Golden Point Wins Should Be Worth Less Than Wins In Regulation Time

Whether or not you like rugby league’s "golden point", you may find the following a reasonable question:

Why are the same number of competition points awarded for a golden point victory as a 50-0 win?

Just a brief explanation for those who don’t know what the "golden point" is:

Formerly, if rugby league games finished with the scores level after the regulation time, a draw was declared and both sides got one competition point each, except in the case of a finals game, where extra time was played.

In 2003, the NRL introduced the golden point system for all matches, regular season and finals. In the event of scores being level after regulation time, the teams play two extra sessions of five minutes each. The first score of any kind in either period wins the game.

For a regular season match, if no team scores by the end of extra time, the game is a draw and both sides get one competition point each. In a finals match, the second period of extra time continues until one team scores.

Since its introduction in 2003, there have been 57 golden point games in the NRL, with Manly beating Parramatta 36-34 in the first one. Of these, only 9 have ended in draws. Slightly under half (27) have ended with a field goal.

The golden point is generally agreed to be a good system for finals matches; certainly fairer to the winner than the debilitating mid-week replay in the event of a draw after 20 minutes of extra time.

Many people think it adds some extra excitement to regular season games and I’m inclined to agree.

What I don’t accept is teams receiving the same number of competition points for a golden point victory as for a comprehensive win.

If you’re going to have two points for a win, then just have the old system of a draw at the end of the 80 minutes.

If you’re going to use the golden point system, make it 4 points for a win in normal time, 3 points for a golden point win, 2 points each for a draw after extra time and 1 point for a golden point loss.

Here’s the ladder after round 24, 2011 ie. at the end of the regular season, with the points under my proposal. I’ve also not given any points for the 2 byes, because that’s just fucking stupid.

2011
Team	Pts	Wins	GP Wins	GP Loss	Draws	Alt Pts
Melbourne	42	19	0	0	0	76
Manly	40	18	0	0	0	72
Brisbane	40	18	1	0	0	71
Wests	34	15	1	0	0	59
St George	33	14	0	0	1	58
NZ Warriors	32	14	0	0	0	56
Nth Qld	32	14	0	1	0	57
Newcastle	28	12	0	1	0	49
Canterbury	28	12	1	0	0	47
Souths	26	11	2	0	0	42
Easts	24	10	0	1	0	41
Penrith	22	9	1	0	0	35
Cronulla	18	7	0	0	0	28
Parramatta	17	6	0	2	1	28
Canberra	16	6	0	2	0	26
Gold Coast	16	6	1	0	0	23

Under the alternative points, Nth Queensland Cowboys finish 6th and the NZ Warriors 7th, probably a fairer result, considering the Cowboys’ golden point loss to Souths on a very dodgy penalty.

This changes the matches in week 1 of the finals: Manly would play the Warriors and Brisbane would play Nth Qld.

It also would have changed the last round of the regular season. Had Souths beaten Newcastle by more than 17 points in round 24, they would have made the finals, but under the alternative system, Canterbury would have made it.

Would such a system have been too hard to think of?

Well, not for a competent governing body. However, we shouldn’t have expected common sense from David Gallop et al.

Introducing a reasonable idea in principle, then implementing it in a lazy, ignorant way is typical of the David Gallop run joke that the NRL administration has become.

Just look at the salary cap shambles.