Time to review bonus point system

Some will say this column comes from left field, but then motor-racing fans might have said the same if a similar one was written before the Rubens Barichello/Michael Schumacher incident that rocked the sport.

The problem with most controversies involving less than perfect rules and regulations is that everyone is wise after the event. By then it is too late and even if the relevant regulation is changed later on, it does not change the result and the damage done to the sport.

The point of concern to this column, if you will excuse the pun, is the awarding of bonus points in Super 12 matches.

The coaches and chief executives meet in the next few weeks to discuss improvements to the competition. If they want to avoid future controversy they need to find a system less open to the manipulation which a year ago enabled Schumacher to pick up full points on a day when he should only have come second.

You think the idea of a Super 12 team moving over to allow a Schumacher to pass is far-fetched? Maybe it is in the sense of a team actually throwing a game, but those little bonus points that are awarded for losing a match by less than seven points and for scoring four tries can easily become a contentious issue sometime in the future.

An example of a game where the bonus point picked up by the losing team was a complete joke was the match between the Crusaders and the Cats in Christchurch.

The Crusaders so comprehensively smashed the Cats that day that by half-time they had already scored four tries for their bonus point. As they were too far ahead to be caught, the Crusaders then proceeded to rest half their team and in the second half the players were just going through the motions.

Bob Skinstad's team, faced with a defence which had suddenly become lax and an opposition which had lost most of its earlier intensity, capitalised in the second half to score four tries and grab a bonus point.

There was a lot of celebrating by the Cats after getting that point, which was unsurprising considering how badly they were beaten. But was the point deserved? Not if you consider the huge margin of defeat and the fact the Crusaders scored twice as many tries as they did.

Now imagine if the Cats, instead of being last on the log, were challenging for a place in the semi-finals and this game was played on the last weekend of the league stage, with the Cats needing one point to get through. Imagine too that instead of the Crusaders, their opponents were the Sharks.

Every year there appears to be a greater emphasis on national interests above regional or provincial identities in the Super 12, with the coaches now being employed by SA Rugby. So you would imagine how tempting it would be to instruct the Sharks, if they were in a position where they knew they were going to win, to take the foot off the pedal in the final minutes and allow the Cats to grab the point they need.

Those who know the rivalry that exists between those two teams might think it unlikely that the Sharks would ever do the Cats any favours, but let's add another possibility.

Let's say that the Sharks were already assured of a place in the semis and the bonus point would make the difference between them meeting the Cats, who at that stage might be in a form slump, in the play-off or facing an overseas team running into ominous late-season form.

Now tell me that the Sharks captain would not be quite happy to give away the bonus point. And even if it was not the intention, would it not be true that in a situation where a team is leading by a big margin a week before the semi-final it would make sense to give key players a rest in the final quarter of the game.

If such a situation ever transpired there would be a huge outcry overseas and it would not matter if the Sharks intended giving away the point or not. All that would really matter is that the system would be proven to be patently unfair, just as many of the regulations pertaining to the recent Cricket World Cup were found to be so by many South Africans AFTER their team had been knocked out.

I have always had a problem with the four-try bonus point. A tight game where two teams score just one or two tries each is often far more absorbing than one where two sides go out and play loose rugby and score eight tries between them (as an example, compare the Brumbies/Crusaders clash last weekend with the one between the Stormers and the Cats, where tackling was at times non-existent).

And the Cats were not the only team to benefit from having an opposition team relax after having wrapped up the game as a contest. Indeed, had the Brumbies been edged out in their quest for a semi-final place by the Bulls last week, they might have regretted the final minutes of their league game against the Pretoria team.

After going past the 60 point mark the Brumbies, who at that stage had scored nine tries against two, pulled off all their key players, including captain George Gregan, for the last five minutes.

The Bulls exploited the situation by scoring twice and grabbing the point, but explain to me how they deserved a point out of a game where they conceded nine tries to four. The Sharks, on the other hand, pushed the Blues and the Crusaders on their home grounds in successive weeks but got nothing out of it because they were not high try-scoring games and there was more than seven in it at the final whistle.

The bonus point can also influence how a game is approached. Early in the season the Stormers were trailing 22-15 to the Highlanders in Dunedin going into the final 15 minutes. The Stormers agree now that had they played more conservatively, they could have preserved that deficit and claimed a precious point.

Instead they went all out for the victory and their attempts to play catch-up led to scores for the Highlanders which eventually resulted in a much bigger win for the hosts than should have been the case.

My point is that while the bonus point was introduced to promote positive rugby, there are many occasions when it could actually do the exact opposite.

Like in a hypothetical situation where a team trailing by less than seven points is told at a penalty, lineout or scrum that it is the last movement of the game. Unless he is in an attacking position, the captain then has to weigh up whether a final all-out assault is worth the risk of conceding a score which would deny them their precious bonus.

In this instance it would be unsurprising if the skipper just opted to kick the ball directly into touch to end the game. This scenario becomes extremely plausible in an instance where his side needs only one point to secure a semi-final place.

An example of a captain opting for the negative option at a time when a more positive one was demanded by the paying spectators came at Newlands in the 2001 Tri-Nations clash between the Springboks and New Zealand.

The Boks were down 12-3 when they were awarded a penalty in the dying minutes of the game. Skipper Bob Skinstad, knowing that a successful kick would make it 12-6 and thus salvage a bonus point from the game, threw the ball to Butch James for a kick at goal. The jeering which accompanied this move was not just because the attempt was unsuccessful.

There are other ways the bonus point system can inspire negative rugby, such as when a team that is trailing stops trying to win and just concentrates on defence and spoiling tactics in order to prevent another from grabbing a fourth try.

The bonus point does have its positives, such as retaining interest in a game which is one-sided. But in a competition decided on the log format, it is not always fair and, contrary to the intention, it does not always promote positive rugby.

These flaws, not to mention the potential for manipulation, need to be looked at during the end-of-season meetings, if only to make all parties aware of the controversy that is bound to blow up at some future stage.