Apart from a better points For difference, as it has always been. And a psychological advantage.

Much as I dislike the bonus point, you are wrong, as a matter of simple arithmetic preventing one of your competitors from scoring 1 point means you are 1 point better off in the league than they are. It makes no odds whether YOU get 1 point or else they do NOT get 1 point, the result for your club is the same, the gap between the clubs is either reduced or increased by that point.

So as it stands in SL the winner takes the spoils and 2 points, the loser nothing. Draws are rare - less than 3% of the games this season so not really making much difference. To me if you where looking to inject additional excitement the bonus should go to the winner for say "x tries" or "x point" winning margin.



But to be honest it seems to me that a much simpler way of making games a better spectacle for the fans would be to referee the existing rules properly - how much better would Sunday's game potentially have been if the ptb and offside had been enforced as the rules say?

But the point of the bonus point is to try and make the leagues more competitive. You have a reason, once they've put twenty past you in the opening ten minutes, to keep on going. Having the better teams accelerate away even quicker defies the point of it.



That's why I like the idea of it. It just has some unintended consequences. Teams with more wins finishing lower than teams that never really lose but then again never really win either isn't really something we want.

Nah, FA's not Nigel Wood but with these ideas he'd be far more entitled to the £300k that Fat Nige!!!!

That seems to be the issue - what do you reward attack or defence. When you run onto the pitch both teams want to gain a points advantage on their opponents. If you give a bonus for winning big then the "better" team would go for it, whereas for the "defending" team it is to their advantage to restrict the scoring and their opponents getting an extra point. My problem with given a "losing" bonus point is that it reduces the net points advantage of winning.



But I would still come back to my point above - a much better way of improving the product would be to improve the referring - less offside, less interference at ptb - increase the speed and open the game up

The alleged interference at PTB or offside has negligible effect on the enjoyment of RL. I usually watch 2 or 3 games a week & virtually never is it an issue.

If I'm totally honest, I'm far from sure I think that encouraging a team who are winning by 40 points to go on and win by 60 or even 80 is doing anything to help the game either. For me, two points for the win and 1 for a draw with zippo for a loss is the right balance - points difference still applies when league points are level.



Three points for a win is also a nonsense in RL. It was brought in by soccer to try to discourage teams from playing for a draw; teams in RL do not enter games hoping for a draw so it is a solution to a non-existent problem and therefore has no place in rugby league.

This is the Aviva Premiership bonus point system work's





Rewards attack and defense.

That works for me.



The 'gap' and the number of tries would need amending, but I like the principle

It certainly made a difference to the game at Odsal last weekend, I don't think even a 5m gap was being enforced and some players were lying on so long at the tackle I thought they had fallen asleep. I guess to some extent it depends what facet of the game you most enjoy - the big men going hammer and tongs at close quarters or those fast open whole fields moves - I admit to being biased on that as I played in the backs - many moons ago when the rationing made it hard to put on enough weight to be a forward

I watch about 1 game of UK RL every two weeks if that. I watch 2 or 3 NRL games a week. The levels of interference at the PTB in SL is far higher than in NRL making it a much slower in comparison. As a result I can't be bothered with SL much. I am turning into AP.