The Bonus Point

I came across this Written by Mark Reason on his blog:

This made me think and yes it is extremely thought provoking regarding the fairness of our current Bonus point system. What is it with trying to change the game already entertaining into a spectacle.

I was just wondering if there is anyone else out there who hates rugby’s daft bonus point system. There is no other sport out there that rewards teams on how close they came or how entertaining they have been at the expense of results over a season. Even the old, subjective ‘artistic merit’ points awarded in ice skating seem sensible in comparison.

Wherever you look rugby is rife with sporting injustice. At the top of England’s premier league Leicester have home field advantage over Saracens despite having a worse record (won 15 lost 6 against won 16 lost 5) over the course of the season. At the bottom Newcastle face relegation despite having lost two fewer games than Wasps.

The same sort of nonsense is taking place in the Super 15. The Stormers have the best record of any team (only one loss) but are fourth in the table because they only have one bonus point. The Sharks are a point ahead of the Highlanders despite a record of won 6 lost 5 against won 7 and lost 4.

It probably does not behove the Highlanders to complain too much, however, because it was new Zealand who came up with this piffle in the first place. As a means of rewarding attacking rugby it was introduced to the NPC in 1995 and then into the Super 12 in 1996. Professionalism has much to answer for.

Taken ad absurdum, a team could lose 20-125 and earn themselves a four try bonus point, an equal reward to a team that loses 9-7 to a last minute penalty goal from a dodgy referee. But rugby’s officials are so infatuated with the need to entertain, at whatever the cost to the integrity of the game, that the bonus point system even exists at the World Cup.

I much prefer the system used in football’s Champions League. There are no extra points for scoring five or more goals. It’s an unfair measure because one team could potentially cash in at the end of the group stages against another side with nothing to play for. Instead, in the event of two teams finishing on an equal number of points, the fixtures between those teams are used as the first tiebreaker.

How good would that be at the Rugby World Cup. It would also give the minnows more of a chance. With a weaker depth of playing squad and a more taxing schedule due to TV demands, the lower ranked countries have almost no chance of competing for bonus points against the first tier nations.

But if the Champions League method had been used at the previous World Cup then Tonga’s match against France would have had a real edge and the Pacific Islanders would have knocked out the eventual finalists in the pool stages.

Instead this grotesque bonus point system has even infiltrated lower leagues that should be all about the players and not the spectators. Despite the Latin derivation there is nothing good about the bonus point.

Mercifully the Six Nations remains aloof from this inequable frippery. Ponder this – if the 2002 Six Nations had awarded bonus points then England would have won the Championship, even though France won the Grand Slam that year. Even if the points had been upped to four for a win, France and England would have both finished on 21 and England would have claimed the title on points difference.

The Americans are world champions at wringing out the last bit of entertainment value from a sport, but even they have yet to start awarding bonus points to the team with the best set of cheerleaders. They still place an old fashioned value on how many times a team wins and how many times a team loses. There’s something to be said for it.

As a Stormers fan, I think stopping a team from scoring a try in one game should be a bonus point. ;)

Seriously though, the point about being  "There is no other sport out there that rewards teams on how close they came" is NOT true. In Hockey, during the regular season of course, You get a point if you lose in Overtime, or the shootout. We call it the loser point.

For me, the bonus point is still new to me. I for one do not like the bonus point for losing, therefor they would have to get rid of the bonus point for four tries.

I still don't get the 4 points when they don't even play. That one is just weird....

I have gotten used to the bonus point thing in rugby, So to me it isn't strange but I have to say the guy makes a convincing argument and makes you look at it in a diffeterent way especially the piece below:

Taken ad absurdum, a team could lose 20-125 and earn themselves a four try bonus point, an equal reward to a team that loses 9-7 to a last minute penalty goal from a dodgy referee. But rugby’s officials are so infatuated with the need to entertain, at whatever the cost to the integrity of the game, that the bonus point system even exists at the World Cup.

I much prefer the system used in football’s Champions League. There are no extra points for scoring five or more goals. It’s an unfair measure because one team could potentially cash in at the end of the group stages against another side with nothing to play for. Instead, in the event of two teams finishing on an equal number of points, the fixtures between those teams are used as the first tiebreaker.

For starters, the Stormers are in fourth position because of the bloody conference system, which I do have a problem with, but that is another debate all together. They should be second, because although they are tie on points with the Chiefs, they have a better win ratio due to the fact that hthey have played less games. As for the bonus point system, I like it  because (1) It rewards a team for scoring tries, thereby creating more exciting rugby (We can go back and forth about quality rugby, and what is good etc etc, but we all agree that a game with a lot of tries is great to watch)  (2) For a losing side to be rewarded for pushing the other side close makes sense for me. Seriously, if two teams are in a massive battle and one loses by the skin of their teeth, they should be rewarded! There is a difference between a side getting thumped by 50 points and a side that loses by less than seven. And please, let us not forget, it is only 1 point!! Teams in soccer get a point for a draw, which, given how broing soccer is, is very likely. If teams are not rewarded for pushing other teams to the end because of the potential reward of a bonus point, many teams will just throw in the towel when they are behind.

No, I like the bonus points system!! 

This is the thing, I used and probably still in a way think the way you do Blue bok. This guy however made me think. Waht is Rugby? Entertainment or sport? What is the point? To win the game or entertain people. If it is to entertain people then i might as well go and watch WWE hell of a good entertainment but fake. When will the give towards creating a spectacle stop? Why is it such a bad thing to see a bloody good rugby game without a try bieng scored. If we want to see entertainment go watch league.

So I tell myself, with us addiung all this entertainment crap, aren't we taking away the sole of the sport, TO WIN is prefereable above losing spectacular and will stay that way. Then why are we rewarding not winning? Or giving extra points for entertainment value, What is this Balet?

It is quite thought provoking and tells us alot about what we as spectators value, and thus we change the game that we actually love for what it is.

Where is this going to end. Team captains working out what they will do where before the match so they can entertain the crowd better, lose the focus on what it actually is and become WWE?

Ek, I am not blind to what you are saysing regarding pure entertainment....God forbid, rugby becomes anything like WWE. Although, we both know that is not going to happen. Still, point taken. I just think the bonus point, especially for losing by less than 7, can be, given the right circumstances, a huge insentive for teams to fight to the end. This creates more sportsman-like behaviour, because the competition won't be over until the final wistle blows. As for the 4 try bonus point, I am possibly less inclined to push for that, speaking from a purely rugby point of view, because some of the best games I have ever watched had very few tries in them. But I can see how making the game more entertaining can be good for the sport. Because more entertaining means more people watching, and more people watching means my beloved game of rugby can grow throughout the world. I guess balance is the key. They need to find the balance between keeping the sport pure, and making it attractive to watch. I honestly think that the way points are awarded currently comes very close to achieving that balance.

From a personal perspective I have much the same view as you. I love the bonus point for the loss, It is a very good incentive. The four try Bonus, honestly that can go. Because in the end it only rewards bad defence as well, and the game has to be balanced. As Mr reason argued although with an excessive example but quite accurately, " a team could lose 20-125 and earn themselves a four try bonus point"

Bonus points should be deserved. from there my personal view as you have that i don't have an issue with the losing bonus point per say. But I have now realised that the 4 try bonus point does the game no good in the end.

If the entertainment value of rugby is not that important, then why the constant pissing and moaning about the so-called kicking game?

Cera, that's the point, I don't have a problem with the four try bonus point. I get that it makes the game more entertaining, so it makes for "better" watching. I think a year ago, all the Anti-Bulls were biatching and moaning about the Bulls kick and chase game. Now that the Stormers have become the 10 man rugby team and the Bulls are playing the "entertaining" rugby, the Stormers fans have shut up and now it is everyone else, especially the NZ bloggers that are carrying on about scoring tries. As I said, there may be an argument for scrapping the four try bonus point, but I am quite happy for that rule to stay as it is. As for the losing by seven bonus point, that should stay, there is no question in my mind. 

Bluebok, the fact is that the Bulls have not changed their game. They are still basically playing the same tactic. I am not going to go into it again, but they have the game plan and the players to vary their game. They are not playing a pure running game, nor are they playing a pure kicking game. If you go look at their kick/pass/run stats, it will reflect it as such. The only SA team that has a similar ratio is the Cheetahs, and that was before Goosen got injured. I haven't been able to check on their stats in recent games, but I suspect that they are kicking slightly more than what Goosen used to do. As you have said, the Stormers are now also trying "the kicking game" and they have neither the coaches to coach it, nor the players to perfect it.

I think it necessary to understand what the term entertain means - amuse or occupy agreeably.

Rugby is entertainment as far as the fans go. The truth is for a supporter an ugly win can be most satisfactory. However a win with some flair and creatvity is even better entertainment.

That in truth is the problem with the Stormer. Yes I prefer above all things that they would win. But if you added some sparkle it would be even better. That would be even more entertaining. Its all a matter of degree.

Re : Ceradyne -"If the entertainment value of rugby is not that important, then why the constant pissing and moaning about the so-called kicking game?"
 

You will notice that it's mostly the NZer's, Ausies and Anti Bulls that have that argument. Strategy remains strategy whichever way you play as long as you win.