griff1998 wrote:
Dave
You may have seen it but it's just your opinion that it's dull rugby - it's just your opinion that it's caused by the bonus point. That's subjective.
On the other hand - bonus point disadvantages only those teams who lose by more than 12 - mathematical fact. That's objective.
Griff,
Again, I thought you'd done with this subject and you'd be moving on now .............,
So why is it so important to you? I know it was your idea in the first place!
So what classes as objective or subjective? A significant number of people on here have commented on the same, if it is witnessed numberous times by different people, is that still subjective? For example within health you can see some smokers get cancer and some do not, likewise you can observe that some non-smokers get cancer and some do not. Therefore is it not just subjective to suggest that smokers get cancer because of the fact that they smoke? Would they have got cancer anyway? Therefore it can be argued that it is a subjective view that smoking give you cancer, but all the same I doubt there are many people that would disagree that smoking is a contributing factor. And the reason that it is not just seen as subjective is that it has been observered.
griff1998 wrote:
Bearing in mind Rovers have won most of their games by a street over the last few years, how many times has this happened ? It's got to be games where the teams finished about 12 points apart, surely. Five ? Ten ? We're still going to be making policy based on a minority of games.
You seem a fair minded bloke - I bet there have been games where you've just won and said to your mates "they played well today - they deserved something out of the game". Did you mean that ? Or did you just say that just to make people think you're a fair minded bloke.
Griff,
I'd go further, there are a number of games that I have walked away from (including Swinton
2012) when I have said "we should have lost that game", and though I would have been disapointed to lose I'd have come away more disapointed in the way we have played than the fact that we had lost.
griff1998 wrote:
Finally, two recent results to ponder over.
Halifax 18 York 16 - game hinged on a couple of goalkicks that even the touch judges disagreed on. Bonus point for York.
Workington 6 Fev 62 - Town not at the races. No points.
Seems fair enough to me. Nothing's 100% perfect.
In my opinion (subjective as it may be) neather team should have recieved ant league points (both lost), the reward for York is that their minus points difference is less than Workington's and therefore if they win and draw the same number of games York are more likely to end up in a higher place than Workington.
Out of interest why should a team lossing 18-4 not get a point and one lossing 18-6 get a point when the only difference was the fact that one team managed a conversion and the other one missed their's? When in terms of contribution to the game the have both put the same in?
So to summarise so far:
- The 3-2-1-0 point's system does make a difference to final league placings compaired to the 2-1-0
- Griff can't leave subjects alown even when he say's he finished with a subject
- I'm as bad (but then again I didn't say I was giving up on the subject
- The 3-2-1-0 system is what we have, and like it or not, it is what we have to play to
- My views are subjective, even though they are observed and shared by others as well as myself
- Griff has a view that if you use less DR players there is a chance that you might get more bonus points (I guess Griff must be right, since the stats prove Fax, Sheff & Fev have won lots of games and only lost a few)
- SL haven't adopted the system, so it probably isn't that great anyway
- The RFL will do what they want as they always do
Griff - I'd be interested to know, and given you a statatision I'm sure you can work it out, are there more games that finish within 12 points over the years we have used the BP system, compaired to say the 5 years prior to the BP system? I.e. has it achieved what it set out to do?
