is the classic #1 observation from someone who doesn't watch the sport.

Reducing the value of penalties would lead to more cynical play and fewer tries being scored.

How would you rather split teams that are on an equal number of wins? FTR there aren't enough pool matches for bonus points to override a win.
 

BackFootPunch

International 12th Man
I instinctively hate any system which can give away different amounts of points for each game. I really think each game should be worth X points the system should merely determine how they are divvied up and not how many are actually awarded. If you want to give a bonus point for scoring a certain amount of tries, you really should be giving one for not conceding that same number so you don't end up with some games being worth X total and some games being worth X+1.

As long as that's satisfied I'm usually pretty cool with any system. It's not satisfied here so I agree with Bahnz but not for his reasons.
Yeah great point. I really like the idea of having x amount of points being available in a game, which would be more like what you get in most FC cricket comps these days. Make it a maximum of 6 possible points in a game, perhaps, as that way you could give three points to each team for a high-scoring draw.
 

dontcloseyoureyes

BARNES OUT
I don't mind the idea of it, but I think it heavily favours the better teams. Better teams are more likely to lose by small margins and win by bigger margins, makes WC's much less interesting IMO.
 

ripper868

Cricketer Of The Year
I instinctively hate any system which can give away different amounts of points for each game. I really think each game should be worth X points the system should merely determine how they are divvied up and not how many are actually awarded. If you want to give a bonus point for scoring a certain amount of tries, you really should be giving one for not conceding that same number so you don't end up with some games being worth X total and some games being worth X+1.

As long as that's satisfied I'm usually pretty cool with any system. It's not satisfied here so I agree with Bahnz but not for his reasons.
So you hate basically every sport league there is then?
Eg English Premier League - 3 points for a win, 0 for a loss, 1 for a draw - means a winning match is worth 3 points vs a draw being 2 points.
 

Magrat Garlick

Global Moderator
Ice hockey is the worst though. You get extra points for waiting for overtime. Perverse incentives for $100 please

(Probably cos shootouts look good on ESPN)
 

hendrix

Hall of Fame Member
This is the classic #1 observation from someone who doesn't watch the sport.

Reducing the value of penalties would lead to more cynical play and fewer tries being scored.

How would you rather split teams that are on an equal number of wins? FTR there aren't enough pool matches for bonus points to override a win.
I've been playing and watching the game my whole life and I think the value of penalties should be reduced. There are other means to deal with cynical play. The most obvious cynicism leads to penalty tries - which are actually awarded fairly regularly - and of course yellow cards.

Particularly galling is seeing referees give penalties for scrum collapses (in which noone knows wtf happened) at half way which end up costing a team 3 points and 3 minutes worth of game stoppage.
 

Top