Golden point extra-time continues to galvanise rugby league fans. They either rate it or hate it. Some fans love golden point and the theatre that comes with it, others hate it and want the old-fashioned draw to return.
I think a solution is somewhere in the middle.
Let me say that I am a fan, but I think the current system should be tweaked. I am proposing that the NRL consider introducing a ten-minute extra time period that runs in its entirety.
That ends 'golden point' as such because the first point scored in extra time won't necessarily win. The full 10 minutes will be played out before fulltime.
This system, I believe, would encourage teams to score tries and end the ugly field goal-a-thon we often see and dislike. Teams can still take an early field goal but it may not necessarily be enough to win.
Ten minutes extra time would be played with more structure and referees won't be gun-shy to award a penalty. I think it is the fairest system we can find.
Golden point was again the talk of rugby league after two matches in round one - St George Illawarra v Newcastle and Wests Tigers v Cronulla - went into extra-time. Discussion around golden point has been dragging on for a decade now and I don't think everyone in the game is convinced of its merits.
I have been reliably informed there have been 62 golden point games since it was introduced back in 2003. Of those, 32 - or 51 percent - have been decided by a field goal.
I think that is too many. For the record, seven were decided by penalty goals, 13 by tries and there have been 10 draws.
There have been several options thrown around in recent times but I don't think many of them have sufficient worthiness for NRL implementation.
For starters, I can't support golden try.
On face value, it sounds good - eradicate field goals, throw the ball around and let the first team to actually score a try take the two competition points.
But if you can't kick field goals or penalty goals, can you imagine the off-side mayhem that would take place?
Sides would be blatantly flouting the ten-metre rule through golden point, unconcerned about being penalised because there cannot be any penalty goals.
I don't think we can drastically change the rules of the game just because we go into extra time. The basic fabric of rugby league must be retained no matter what stage we are at during a match.
There have also been suggestions the NRL could re-value the competition points system. For example, the winning team receives three points but you might also snare a point for losing in golden point.
But, I repeat, can we be making such huge alterations just because of golden point? I say no. What happens if there is a draw after golden point? How many points do each side receive then? It is too confusing.
Some in the game want to revert back to the draw - but I think that would be a backward move. The game must continue to walk forward and not look back over its shoulders. Fans want to see a result.
They pay good money to get along to games and want to see a winner and a loser. A draw can leave everyone feeling slightly empty.
I know how much kids love golden point. A lot have been brought up on it. The atmosphere and excitement at a ground going into extra time is electric.
Well, I say let's end golden point but have a golden period of ten minutes. It is a system which would suit everyone.
We get the excitement and tries but not the field goals.
The theatre remains but the helter skelter goes. It is a win-win for the game.