Why do rugby's marketing alchemists believe that the public has an appetite for fool's gold?
Golden point rugby is a chaotic construct that at its best is painfully artificial, at worst downright dangerous.
Why does rugby feel the need to have a winner? What's the fascination with giving oneteam chocolates and the other raspberries? The beauty of sport, the only true reality television worth watching, is its defined parameters. To throw those long honed rules into the flames, sacrificing the dignity of a shared result, is a sad indictment on the instant gratification culture that is being spoon-fed to sport.
Sport should spit that unpalatable mouthful right back at them.
Yet amongst my friends and colleagues, the overwhelming zeitgeist is one of sad resignation. It's a fraught addition, but one that is here to stay. And for all intents and purposes, no good reason.
First and foremost, in this era of so-called duty of care to the athletes that the game is built on, the golden point counters the narrative that the game cares about the health of its players. It's madness to think that adding a potential extra 10 minutes of brutal desperation to the end of an already gladiatorial exchange has any palpable player safety considerations.
It doesn't. Exhausted athletes, playing in a helter-skelter deconstructed mess, policed by officials who are loath to sanction and hand the victory away, give nothing to the game except the potential to wreck a player's season. Which when the current situation of the Sky Super Rugby Aotearoa sickbay is taken into account, beggars belief.
Crusaders David Havili is swamped by teammates after kicking the winning drop goal. Photo / Photosport.co.nz
How the execution of a snap goal or penalty kick and the events leading up to that, can satisfactorily present a relevant result is a nonsense. The death throes of such a process bare little semblance to the game we love. It's manifestly unfair that a coin toss can also play a key role in the exercise.
And for what? If the game is still locked after 10, the draw is called anyway.
There is a sense of justice in a shared result. Each team leaving it all on the paddock after 80 minutes of noble battle. Not one team was good enough to secure the result, so they share the spoils.
Would the current Super Rugby table be a less fascinating place if the four teams last weekend had split the booty? I think not.
Golden point rugby has one minor redeeming feature. If a drop goal is required to secure passage through the knock-out phase, or indeed to seize the Webb Ellis Cup at the climax, at least some players would have had a modicum of experience in that particular crapshoot.
That's it. Otherwise, it's a gimmicky solution to a problem that doesn't exist, and that has no place in the honorable world of rugby.
