The Six Nations countries are reportedly considering a proposal to include a bonus-points system in future tournaments.
The world's oldest international championship is the only major tournament not to include bonus points for scoring four tries or losing by a margin of seven points or less as in the World Cup and the southern hemisphere's Rugby Championship.
The Six Nations member unions have long resisted change, insisting that the long history and success of the tournament were proof that following modern benchmarks was not necessary.
However, according to the Observer, a consultation paper has been prepared for the six countries to consider bringing the competition in line with world standards.
Under the traditional system teams get two points for a win and one for a draw as opposed to four for a win and two for a draw under the bonus-point method. The bonus system reduces the chances of teams finishing level on points (they are currently separated by points difference) and increases the potential permutations on the last day, which is attractive to commercial partners.
The bonus point system was first introduced in 1995 in New Zealand to encourage attacking play throughout a match and to discourage repetitive goal-kicking.
France's domestic leagues are an exception to the global standard. Instead of a bonus point being awarded for four tries, Top 14 and ProD2 teams must win by scoring at least three more tries than their opponents to earn an extra league point.
Those opposed to the bonus-point system argue that it would make it possible for a team to win the Grand Slam yet finish second in the table if their closest rival claimed maximum bonus points. It would also be possible for a team that was whitewashed to avoid finishing at the bottom of the table.
England are believed to be one of the unions in favour of a debate on the proposal.
"We have resisted the change for the past 10 years, but there is pressure to join the mainstream, not least from commercial partners, because it would potentially increase permutations in the table at the end of the season," an RFU member told The Observer
"But the bottom line is that it is the system that people have become used to."
Comments
three6three6 says...
This suggestion has certainly generated plenty of opinions.... introducing a bonus point system will certainly change the way that the game is played. The argument that it is possible for a team to win a Grand Slam and yet still fail to win the Championship is an interesting one..... yes it is mathematically possible that one team could gain five wins (5 x 4) scoring 20 points and another team could gain four wins and one loss (4x4 + 5x1) and score 21 points. It is still very difficult to score a four try winning bonus point. What could all of this mean? Well teams will be more greatly motivated to scoring tries rather than simply kicking penalty goals. Such a change in scoring is likely to have a huge impact on how the rugby is played. Teams playing badly will be put to the sword.
Who will benefit from such a change? Any team wanting to run the ball and move away from the stodge that has been served up in recent years. Will a Grand Slam winner ever finish second? Although mathematically possible it is hardly likely to happen - simply because the Grand Slam winner would need to avoid earning any bonus points themselves....
What about the home and away advantage? Yes there is an advantage to a team thatt plays 3 home matches in the season - but of course this reverses the next season when they only play two matches at home. What is important to remember is that to build any dynasty of success it is important to play as well away as it is at home - take a closer look at England circa 1999 - 2003. The most successful England team ever!
If such a system improves the rugby played, then it is extremely worthwhile. It is interesting that New Zealand adopted such a system in 1995 - whilst in England they were still considering 'Merit Tables' vs 'League Tables' at around this time.
Posted 03:48 01st February 2013
paddy91317 says...
if the changes were to go ahead would it impact this years 6Nations or are we talking 2014????????????????????????
Posted 09:13 12th January 2013
carpelone says...
This is what I wrote last year. Any thoughts?
What about bringing in the best of the other European Nations?
It will become a 7N, with six matches to play, bonus point system could be adopted and see better matches at the end.
I agree with other posters that the 6N is becoming to much compressed between other competition and looks not so exciting anymore.
Posted 13:37 10th January 2013
carpelone says...
jamesliveinhope
Spon on
Posted 17:20 09th January 2013
jamesliveinhope says...
According to a letter that PR have published, England would have won the title in 2002 under a BP system despite the French winning the GS.
I can't believe that in all the responses to the post no-one seems to have mentioned the glaringly obvious reason why the tournament cannot support a BP system.
To quote evidence - 2012 tournament - of 11 would-be BPs earned (try or losing) 9 were won at home (6 losing) and 2 away (both losing).
If the tournament wants to be brought up to world standards it needs to be played home and away in all fixtures, applying BPs in the present format will make the home vs away disparity worse.
Posted 13:10 09th January 2013
APV1 says...
@ carpelone - I'm expecting some rather dreary performances for the SH teams, but it should be good anyway.
Posted 12:43 08th January 2013
LeftRightOut says...
No, no, let's keep it as it is - we all love the mediocre quality of games in recent years and the minimal amount of those pesky tries. I prefer my team scoring in multiples of 3's, slowing the ball defensively, kicking away possession and trying to milk penalties. What would the rest of the world know?
Posted 02:43 08th January 2013
carpelone says...
kybone
Yes indeed. Introducing bonus point will amplify this advantage.
APV1.
Happy New Year. Let's hope that 2013 will be less mediocre than 2012.
Posted 19:21 07th January 2013
rugby_rockstar says...
Points difference basically does the same thing as bonus point, only it does it more accurately. Why should a team get 1 pt for losing 3 - 6 ???
Posted 17:16 07th January 2013
kybone says...
The min amount of points which a Grand slam winner could gain is 20 and the max that a team losing one game is 22. So, maybe we just incorporate a rule where you pick up 3 extra points for securing the Grand Slam, whether you end up up needing those 3 or not.
Iyhel - I agree. I've been championing the idea of having a fully fledged European cup for a few years now. Even if the Championship sticks to the current format, maybe the possibility of the 6N becoming the new top tier of the Euro Nations Cup would be the best idea. I think this would spark radical growth of the game around Europe.
Posted 16:29 07th January 2013
kybone says...
carpelone- Teams that play 3 games at home are at an advantage whether you have bonus points or not!
Posted 16:21 07th January 2013
APV1 says...
@ carpelone - Happy New Year!
;-)
Posted 16:14 07th January 2013
carpelone says...
You all must acknowledge that, as Northandsouth pointed out, the level of 6N was really mediocre.
While it is always good to keep tradition alive, some of the past games were really poor and you should wonder whether putting some incentives on the table would help.
I would have been more comfortable in adopting the bonus point system in case the numbers of home and away games was the same (it is more likely to get bonus point on your home ground). Teams playing three times at home are already getting some advantage imo.
Posted 13:00 07th January 2013
Iyhel says...
Indeed if we wish to have a fully modern tournament, it should be completly transformed as a real European tournament with 3 divisions (at least) of 6 teams and a promotion/relegation system each year or each couple of year.
Posted 11:28 07th January 2013
APV1 says...
I think it's probably commercial pressure, which has instigated this debate. Although that's probably less important in England whilst the BBC has the TV rights. I appreciate that there are still hoardings and kit sponsorship, but there are no mid-game / coverage adverts on the BBC.
Yet...
@ Dannyboy - need any vinegar with that chip on your shoulder? ALL nations are discussing it. ALL nations have been reluctant in the past.
ALL of them.
Posted 11:27 07th January 2013
northandsouth says...
To all those saying "it isn't broke, don't fix it" the standard of rugby in the 6N for the past 2-3 seasons has been very poor, often worse than the Home Nations have managed at other times. It is a great tournament but far from perfect. The bonus point system is about more than lots of tries; it provides a system for rewarding dominant wins and close fought loses and it does so better than points difference. A team that consistently dominates opponents should finish ahead of one that doesn't but who managed to absolutely annihilate a team or two by massive scores on a good day. The BP system rewards that. Carpelone and others are also right: there's no point looking back as those teams would have approached games differently if the rules had been different. If you went back 60 years and applied modern rules for how much a try is worth some results would change too, but that hardly makes those results illegitimate
Posted 11:03 07th January 2013
Norm says...
Lets face it, the 6N is sill the big one, but it has gone stodgy in comparison to most every other tournament in terms of the style of rugby played. A bonus point system would help imo, but yes the grand slam has to trump all, simply dealt with by a Grandslam bonus of 10 points unpon completion or some such like!
Posted 10:23 07th January 2013
Dannyboy says...
Who's trying to make these changes? The same muppets trying to ruin the Heineken cup?
Posted 02:29 07th January 2013
rukrym says...
@kybone
I don't think I've missed the point at all. I'm choosing to take 'world standards' to mean introducing bonus points, not necessarily 4 points for a win. Based on the source (this is all just according to the Observer remember) I think it's open to interpretation as to what exactly is under consideration. You might disagree - you're perfectly entitled to but that's just your opinion and no more valid than mine.
I was just pointing out one way in which this could be done while protecting the status of the Grand Slam (as I'd personally like to see bonus points introduced).
Posted 00:07 07th January 2013
Honestpom says...
Re my post below i meant to say if two weeks is not long enough to organise a final at the home of the country that topped the table after all the nations had played each other.
Posted 22:15 06th January 2013