D'Arcy Waldegrave: Golden Point belittles rules and laws

Golden point can get in the sea.   This, I hasten to add, is not sour grapes because of last night's Waratahs victory. I applaud them for staying in the fight for the entire harem scarem clash, which resembled 7’s more than 15 a side, which is an insult really to the former. I think 7s has a semblance of defence. Last night didn’t.  Anyhoo, back to the point.  The golden point.   In a match that demands a definitive result, i.e. a final or semi-final etc the golden point, the penalty shoot-out, the super over are all necessary evils. Unless it’s Olympic high jump, then you can share. Remember the scenes in Tokyo? Bizarre.  Aside the absolute need to find a winner, the deciding post fulltime mechanic is a construct foisted upon us by this current generation. The one that can’t or won’t understand the merits of two teams, whose ability to best each other in the allotted time, being big enough to settle with points shared.  If the victory cannot be determined within the framework of the fixture, neither team deserves the lollies. The artificial nature of golden point is detrimental to the sanctity of sporting structure. It belittles rules and laws.  It’s a falsehood. It’s pandering to the modern world that isn’t happy in its own skin. It needs to know black from white, right from wrong, yes from no.  Is the idea of grey, of sharing, of equal standings after an intense match of equal fierce output that difficult to swallow?   Obviously, it is.   That’ll do. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.