It isnt a fair representation of an 80 minute match when you prove you can kick a drop goal outside of that time limit. If you have a good drop goal specialist and get the ball from the kick off it can be all over in a few minutes.



And Cricket is a completely different paced sport, its comparing chalk and cheese.

Surely the whole point of sport is that the outcome is unknown, why try and influence that outcome? Aren't you taking away part of the excitement of the sport by giving the home team a points advantage?



Also from the excitement point of view, team A is trailing by 6 points with 10 seconds to go, do they chip over the top and chase? Nah, there's no point, they are 6.5 points behind. One of the most ridiculous ideas of read on here, and there has been a few.

80 minutes is more than enough time to win a game. If neither side is able to in that time then why should they be awarded any more? A lost point could make all the difference for both sides at the end of the season.

The point everyone seems to be missing is that 'golden point extra time' isn't simply about kicking a field goal

But that would be the easiest/quickest way of scoring a point wouldn't it?

Not necessarily.

So, the idea and myself have taken a hefty kicking in my absence over the past thirty-six hours. No worries, but a few points.



1. If in the play-offs a side was offered the half point start in return for surrendering home advantage and playing in a neutral venue, how many would take it? I wager none of them, which would imply every league game begins with a stacked deck, albeit one that is (a) necessary for the competition to financially viable and (b) as a result of that, standard in leagues of many team sports around the world. Giving the draw to the home side is in reality minor compared to letting the home side play at home! The level playing field is already compromised, and not just at Mount Pleasant.



2. Given that every team has as many home as away games, no team would be advantaged over the course of the year. And given that everyone would know the set up before each game, and the impossibility on sitting on a half point lead in RL, I don't see why a team that is able to match their opponents' scoring is so much less worthy of the league points than a side that scrambles one point more. There's greater injustice surely in Leeds' narrow win in Cardiff over Bradford being worth almost exactly the same on the league table as the demolition jobs done on the Bulls by Wigan, Huddersfield, Salford and Warrington.



3. I know exactly where the try came from. But without major changes since its inception, RL would be verging on unwatchable. Not that justifies any change suggested of course, but they shouldnt be dismissed out of hand.



Intrigued to hear of all the draw enthusiasts out there. Makes me and my three hundred million likeminds in the US feel pretty lonely. Like I said, the most convincing argument about requiring the away side to beat the home side to claim the points/point is the rage any attempt it induces in a vocal number of British fans. But I still hold that if that had been de rigeur since 1895, no one would be angling to get rid of it.

This whole thread is possibly one of the best attempts at 'angling' RL Fans has ever seen to be honest.

Cricket is boring, and that's nothing to do with draws!





There's your answer. RL is the best sport in the world, but if it went on for 5 days with a bit of action only every hour or so even I might get bored.



I totally disagree with you're statement that there should ALWAYS be a winning side. The aim of the game is to score the most points. If the final score is even then there isn't—and shouldn't be—a winner. The idea of some games lasting 80 minutes while others last 90, others last 84, and so on, is ludicrous, imo. ALL teams have 80 minutes to score as many points as they can in ALL games. Only then does a league table have any real meaning.

'Almost' being the operative word. You get the 2 points and the points for/against. Therefore, all other things being equal, a demolition win is is worth more than a close win.

If there was to be a scrap of a draw (which would ruin RL as a sport) how about golden point win gets you two points but the losing team still gets one?

If it had been a part of the rules since 1895 then you may have a point. Other than that, no you don't. It's not broke, so don't try and fix it.

As for the Americans having a 'must have a winner at all costs' mentality, then that is a part of their national psyche. It isn't a part of the psyche for the rest of the world - how many countries have no interest in American Football, and for that matter how many Americans would actually accept the concept of the draw if the NFL was to introduce it to the game? Without running a parallel thread to this on a major NFL forum, you can't make the assumption that most Americans are happy with the 'no draw' rule.

I'm guessing that like myself you have no idea either, and are just making an assumption based on the ruling body of what is - on a world wide basis - still a minority sport and it's traditions.