Why are SANZAR persisting with this unbelievably stupid system of awarding 4 points to Super 15 teams when they have a bye?
Seriously, what does this achieve other than to confuse anyone looking at the points table? Does anyone know?
Agreed its pathetic and makes no sense at all
perhaps it makes the tournament look more competitive from outsiders who do not follow SuperX closely.
maybe as they were hammering out the points systems details originally, they just roughly copied some other tournaments format and added in the bye pts without much thought.
it dosent bother me either way, but sharkboks for competetive reasons is the only one i can think of that makes even a little sense.
they should introduce a double round, where teams can bet before a game as to wether they will score 4 trys or not and if they do, then they will get double points, but if not, they will get no points, LMAO, :oP
but i guess no stormers fan would like that concept at all, :oP
Sorry, but that makes even less sense to me. Why would they pander to people who don't follow or give a toss about Super Rugby?
Maybe it doesn't bother you but it annoys the hell out of me every time I look at the log and I have to look at the games played to work out if a team has played a bye or not.
Here is the explanation boys:
"Under the tournament Regulations, teams having a bye weekend are awarded 4 (four) points. This is done to ensure that the respective Conference tables provide a more accurate picture of the relative rankings of teams through the regular season. Otherwise, the team that had bye in week one of Super Rugby would remain behind the other teams in total points available to be earned until all other teams had a bye."
That comes compliments of ESPN rugby site. I think the real reason is so that the Stormers get into double figures in terms of log points ;-)
Madness, still makes little sense
I can't see the problem
My understanding is, lets take this scenario.
The Reds play 5 games with no byes. They win 4 with a bonus point and lose 1 with a 1 point for finishing 7 points or less behind the winner. They are on 21 log points after 5 games.
Then we have the Brumbies who have played 4 games with 1 bye weekend. They win all 4 games with a bonus point. They are on 20 points yet there performance and record has been better than that of the Reds but they are behind on the log. They want it to be a true reflection of what is happening.
My thoughts are as long as everyone is getting 4 points for a bye, it matters little. They could just leave it as it used to be because we all understood the whole "game in hand" concept and were not silly enough to think a team on 21 points after 6 or 7 games was doing better than that of a team on 20 points after 5 but obviously the ruling body has decided this is the best way to go about it.
Six of one and half a dozen of the other. You still have to estimate the likely points a team will gather over the remaining weeks, just as before. I don't think any 7 year old kid would find the arithmetic too challenging, RooiAAS apparently does.
Okay then clever clogs, so why didn't the SA and NZ teams get 4 points for the byes they had in round 1?
Here's the current table:
1. Brumbies 2 2 0 0 54 19 35 1 13 2. Chiefs 2 2 0 0 86 30 56 2 10 3. Bulls 2 2 0 0 61 43 18 1 9 4. Blues 2 2 0 0 68 35 33 2 10 5. Sharks 2 2 0 0 42 28 14 0 8 6. Reds 3 2 0 1 49 53 -4 0 8 7. Southern Kings 1 1 0 0 22 10 12 0 8 8. Waratahs 2 1 0 1 48 51 -3 0 8 9. Melbourne Rebels 3 1 0 2 69 84 -15 1 5 10. Highlanders 1 0 0 1 27 41 -14 0 4 11. Crusaders 1 0 0 1 15 34 -19 0 4 12. Stormers 2 0 0 2 23 37 -14 1 1 13. Hurricanes 2 0 0 2 32 52 -20 1 1 14. Western Force 3 0 0 3 59 88 -29 1 1 15. Cheetahs 2 0 0 2 25 74 -49 1 1
Now, if it's all so simple, Moffie, explain why the Waratahs got 4 points for a bye on the weekend of 15/16 Feb while the Stompies for example didn't? Neither side played that weekend, why give one team 4 points and not the other? Only an idiot would dispute that the whole system would be much simpler if they didn't give points for byes.
Come on then, smarty-pants, we're waiting.
SA and NZL teams did not have byes. Aussies started earlier as they have an extra week off over the June internationals as they have the Lions tour. Nothing to do with a bye. If you look at the fixture week, it says "Not playing" and lists all the teams that didnt play. Waratahs had their bye that weekend as there was no aussie team for them to play the same way the Crusaders had their bye on the weekend when every other team officially started the tournament. Waratahs will play every weekend now until round 9 and Crusaders until round 13...
Pretty simple stuff Rooinek!
Trust me, no one will be robbed. It will be an outcry if it were that way..
TwatLogic, for someone who claims he never pays any attention to me, you sure do yap away at me a lot!
I realize you're just a little child so I'll say this nicely . . . shut your silly trap and speak when you're spoken to . . . or at the very least, try to understand the issue being discussed before butting in and making a complete dick of yourself. Okay?
No-one is claiming they were robbed, you stupid little boy. I know why the Waratahs were given the bye points and I do have a schedule of the games so I know who is playing when, it just would have been a lot simpler if they did what every other sporting league does and award points for actual wins or draws, not for weeks when you don't play . . . which is further complicated by some teams getting points when they don't play and others not.
If you don't see my way is simpler then please, TwatLogic, just go back to never paying attention to me as you claim you do. Run along now . . .
I agree with most of you about the four points for the bye week bieing a joke. It makes no sense at all, it just confuses things.
Rooinek, dude you have some serious anger issues that need addressing. Your last post to "twatlogic" is enough to make Saff blush! Seriously man, prove him wrong with good arguments or whatever, but what is up with all the name calling? If you don't like what Boklogic is saying, ignore him, or just prove him wrong.
I can curse with the best of 'em, and I do, especially when driving or watching rugby, but ja, a certain level of decency should be universal.
I'm not in the slightest bit angry, I just think TwatLogic is a bit of a twat, that's all.
If that offends your sensibilities, I'll call him JerkLogic or WankerLogic because he's also a jerk and a wanker. Do those names also upset you?
I would counter-argue, but your response made me laugh, so all is well in Bluebok land.
Play nice now kids!
The reason you are calling him Twat logic is because he answered your stupid question and made a fool of you.....again! The SA and NZ teams never had byes on the first weekend you incredibly dumb moron.
Bwaaaahahahaha......poor old RooiAAAS pondering the missing bye points for the first weekend.....priceless!!!!
Moffie,
The point ---------> .
Your head -------> O
"Okay then clever clogs, so why didn't the SA and NZ teams get 4 points for the byes they had in round 1?"....asks the baffled RooiAAAS!
Bwaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahhahaha!
It's okay, Moffie, I don't expect you to get it. You're very old and very stupid. I understand.
Oh I get it when somebody is trying to do the quick step....dumbass.
Yes Moffie, it wouldn't surprise me if you recognize the quick step better than most because you do see them very often . . . every time someone sees you coming!
LMAO!
The first week byes.....wheeeeeheee!
Are you LMAO or in more likely your case GMTIF?
