Following the 90 minute match between Cronulla and the Roosters, the golden point debate has again reared its head. There are people saying keep it as is, others say golden try and others say get rid of it. Let's look at each option.
Firstly, the premise for Golden Point is that at the conclusion of 80 minutes, if the scores are tied an extra 10 minutes of game time is to be played. The team that scores first wins the match, if the time runs out and teams are still even then the match is a draw. Obviously for Finals matches, the game is played until there is a result. The main problem everyone has is that every team, once golden point is reached, is looking to kick a field goal. Many fans and experts say that this is unfair as the other team is given no chance to respond. These people are asking for the full period of golden point to be played out like soccer and the team that is leading is declared the winner. However, whilst addressing the issue of teams being able to respond, it will still be a field goal fest with each team trying to go 1 point ahead.
The next idea being raised is the idea of Golden Try. Based very similarly like golden point but the game can only be stopped instantly if a team scores a try. Field goals can be kicked to try and win the match but a try is the only way the match can be stopped immediately. This will allow for more attacking football and teams developing clever new ways to outsmart their tiring opposition. I think, however, in order to promote this, each team should lose 1 player every 2 minutes. This will open up the field, giving more room to move. It will also test the defensive capabilities of each team.
The final move is to remove Golden Point altogether. I'm not a fan of this. This has the potential to lead to drawn Grand Finals and having to replay them. Some people have said no Golden Point during regular season but come finals time it is implemented. This seems the smartest option. It's used in all major soccer tournaments around the world, when, during the group stages there is no extra time, but come sudden death, it is implemented.
There is however, a rule that I was attracted by. In the All Stars game a few years back they experimented with a 1 play Super Play. In this super play the attacking team had the opportunity to decline a shot at goal and instead attempt 1 play for a 4 point conversion. The rules were simple. The defending team lost 2 players, the play started 20m out and you couldn't kick. Most of you would disagree, however, what if this was the option Parramatta had against the Tigers? With Cheyse Blair touching down in the left corner on full time and Parramatta coming home with a wet sail this would've been a tantalising opportunity. 13 vs 11, 1 play, no kicking. Imagine the headlines if we were to pull it off. It would provide more attacking football and it would probably reduce the amount of times teams kick a penalty goal to go 6 or 8 points in front, knowing the opposition can score 1 try and draw level.
I think that overall though you need to ask the players. They're the ones busting their arse for 80 minutes and then playing golden point. It should be their choice and no one else's.
Replies
I don't see any issue with Golden Try. The only problem with Golden Point is people only try for field-goals and the referees are reluctant to give penalties. Golden Try would encourage teams to play normally and build a bit more pressure. Once a field-goal is kicked the opposition team would be looking to score so would play a very open-brand of football plus the referees could referee properly given they know they're not deciding the match with any one decision.
There are no down sides to golden try in my opinion.
Agreed
Refs not scared to blow whistle
More flashy football
Team actually earn the win, rather than a flukey field gold
Get rid of extra time. If scores are level at 80 minutes, give each team 1 point. End of story.
'Draw' is not a dirty word. It's okay to be an equal match for your opponent. We're not bloody Americans, you know.
golden try for sure, and put in an extra 5 mins either way if needed....
i agree but only for regular matches.
Draw. Never really been a fan of extra time.
I just had another idea. They should bring in differential penalties. Any penalties that are not professional fouls should be a freekick. Meaning no shot at goal is available. This would be for the following:
1. Holding down in tackle (Unless it is a professional foul.)
2. Hands in the ruck.
3. Offside.
4. Leg pull.
This would mean referees can blow penalties without them directly affecting the result of the match. Union use it, as does soccer, I don't see why we can't.
No interchange puts players' health at risk. They'll be even more determined to stay on if they get injured. Keep interchange rules as is.
People who support GP have obviously never played the game. How dare they make these guys play their guts out for 80 min & then have to play another 10. Then to make it worse 1/2 of them walk away with nothing!
I hate how the media say "the fans love GP" or "it excites the fans" yet they've never actually asked the fans! When has there ever been a poll on what the fans want?
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next