I enjoyed the Warrington vs Hull KR cup match over the weekend. Was a good exciting tense game of rugby and good advert for our game.

Not sure I like the golden point idea though personally I think it encourages negative play and turns the game into a kickathon. This is not union this is league we play fast powerful entertaining rugby.

Personally I think it should be golden try rather than golden point as it would make it more entertaining as teams would have to try and move the ball and play some rugby to get the try.

Thoughts?

I like what they used to do, 2 halves of 10 mins or so and see who's winning after that. If no one's winning then I guess you have to go for golden point otherwise the game might take forever. I agree with not going for golden point straight away though, it completely negates the backs because teams take 5 drives then a drop goal attempt.

I think defences are too good to have golden try, it could go on forever.

Warrington had to work to get into good position to attempt the drop goal and Hull KR had to counter that with good defence & discipline. Personally, I loved it.

One of my mates said that it should be a golden try instead of golden point for the very same reasons.

But them it could also be argued that all teams will do is kick the ball anyway, trying to get the receiving side camped on their line, then when they get possession back, all we will see is kicks to the winger. So, play will still be limited.

I quite like what they do in union, with their version of the penalty shootout.

i think it should be 2 5 min halves and if no one has scored then play golden point this way a team can go for it and also know if they conceed they still have a chance

Be better with 10mins each way then Golden point if its still a draw but TV dictates everything now days

That's a point, can you imagine if you were watching Wigan in the CC semi, scores are level, then we go to 10 mins either way, still no score but BBC have to turn over to keeping up appearences, forcing you to miss golden point?

Disagree - after 80 minutes of solid rugby there will be some tired legs out there especially in the forwards. By this stage in most tight games both teams are making good yards so something would give. Very rarely would we see this last longer than 20 minutes.

Would definatly prefer 10/15 minutes each way to golden point as some of the other posters have suggested.

Well i would not miss it i would be there

Take a player off every 2 mins, next try wins.

Alternatively the "penalty kicks" they had in a recent RU match were quite exciting.

How about after 80mins and a draw Ref gets all the 17 players from both sides and says right lads it last man standing and both teams have a big fight now that would be different of course first punch we would loose Fielden

Back in the late 60s, I played in a Lancashire Schools 7-a-side final where the Golden Point was also in force.

At the final whistle, it was 0-0. We played Golden Point from then on, with the plan that we should change ends every 10 minutes. This went on and on until my team finally scored and won the match - by which time we'd changed ends several times and had played a total of 50 extra minutes. That's 70 minutes in total - almost the length of a real match, on top of the three previous rounds that we'd also played that afternoon.

I remember it made the local press as a remarkable event. But it took an horrendous toll on the players. I could barely walk that night, and several weren't able to attend school on the following Monday morning - even though we were all due to be taken up onto the stage during assembly to be congratulated by the head.

That must have been near-enough a one-off incident. But the Golden Point does have the potential to decide a match only when sheer exhaustion leads to the collapse of one of the two sides. It's exciting for the fans, sure - but perhaps there should be a limit, beyond which the fixture has to be replayed. I certainly wouldn't want to see a major cup match settled by some kind of penalty shoot-out.