EXTRA POINT

[Dangerous4]

Just a question. What do posters think of the idea that an extra bonus point could be given in a Premiership fixture for scoring six tries or more? Would this increase the level excitement in the game, encouraging sides to go for the kill?

[Mark62]

Not sure about that but I do like the system that they use in France, and possibly super rugby where the bonus point is awarded for being 3 clear tries ahead

[ellis9]

Just a question. What do posters think of the idea that an extra bonus point could be given in a Premiership fixture for scoring six tries or more? Would this increase the level excitement in the game, encouraging sides to go for the kill?

Yet another idea to make the game "more entertaining".

LEAVE IT ALONE!

[Tiger93]

Not sure about that but I do like the system that they use in France, and possibly super rugby where the bonus point is awarded for being 3 clear tries ahead

Massively in favour of this. On too many occasions are points to be taken from the fixture 5-2 when the score could be something like 35-30. Should be 4-2 in my eyes.

[Dangerous4]

Just a question. What do posters think of the idea that an extra bonus point could be given in a Premiership fixture for scoring six tries or more? Would this increase the level excitement in the game, encouraging sides to go for the kill?

Yet another idea to make the game "more entertaining".

LEAVE IT ALONE!

So you don't wish to be "entertained" . Fair enough, but I would love to see winning sides pressing forward full blooded for the full 80 minutes, rather than sit on their laurels.

"No, no I do not wish to be entertained"

[ellis9]

Just a question. What do posters think of the idea that an extra bonus point could be given in a Premiership fixture for scoring six tries or more? Would this increase the level excitement in the game, encouraging sides to go for the kill?

Yet another idea to make the game "more entertaining".

LEAVE IT ALONE!

So you don't wish to be "entertained" . Fair enough, but I would love to see winning sides pressing forward full blooded for the full 80 minutes, rather than sit on their laurels.

"No, no I do not wish to be entertained"

Where did I say I don't want to be entertained?

Actually, to be fair, I'd he happy watching a 3-0 win every week than a 50-48 defeat.

What I meant, was that the powers that be are coming up with all of these ideas to speed up the game so that it's more entertaining to watch but what made people start watching rugby 15, 20 years ago?

[DeadlyDunc]

Would getting rid of bonus points entirely lessen the intensity of games in the final 20mins and help protect players?

May also mean players can be rotated with more confidence that a scrappy win is equal to a 5 try destruction. As such, players could be rested in some games as the pressure to constantly get try bonus points or to restrict the opposition is eliminated.

I’ve given this no thought at all so forgive me if it’s a terrible idea

[northerntiger]

Yet another idea to make the game "more entertaining".

LEAVE IT ALONE!

So you don't wish to be "entertained" . Fair enough, but I would love to see winning sides pressing forward full blooded for the full 80 minutes, rather than sit on their laurels.

"No, no I do not wish to be entertained"

Where did I say I don't want to be entertained?

Actually, to be fair, I'd he happy watching a 3-0 win every week than a 50-48 defeat.

What I meant, was that the powers that be are coming up with all of these ideas to speed up the game so that it's more entertaining to watch but what made people start watching rugby 15, 20 years ago?

Mainly because they played it. Not really that many watched it 20 years ago, apart from Internationals

[ellis9]

So you don't wish to be "entertained" . Fair enough, but I would love to see winning sides pressing forward full blooded for the full 80 minutes, rather than sit on their laurels.

"No, no I do not wish to be entertained"

Where did I say I don't want to be entertained?

Actually, to be fair, I'd he happy watching a 3-0 win every week than a 50-48 defeat.

What I meant, was that the powers that be are coming up with all of these ideas to speed up the game so that it's more entertaining to watch but what made people start watching rugby 15, 20 years ago?

Mainly because they played it. Not really that many watched it 20 years ago, apart from Internationals

Who played it?

Not many watched it 20 years ago? Yes they did.

[northerntiger]

People who watched rugby were mainly player, or ex players. Not as many did as today. I used to watch Orrell when they were good, tiny ground, crowds of a couple of thousand,, hardly on tv.

[ellis9]

People who watched rugby were mainly player, or ex players. Not as many did as today. I used to watch Orrell when they were good, tiny ground, crowds of a couple of thousand,, hardly on tv.

So what are you suggesting? The game needs to be "more entertaining" to attract other people?

[northerntiger]

People who watched rugby were mainly player, or ex players. Not as many did as today. I used to watch Orrell when they were good, tiny ground, crowds of a couple of thousand,, hardly on tv.

So what are you suggesting? The game needs to be "more entertaining" to attract other people?

Not necessarily 'more' but entertaining, yes. I remember watching some awful matches, littered with mistakes. Watch the famous Baabaas game for the full 80, apart from that try it wasn't that good.

[ellis9]

People who watched rugby were mainly player, or ex players. Not as many did as today. I used to watch Orrell when they were good, tiny ground, crowds of a couple of thousand,, hardly on tv.

So what are you suggesting? The game needs to be "more entertaining" to attract other people?

Not necessarily 'more' but entertaining, yes. I remember watching some awful matches, littered with mistakes. Watch the famous Baabaas game for the full 80, apart from that try it wasn't that good.

So not more entertaining? So it's already entertaining? If so, why try to change it? Which Barbarians game?

[ABClub]

Would getting rid of bonus points entirely lessen the intensity of games in the final 20mins and help protect players?

May also mean players can be rotated with more confidence that a scrappy win is equal to a 5 try destruction. As such, players could be rested in some games as the pressure to constantly get try bonus points or to restrict the opposition is eliminated.

I’ve given this no thought at all so forgive me if it’s a terrible idea

The reduced incentive to attack would probably lead to less expansive rugby and more collisions from playing it safe by 'trucking it up'. That purely conjecture on my part of course as there's no way to know without trying it.

Injuries rates seem to be caused by too many games and the massively increasing power involved in collisions. The first has an obvious answer - play fewer games. That's easier said than done when clubs are struggling financially though.

The second is more difficult. Could limiting the size of the bench so that players have to lose some bulk to play the full 80 minutes work? I think it could improve the game considerably, but it would a drastic change to make quickly.

The make-up of the bench would need discussing too. With fewer props playing both sides you'd still need a full front row on the bench to avoid uncontested scrums. Perhaps the change could happen incrementally over two seasons? Dropping to a 7 man bench the first season, then a 6 man bench the season after.

[northerntiger]

So what are you suggesting? The game needs to be "more entertaining" to attract other people?

Not necessarily 'more' but entertaining, yes. I remember watching some awful matches, littered with mistakes. Watch the famous Baabaas game for the full 80, apart from that try it wasn't that good.

So not more entertaining? So it's already entertaining? If so, why try to change it? Which Barbarians game?

You know exactly which Barbarians game