A draw! Should we play overtime? [Archive]

Mr Ripper

1 May 2002, 10:32

Originally posted by Dan26
First score wins should be the way to go. And if one team's kicking with an 6 goal wind...?

Originally posted by Dan26
No one is happy after a draw.Everyone who's so far responded in this thread is.

Originally posted by Dan26
In American sport, they play extra innings in baseball and overtime in both Basektball and Gridiron.In America they eat peanut butter and jam sandwiches and drive on the other side of the road. Doesn't mean we have to.

Originally posted by Dan26
What's the point of having percentage, if it is going to be deemed irrelevant via a draw?Consult the final ladder for the 1997 season, Daniel. :o

Originally posted by Dan26
Imagine how exciting the St.Kilda-Sydney game would have been (on top of the excitement that already took place) if the ball went back to the centre for a "next score wins" finalse.

Can you imagine the intensity at the ball?No more intense than it should be with both sides striving for a win before the final siren, I'd reckon.

Originally posted by Dan26
Yep, get rid of the draw. Keep the draw.

Jars458

1 May 2002, 10:34

Originally posted by Mr Ripper
And if one team's kicking with an 6 goal wind...?

Now that is a very good point.

I think that almost determines the issue without further debate.

Or they could set up mini league goals and go across the ground!!:D

RoosLuver

1 May 2002, 11:05

If a game ends in a draw, the teams should play 5 mins each way to decide the winner.

Eago77

1 May 2002, 11:31

No one walks away from a draw happy, the players, coaches and spectators don't know how to react. I think 5 minutes each way is the way to go as a first goal/score is too dependent on variables such as wind and centre bounce by the umpire. Plus who wouldn't want an extra 10 minutes of footy in a close exciting match?

Mr Ripper

1 May 2002, 11:33

Originally posted by Eago77
Plus who wouldn't want an extra 10 minutes of footy in a close exciting match? The players?

Eago77

1 May 2002, 12:12

Originally posted by Mr Ripper
The players?

Give them a five minute break befor each 5 minute period of extra time. Then if they still aren't happy pay them overtime or time & half, that should keep 'em going:)

BMD

1 May 2002, 12:17

A draw is a perfectly legitimate result. The teams have played the allocated time, scores were even - share the points as far as I am concerned.

Sure American sports don't do it, but they also stop the game for commercials, ahd have time outs (which I loathe).

sportsfan7

1 May 2002, 12:59

Originally posted by Bomber Spirit
Extra time for finals was introduced to the rule book in 1991 but it's only been needed once - North Melbourne v Hawthorn at Waverley in 1994.
Thought the rule was introduced in 1994 with the switch to a final 8 making replays impractical. The North-Hawks game was the very first final unfder the final 8 system.

But my memory may be faulty. 1991 was the introduction of the Final 6 system.

sportsfan7

1 May 2002, 13:19

Originally posted by Dan26
First score wins should be the way to go. No one is happy after a draw. In American sport, they play extra innings in baseball and overtime in both Basektball and Gridiron. Each match should have a winner and a loser.

What's the point of having percentage, if it is going to be deemed irrelevant via a draw? Imagine how exciting the St.Kilda-Sydney game would have been (on top of the excitement that already took place) if the ball went back to the centre for a "next score wins" finalse.

Can you imagine the intensity at the ball?

Yep, get rid of the draw.
Basketball decides places on a "head to head" basis (not percentage) if wins are equal.

No way could footy have a "golden goal" scenario when weather conditions like a gale force wind could play such a vital part.

shiva25

1 May 2002, 13:25

Originally posted by Nic
A draw is a draw.

How about a kick-off for goal? First player to miss??:p
A kick off for goal would not be a preferred option for the Western Bulldogs as they would be eliminated very quickly

Mr Ripper

1 May 2002, 14:20

Originally posted by sportsfan7
Thought the rule was introduced in 1994 with the switch to a final 8 making replays impractical. The North-Hawks game was the very first final unfder the final 8 system.

But my memory may be faulty. 1991 was the introduction of the Final 6 system. Bomber Spirit is correct. Extra time was introduced in 1991; the year after the timing of the finals series, and all manner of associated events, were cocked up by the Collingwood/West Coast draw and resultant replay. Thank you very much, Peter Sumich.

Slax

1 May 2002, 21:02

This is the biggest non debate I've ever seen. just because a few people can't handle the fact that sometimes this happens doesn't mean that we should change the system.

Draws are perfectly alright the only country that doesn't like it is the USA where someone has to win because the can't handle the concept of teams being equal (good or bad). Leave it only it all works out even by the end of the season if a team makes the finals they deserve it.

scmods

1 May 2002, 21:24

As the person who posted the poll in th first place, I have to say i'm a bit surprised (but very happy) to see how big a majority of people support the status quo.

I did expect it to be in favour of no extra time, but not by such a huge margin!

RichmondTiger5

1 May 2002, 21:29

Originally posted by roobear

That aside, IMHO a draw is a legitimate result. In finals a distinct winner needs to be declared, but in H&A it doesn't, and therefore shouldn't.

I toally agree a draw is a draw but good point Dan about know one been happy with a draw.

wagstaff

1 May 2002, 21:39

Like most here, I'm in favour of keeping the draw situation as it is in Home and Away matches. This rare result has a flavour all of its own and should be kept in the game. Having been to the match on Saturday night, it is one of the more memorable matches I've been to.

The only thing that is against the draw is that for the two teams who took part in it, percentage becomes an irrelevant factor unless they come together on the ladder. Somehow, I don't think that something like percentage, which a side could've built up all year should all of a sudden be made irrelevant.

But the draw should stay.

Port01

1 May 2002, 21:48

It amuses me that Dan continuously points us to the EPL's example for minor premierships etc. Th reason for this is because the EPL does things better and is mroe popular overseas.

Now, with draws, why don't we get the EPL's example this time? Because it doesn't agree with his own perhaps?

Personally I think we should follow the example of the Tongan East Coast Bocce Tournament offical rules and keep draws (although I'm not 100% sure how they formulate percentage).

The Phat Side

1 May 2002, 21:56

The Captains should do rock, paper. scissors to decide the match.

Bomber Spirit

1 May 2002, 22:28

With the game at Docklands last Saturday being the dour, defensive struggle it was, there may not have been a score during extra time.
What happens then? A penalty shootout?

sportsfan7

1 May 2002, 22:53

Originally posted by Bomber Spirit
With the game at Docklands last Saturday being the dour, defensive struggle it was, there may not have been a score during extra time.
What happens then? A penalty shootout?
What is the rule used in the finals?

I think it's 10 mins each way but what after that? It's not in the AFL rule book or anywhere on the sitethat I could find.

Dan26

2 May 2002, 00:40

Originally posted by Mr Ripper
And if one team's kicking with an 6 goal wind...?

Good point. Two 5 minute halves then.

Originally posted by Mr Ripper
Everyone who's so far responded in this thread is.

You've totally missed the point, Stephen. No one is happy. No one. When a draw occurs, both sets of fans are invariably disappointed. The fact that more people have voted for it on this thread, doesn't change the fact that when a draw occurs, NO ONE is happy.

Originally posted by Mr Ripper
In America they eat peanut butter and jam sandwiches and drive on the other side of the road. Doesn't mean we have to.

Have you considered that they don't have draws (except in Ice hockey) because it as seen as the logical and correct thing to do? Maybe they've got it right? By the way I LOVE peanut butter and jam. :D

Originally posted by Mr Ripper
Consult the final ladder for the 1997 season, Daniel. :o

You know exactly what I meant Stephen. :mad: Having a draw makes your percentage irrelevant to every team who hasn't had a draw - In other words 90% of the league. If a team is separated on percentage from another who has had a draw (eg 1993, 1997) then that's pure luck. Their percentage becomes irrelevant to nearly every other team.

Originally posted by Mr Ripper
No more intense than it should be with both sides striving for a win before the final siren, I'd reckon.

No it would be more intense. Why? Because you have the intensity and excitement gained from being equal at full time, then you PROLONG it for 10 extra minutes. So, it HAS to be more intense and exciting, because it will be EXACTLY the same as draw with more added on to the end! The St.Kilda-Sydney match would have the same excitement we all experienced followed by another 10 minutes to decide a winner.

If you were to ask any team who has drawn if they would take the risk of another 10 minutes (5 minutes each way) to see if they could win the match, they would definately say yes. The prospect of a win would persuade them to take the extra-time.

Mr Ripper

2 May 2002, 00:42

Originally posted by sportsfan7
What is the rule used in the finals?

I think it's 10 mins each way but what after that? It's not in the AFL rule book or anywhere on the sitethat I could find. 5 minutes + time on, either way.

Dan26

2 May 2002, 00:45

Originally posted by Mr Ripper
5 minutes + time on, either way.

Yet stupidy is abolished for the Grand Final, despite the rule being used for all other finals.

If a drawn Grand Final is exciting, imagine the same draw (with the the same excitement) followed by 10 minutes of extra-time.

If the other finals have extra-time, then the Grand Final should to.

Mr Ripper

2 May 2002, 00:46

Originally posted by Dan26
If you were to ask any team who has drawn if they would take the risk of another 10 minutes (5 minutes each way) to see if they could win the match, they would definately say yes. The prospect of a win would persuade them to take the extra-time. Wonder, had Geelong have got that last goal and drawn the '89 Grand Final, whether Hawthorn would have voted for extra time?

Dan26

2 May 2002, 00:50

Originally posted by Mr Ripper
Wonder, had Geelong have got that last goal and drawn the '89 Grand Final, whether Hawthorn would have voted for extra time?

Of course they would.

They would have had more chance in extra time, than the following week with half a side. They most likely would have been easily defeated the next week with a below strength side.

The bottom line is they have to win the Grand Final to win the premiership, and if that match was a draw, Hawthorn would have to weigh up the option of whether they'd have more chance in a weeks time, or in two 5-minute halves.

Considering the amount of top players that would have been unavaialble for a full 2-hour match the next week, they would have taken the extra-time a million times over I'm sure.

Gees, wouldn't you? You're not seriously suggesting they would've had more chance of winning if they came back the next week are you? I would have put my house on Geelong.

Mr Ripper

2 May 2002, 00:53

They would have had 20 fit men the next week, as opposed to the 15 or whatever they had left standing at the end of the 100 minutes on Grand Final day.

Dan26

2 May 2002, 00:59

Originally posted by Mr Ripper
They would have had 20 fit men the next week, as opposed to the 15 or whatever they had left standing at the end of the 100 minutes on Grand Final day.

20 fit men who probably would have been slaughtered by Geelong. Five or six top line players would have been unavailable for duty. What possible chance would they have had?

Geelong had a several unfit players at the end of the '89 GF too. Players from both sides had to go to hospital. Hawthorn would have had more chance of winning the flag if two 5-minute halves were played, because there is less chance of the better side coming to the fore over a shorter period of time. The sample of 10-minutes is not enough for the best to rise to the top. Anything coan happen over such a small time span.

When I say, "best", Hawthorn were obviosuly the best side of the year, but Geelong in form, and fitter would have been more likely to win the next week. There would have been more chance of the Cats winning over 2 hours, than over 10 minutes where "anything" can happen.

Mr Ripper

2 May 2002, 01:04

Go to bed.

Dan26

2 May 2002, 01:13

Awww, I was just getting warmed up. ;)

Denverdog

2 May 2002, 04:55

I take offense by Slax's comment that Americans can't stand teams being equal. That couldn't be farther from the truth. All of the major sports here in America have been doing their best over the last 15 years to try and bring parity to all of the teams within the different leagues.
The point that you are missing here is that when 50,000 plus people pay good money to see a game they expect to see a winner, one way or another. The major exception here is Hockey. To say that American's can't stand teams being equal shows that you are completely ignorant of the changes that have taken place within the context of free agency over the last 15 years.
The pace and scoring system of Footy allows for a game which should vary rarely end in a tie. Gridiron, as you call it, is much different. The nature of Gridiron is much slower and the scoring system lends itself to a lower scoring game, hence the increased possibility of a tie.

Stealth bomber

2 May 2002, 07:34

The NFL and NHL both allow ties. In the former case they are extremely rare, but they do happen (the last one was in 1993? 94?) where nobody scores in overtime.

During the regular season, they play a five minute overtime in hockey, and if nobody scores, it ends in a draw with both teams getting a point in the standings.

To put it down to being part of "American culture" is a bit ridiculous.

BMD

2 May 2002, 13:11

Originally posted by Dan26

doesn't change the fact that when a draw occurs, NO ONE is happy.

A draw is an unusual result in Australian Rules. Sure NO ONE is as happy as they would be if their team won, but equally NO ONE is as upset as they would be if their team lost.

It is a unique feeling that I think should be allowed to stay as part of the game. I can see no reason whatever to get rid of it.

Lethal

2 May 2002, 13:17

Originally posted by Dan26

No it would be more intense. Why? Because you have the intensity and excitement gained from being equal at full time, then you PROLONG it for 10 extra minutes. So, it HAS to be more intense and exciting, because it will be EXACTLY the same as draw with more added on to the end! The St.Kilda-Sydney match would have the same excitement we all experienced followed by another 10 minutes to decide a winner.

Just curious, but why would it be more intense? What if one of those two teams kicked 5 goals in the first 5 minutes of extra time. Where would the intensity be then from the other side? They may have just put everything into the last 5 minutes of normal time and thus be a spent force in extra time.

Originally posted by Stealth bomber

During the regular season, they play a five minute overtime in hockey, and if nobody scores, it ends in a draw with both teams getting a point in the standings.

Plus if one team ends up scoring they then receive the full alotment of points whereas the 'losing' team still gets a point. Maybe if they were to change how the AFL were to decide the points allocated from a drawn match and they were to play extra time, maybe they could do this and give the full 4 points to the team that won after extra time and 2 points to the team that lost in extra time.

GOALden Hawk

2 May 2002, 13:57

Originally posted by The Phat Side
The Captains should do rock, paper. scissors to decide the match.

Perhaps not as far-fetched as you might think.

I'm pretty sure a Champions League Final or European Final (can't remember which) was decided by a toss of the coin in the referees dressing room as there was no extra time.

The winning captain then ran out onto the ground to indicate to the packed stadium that they had in fact won! Now that's tension!!!!

As for the question - leave it as is. I've been at two draws (94 Qualifying and 99 v Bulldogs) and was far more satisfied on the 2nd occassion.

In a way I felt a bit robbed in 1994 because we didn't actually lose in a normal match.

But to say NO ONE is satisfied Dan might be stretching it a bit. I was just relieved we hadn't lost at Princes Park in 1999!

sportsfan7

2 May 2002, 15:04

Originally posted by Lethal
Plus if one team ends up scoring they then receive the full alotment of points whereas the 'losing' team still gets a point. Maybe if they were to change how the AFL were to decide the points allocated from a drawn match and they were to play extra time, maybe they could do this and give the full 4 points to the team that won after extra time and 2 points to the team that lost in extra time.
Or maybe 3 and 1? Or 3 and 2?

But I say leave things as they are. It happens so rarely that it is an event in itself.

If you start playing extar time when do you stop? There was a game in the WNBA last year went to four overtime periods before they got a result. Game took TWICE AS LONG as usual. The players were all stuffed. In the world series a few years back the last three games (I think) all went to extra innings (10, 13 and 12).

scmods

2 May 2002, 19:26

There was an A-Grade Water Polo GF here years ago that went for over five hours of overtime before being called off and replayed the following week.

(Normal time for water polo is 4 x 7.5 min quarters, and if you think that's a pretty short game, try jumping in a pool and swimming flat out from end to end for 7 minutes!)

Dave

3 May 2002, 08:42

Originally posted by Dan26
Have you considered that they don't have draws (except in Ice hockey) because it as seen as the logical and correct thing to do?

Have you considered that we've got it right and that they've done what they have to appease the instant gratification mentality that is prevelant in the US(no offense intended)?

I just love the way you chop and change which leagues do it right depending on what you're arguing too - soccer has draws doesn't it?

Originally posted by Dan26
If the other finals have extra-time, then the Grand Final should to.

Other finals have extra time for a reason Dan. That reason is that a drawn final that is replayed affects the other teams in the finals as they have to have a week off, ala 1990. This isn't the case if a Grand Final is drawn as no other teams are left.

Jars458

3 May 2002, 10:24

Originally posted by Dan26

Have you considered that they don't have draws (except in Ice hockey) because it as seen as the logical and correct thing to do? Maybe they've got it right? By the way I LOVE peanut butter and jam. :D

I had not considered that building weapons of mass destruciton was the logical and correcthing to do either

perhaps cause the US do it it must be right.

I still think the away team should win any draw.

Port01

3 May 2002, 11:41

I believe there was an Ice Hockey playoff last year that had abuot 7 overtimes and finished around 3am or so.

I like good old draws myself.

scmods

7 Jul 2002, 23:49

Since this has come up again this week, thought i'd bump it up again for those who didn't vote the first time...

Docker_Brat

8 Jul 2002, 01:28

I knew the word 'logical' would come into this. :rolleyes:

Dan, a draw is a draw. The game has been tinkered with too much as it is, if the tinkering continues at the rate it has previously then we will have a game that is unrecognisable in 20 years.

scmods

14 Apr 2003, 19:47

It's baaaack! :D

Destructive

14 Apr 2003, 22:02

If they bring in extra time, it'll just be copying American bull****. Rugby League has brought it in this year and I think it downright sucks.A draw is a draw, leave it that way.

DaveW

14 Apr 2003, 23:04

Just read this thread for the first time.

One comment... why is it a bad thing for percentage to be made less relevant? I don't understand this argument. It is only designed to split teams on equal points. It is a decent tie-breaker, but nothing more. I think if there are ways of reducing its importance, then that is a good thing.

"Percentage" (which as pointed out in the letters section of the round three footy record is something of a misnomer) has its downfalls. For instance, a team's percentage can be inflated/deflated by scores made towards the end of a dead match, when the result of a match is well and truly decided - and has lost all meaning - with the best players being rested, etc.

Yianni

15 Apr 2003, 10:22

Dan, you said that once you have a draw, percentage becomes irrelevant to about 90% of other teams. You say this like it's a bad thing.

Surely, with a ladder of 16 teams, your percentage is only going to be relevant to about 10% of teams anyway (i.e. those teams with the same amount of wins as you) Sure it will probably be less important, but let's say you have this situation in Round 21

8th ESSENDON 44
9th KANGAROOS 44
10th BULLDOGS 44

And in Round 22, Essendon and Bulldogs lose, but Kangas have a draw, so you get

8th KANGAROOS 46
9th ESSENDON 44
10th BULLDOGS 44

Obviously percentage is only a SECONDARY indicator of position (i.e. it is used when points cannot separate teams) In this case points CAN separate teams. Kangas got a draw so they get 2 points and move ahead of Essendon and Bulldogs. To say they shouldn't get 2 points (the PRIMARY indicator of position) because it makes the SECONDARY indicator of position irrelevant is to put the cart before the horse.

POINTS first, PERCENTAGE second.

It also has the added benefit of getting the Roos into the finals, and bumping out Essendon! :D

DaveW

10 Jun 2003, 04:28

*bump* :D

riccardo

10 Jun 2003, 09:35

I think extra time is an excellent idea. I have never been to a draw, but I listened on radio when Sydney drew St Kilda last year and I just felt hollow, empty.
Play extra time, but give the team who loses out in that extra time 1 point, at least they get something.
Either way, though. Leave it as a draw, change it, I'm not that fussy.

stefoid

10 Jun 2003, 09:57

Too bad. Sport isnt an amercan soap opera where everything is always tied up nicely in bow at the end of the epsiode.

A draw is a draw.

As for ways to get around a draw, like in soccer, the penalty shootout is the stupidest thing Ive ever seen.

Fire Storm

10 Jun 2003, 10:32

The NRL have added the 'golden point' rule. The scores level at fulltime? 5 mins each way extra time. First score wins. Still locked up after the 10 mins? The game is over and its a draw.

Exciting? You bet ya. Players lift by another 10% again. Who said a game has to finish with a draw? I saw my first golden point game the other night and it was fantastic. Both teams panicked but thats the key. Keep cool is the aim of the game in extra fame........er time. Wouldnt rime!

I guess they could try it in the pre-season and hope a game is drawn to see what it's like. Trust me. Its good!

*Paul*

10 Jun 2003, 17:25

A draw is fine, extra time exciting. Either one is okay.
But the losing side after extra time not gaining any competion points is not.
If the AFL for some inexplicable reason decided to implement ET, both sides should get points.

Tio_Ray

10 Jun 2003, 18:05

Its funny how there is a HUGE percentage of people here saying "a draw is a draw"....but believe me...if you are at the game and its a draw...Almost every single person there would want to see a different result and that includes players and the two footy departments...its bloody obvious, the rule should be changed.

DaveW

10 Jun 2003, 18:08

Originally posted by *Paul*
If the AFL for some inexplicable reason decided to implement ET, both sides should get points. 3 for the winner and 1 for the loser?

Angus1

11 Jun 2003, 00:03

Originally posted by Tio_Ray
Its funny how there is a HUGE percentage of people here saying "a draw is a draw"....but believe me...if you are at the game and its a draw...Almost every single person there would want to see a different result and that includes players and the two footy departments...its bloody obvious, the rule should be changed.
I couldn't agree more.
When North drew with Brisbane I felt gutted. How anyone can say that was a good result amazes me. The whole North team looked like they had just lost the Grand Final. Dean Laidley said he was going to go home and get smashed (his words).
The reason I felt so bad was because the game wasn't over, not to me it wasn't. Lets get a winner. North knew that they had just lost a win and Brisbane probably thought that they should be able to beat this poor team from Victoria. The final siren was just a feeling of deep hollow.
No one was happy.
Like watching a thriller and the power goes off before you find out who done it.
5 minutes each way.

*Paul*

11 Jun 2003, 00:21

Originally posted by DaveW
3 for the winner and 1 for the loser?

4 and 2

DaveW

11 Jun 2003, 00:24

Originally posted by *Paul*
4 and 2 I'm a bit uneasy with 6 points coming out of the one match.

gPhonque

11 Jun 2003, 00:26

Originally posted by riccardo
I have never been to a draw, but I listened on radio when Sydney drew St Kilda last year and I just felt hollow, empty.

Yeah.

I hope you experience it one day at the ground.

It's fantastic.

There's absolutely no reason we should ever change it.

sbagman

11 Jun 2003, 00:33

Can't understand why it would make noone happy. 2 points is better than none. At least neither set of supporters is overly upset, meaning they can both go drinking.... mmmm.... beer.... hm what? Oh yeah, keep the draw.

TigerCraig

11 Jun 2003, 08:53

Can't see why a team should get 4 points when they were incapable of winning in the time allotted (or conversely why a team should get 0 when they weren't beaten)

Port1978

11 Jun 2003, 12:09

Originally posted by TigerCraig
Can't see why a team should get 4 points when they were incapable of winning in the time allotted (or conversely why a team should get 0 when they weren't beaten)

Good point. I think the rule should stay as it is. There should only be extra time played during the finals if there's a draw.

Valkyrie

12 Jun 2003, 12:50

a draw is a draw - and the TAB gives great odds. i made a bundle of cash on the roos/lions draw.

Fire Storm

12 Jun 2003, 16:27

You guys are boring. I watch my team play to win. Not draw. I want to see at least some result. A win or a loss. Draw? Hell no.

Give me extra time anyday.

riccardo

12 Jun 2003, 17:04

gPhonque, are you actually telling me its fantastic to feel hollow and empty? Was this the point of your comment, or am I taking it the wrong way?
I feel like I need a result - draw be damned! Give me the NRL 'golden point rule', and, at least we've played 10 more minutes to try and break the deadlock. All games should be winnable, and a draw makes no-one happy. If I feel hollow and empty, image how the players must feel?
The young Saint (Moyle, maybe? or Dal Santo?) who kicked it into the post to only level the scores in the Saints Vs Swans game last year I was talking about must have been devistated.
Why should we continue do this to people? Why? :D

stefoid

12 Jun 2003, 17:19

Multiball

DaveW

12 Jun 2003, 18:29

Originally posted by riccardo
The young Saint (Moyle, maybe? or Dal Santo?) who kicked it into the post to only level the scores in the Saints Vs Swans game last year I was talking about must have been devistated. Daniel Wulf.

gPhonque

12 Jun 2003, 18:57

Originally posted by riccardo
gPhonque, are you actually telling me its fantastic to feel hollow and empty? Was this the point of your comment, or am I taking it the wrong way?

Yes, that's exactly what I mean.

I'm saying it's a fantastic part of our game that should not be lost simply because people such as yourself demand that our games have a result for whatever pathetic reasons.

I agree that there should be extra time during the finals (Grand Final excepted) but there is no reason at all for bringing in extra time during the H&A season. And besides, when there are a couple of draws come Round 22, it can make things very interesting when it comes to sorting out the finals. :)

I certainly will never forget the drawn games I have been to.

You walk out of the ground exhausted. The buzz around the ground is almost surreal - "A draw!" "I can't believe it's a draw!" etc

It's a fantastic feeling that is very much a part of our game.

Why must you meddle with it?

Why do you believe that your opinion outweighs over 100 years of tradition?

pazza

12 Jun 2003, 20:14

If the result at the end of the day hasn't been broken in normal time, let it be. It proves that the 2 sides involved were the equal of each other in that match.

Can understand extra time in finals, as there is no turning back in those games. Keep the draw for the grand final though.

Angus1

12 Jun 2003, 21:07

Originally posted by gPhonque
[BWhy must you meddle with it?

Why do you believe that your opinion outweighs over 100 years of tradition? [/B]
That argument is very poor. You could say the same about rule changes. Why change the rules it's been in for a hundred years bla bla bla.
Actually these days rule changes are becoming tradition.
Tradition in Football is almost dead now. Umpires are wearing bright orange shirts. StKilda wear a yellow jumper. Collingwood has a black juper with white stripes after years of having a white jumper with black stripes.(and Eddie says will never change their jumper :eek: ) Most clubs have already changed their jumper.
Years ago kicking the ball out of bounds was a part of the game . It was a tactic. Not anymore.
The game changes and so should the draw. Lets finish the game.

Angus1

12 Jun 2003, 21:21

Originally posted by pazza
If the result at the end of the day hasn't been broken in normal time, let it be. It proves that the 2 sides involved were the equal of each other in that match.

Can understand extra time in finals, as there is no turning back in those games. Keep the draw for the grand final though.
If Brisbane play West Coast Eagles in this years Grand Final and it is a draw does that mean all the thousands of fans that flew into Melbourne for the weekend have to then fly in again the next week?:confused:
Can we really have a Grand Final 2 weeks in a row?
I know it has happened before but that was over 20 years a go and now we have teams and supporters that have to travel long distances to see the biggest match of the year. It cost big money.
Are we going to tell them sorry it's a draw. You all have to come back next week?
How terrible would that be after forking out big bucks to fly to Melbourne for the weekend?
It would be a chaotic situtuation.

gPhonque

12 Jun 2003, 22:51

Originally posted by Angus1
That argument is very poor.

And your argument is what exactly?

You could say the same about rule changes.

I do if the rule change is proposed only to satisfy the silly little views of those who feel the need to meddle.

Why change the rules it's been in for a hundred years bla bla bla.

In this case, that is exactly my argument.

It's been in for 100 years and has never been a problem. There have been some fantastic drawn games that are a part of our game's history.

Why does that need to change?

(now this is where you put forth your argument for all to see rather than crap on about irrelevant sh|t.)

Years ago kicking the ball out of bounds was a part of the game . It was a tactic. Not anymore.

And you believe my argument is pathetic?

That was a rule change that actually helped the game. Kicking the ball out of bounds on the full as a tactic was ruining the spectacle. The solution they came up with was perfect and has not needed to be changed since. (other than introducing the contentious "deliberate out of bounds" rule in order to avoid the "hit the boundary" scenario where possible....)

Playing extra time after 4 quarters is helping the game how?

All it's helping is you to sleep at night. I don't particularly see why our game should be changed for that reason.

All that these instant gratification options (such as extra time) achieve is they cheapen the rest of the game.

I also stated earlier that I understand and accept the reasons for using extra time in finals. (excluding the Grand Final - much better to play it again the week after than reduce the entire season to a tired contest of 20mins or so.)

A drawn final completely throws the rest of the finals series out, and that includes, now that we have a national league, plans people have made to travel to see finals, as well as literally thousands of other factors.

But so far, I've yet to see anybody put forward an argument as to why we should introduce extra time to H&A drawn games other than saying "it should change. I feel hollow"

Big f*cking deal.

Perhaps AFL isn't your sport.

The game changes and so should the draw. Lets finish the game.

Excellent argument.

An entire one line that included no facts and only an opinion.

And you believe my argument is weak?

Perhaps you, and anyone else who feels the need to meddle with our game for no particular reason, should take note that the greatest (imo) and most popular (fact) team sport in the world is also the one that has changed the least over the years.

Dan26

13 Jun 2003, 00:03

Don't mind the draw for the H&A obviously, but we must have a result for all finals. Why in the name of God do the 8 preceding finals allow for extra time, but not the Grand Final? It's a major inconvenience for all concerned to have an extra week of finals, which is why extra time was brought it. Yet the AFL don't have extra time for the Grand Final. Absurd.

Dan26

13 Jun 2003, 00:07

Originally posted by gPhonque
It's been in for 100 years and has never been a problem.

Tradition is one of yours great passions. One of your great strengths. It is also easily your greatness weakness. I agree with you, on this issue that draws should remain (except for ALL finals), but you are gradually coming around on the jumper issue, and perhaps you will come around on some other issues too.

scout

13 Jun 2003, 00:58

A draw is a draw. Every game is played until the clock runs down & that is the end of the game.

So whatever the scores are at the end of the game are the final scores.

To add on any extra time would alter the game. It would make it something other than a home & away game.

Both teams have had the opportunity to gain the lead. They are both playing to be ahead at the final siren. That is the end. We don't extend a horse race because two horses reach the winning post in a dead heat.

Consider the stats, injuries, reports, even brownlow votes that would affected in that time.

Do you count a player's stats in that time? This would not be an even comparison as it is in extra time. Could players injure themselves as they tire even more? Perhaps a player could catch an extra Brownlow vote by a winning play.

If two teams are level at the end of a game, then how do you guarantee a result after extra time? Do they play till one team kicks two consecutive goals? Players are very tired by this stage of the game. I couldn't see a very high standard of play in extra time.

Sure, no one has that winning feeling or that losing feeling. There is no club song played. That is a draw. I love it. It is a mixture of so many things & yet it is not the win that everyone is after. It is a feeling of something even more dramatic than a win or a loss.

Angus1

13 Jun 2003, 01:00

Originally posted by gPhonque

And your argument is what exactly?

[/b]

I do if the rule change is proposed only to satisfy the silly little views of those who feel the need to meddle.

[/b]

In this case, that is exactly my argument.

It's been in for 100 years and has never been a problem. There have been some fantastic drawn games that are a part of our game's history.

Why does that need to change?

(now this is where you put forth your argument for all to see rather than crap on about irrelevant sh|t.)

[/b]

And you believe my argument is pathetic?

That was a rule change that actually helped the game. Kicking the ball out of bounds on the full as a tactic was ruining the spectacle. The solution they came up with was perfect and has not needed to be changed since. (other than introducing the contentious "deliberate out of bounds" rule in order to avoid the "hit the boundary" scenario where possible....)

Playing extra time after 4 quarters is helping the game how?

All it's helping is you to sleep at night. I don't particularly see why our game should be changed for that reason.

All that these instant gratification options (such as extra time) achieve is they cheapen the rest of the game.

I also stated earlier that I understand and accept the reasons for using extra time in finals. (excluding the Grand Final - much better to play it again the week after than reduce the entire season to a tired contest of 20mins or so.)

A drawn final completely throws the rest of the finals series out, and that includes, now that we have a national league, plans people have made to travel to see finals, as well as literally thousands of other factors.

But so far, I've yet to see anybody put forward an argument as to why we should introduce extra time to H&A drawn games other than saying "it should change. I feel hollow"

Big f*cking deal.

Perhaps AFL isn't your sport.

Excellent argument.

An entire one line that included no facts and only an opinion.

And you believe my argument is weak?

Perhaps you, and anyone else who feels the need to meddle with our game for no particular reason, should take note that the greatest (imo) and most popular (fact) team sport in the world is also the one that has changed the least over the years. [/B]
Well I thought it was pretty obvious that I was only giving my opinion. I only raised the issue of jumper and rule changes to highlight that traditions don't hold much weight in AFL football anymore and haven't done so ever since Roos Oakley was in charge. My point was if rules can be changed and jumpers can be changed then surely anything in the game can be changed.
I never said I support all of these changes just that I support the draw to be changed.
I can understand that you are a traditionalist. I used to be one too but I think that tradition died in AFL football many years ago.
I think that is sad but it is true.

gPhonque

13 Jun 2003, 03:35

Originally posted by Dan26
Don't mind the draw for the H&A obviously,

You've changed your tune. (see page 1 of this thread)

I never thought I'd see the day. :)

but we must have a result for all finals. Why in the name of God do the 8 preceding finals allow for extra time, but not the Grand Final? It's a major inconvenience for all concerned to have an extra week of finals, which is why extra time was brought it. Yet the AFL don't have extra time for the Grand Final. Absurd.

Why is it absurd?

Firstly, I'd prefer that there wasn't extra time in the finals as I believe (as I said in my earlier post) that it cheapens the game. (but it's not something that concerns me all that much as I understand the reasons behind it.)

The Grand Final is a different story.

The LAST thing I and I'm sure every supporter in Australia (apart from you) want to see is our entire season come down to a tired battle between players who have really had enough for one day, and are certainly not in any state to produce a high quality end to the game/season.

Give them a week's rest, let them come back the next week, and perhaps even give the supporters a chance to go to a Grand Final.

Oh, and we get to see an even tougher game.

Surely that is a more fitting end to our season than tacking on 20 mins at the end of the game purely to get an immediate result.

What happens if by the end of 'regulation time', one team has 4 injured players and the other team is injury free?

Surely that is completely unfair to the team with no fresh legs.

It's just ridiculous to even think about reducing the outcome of our season to a tired sloppy 20mins.

gPhonque

13 Jun 2003, 04:00

Originally posted by Dan26
Tradition is one of yours great passions. One of your great strengths.

It is also easily your greatness

Why thankyou.

weakness.

Why is it a weakness?

I'm not against all rule changes.

Only those that needlessly f*ck with the game.

Such as this issue.

And teams changing on-field colours for absolutely no reason.

etc etc

But not all issues.

Why is the fact that I respect the history and traditions of our game a weakness?

It would only be a weakness if I refused to accept all rule changes just for the sake of tradition.

I don't do that, so calling my respect for tradition a "weakness" is simply incorrect, and kind of funny coming from somebody who has absolutely no respect for traditions.

Nothing is sacred to you Dan, and that is your weakness.

I've actually been thinking lately that you're an AI. You seem to not understand the spirit of our game, and instead, base everything you believe about the game on mathematical "logic."

Ones and zeros.

Just the way an AI would do.

but you are gradually coming around on the jumper issue, and perhaps you will come around on some other issues too.

I've 'come around' as far as I'm going to on the jumper issue.

I've agreed that we need a 'clash' guernsey.

But you still haven't given any reasons as to why we need to add extra colours to it, other than your belief that it would look "sleek."

:)

gPhonque

13 Jun 2003, 14:29

Originally posted by Angus1
Well I thought it was pretty obvious that I was only giving my opinion. I only raised the issue of jumper and rule changes to highlight that traditions don't hold much weight in AFL football anymore and haven't done so ever since Roos Oakley was in charge. My point was if rules can be changed and jumpers can be changed then surely anything in the game can be changed.
I never said I support all of these changes just that I support the draw to be changed.
I can understand that you are a traditionalist. I used to be one too but I think that tradition died in AFL football many years ago.
I think that is sad but it is true.

Most pointless post ever.

I'll leave it to you to try and work out why.

I don't believe you'll succeed.

Fire Storm

13 Jun 2003, 16:32

gPhonque???

You have the most ridicules arguments for keeping the draw I've ever seen.

You all say a 'draw is a draw', but what really IS a draw? Its NOTHING!!!! No team wins. No team loses. Why pay all that money(tickets,food, parking, cost of travelling to games) to see nothing! Might as well stay home for all the good it is.

I go to the trouble of watching a team in a particular sport to SEE a team win. If they dont win they lose. A bummer but its something. A draw is nothing. Always will be.

"The LAST thing I and I'm sure every supporter in Australia (apart from you) want to see is our entire season come down to a tired battle between players who have really had enough for one day, and are certainly not in any state to produce a high quality end to the game/season.

Give them a week's rest, let them come back the next week, and perhaps even give the supporters a chance to go to a Grand Final.

Oh, and we get to see an even tougher game."

"A tired battle". That is the meaning of football. Who has the guts to tough it out. The team that lifts when they are nearly exhausted is the team that will come out on top. THAT is the meaning of a great win by a team. And in extra time, there really is nothing better to see that.

"Had enough for one day" Your kidding right? Who said? You? And you speak for every player? Dont you think they want a result on THAT day? Isnt that why they play the game on THAT day? To win?

"A tougher game" How do you know that? Could be worse. They may flog the other team by 50+ points!

During the Super League deal in RL, NSW and QLD played out the final Origin in extra time. It went 103mins, 23 longer than normal. Tough when it already is the toughest code on earth. The game poor because the players had "had enough for one day"?

Some STILL say it has been one of the best games ever. I watched it and fully agree. And in two NRL games this year its gone into extra time. Exciting stuff.

Dont knock it 'till you see it. Remember in AFL, if it was 'Golden Point' rule, only a behind would be enough to win. Could be over in 2 mins. A player couldnt force a rush behind because they'd lose. It would be exciting to say the least.

A draw? Only for boring people

gPhonque

13 Jun 2003, 16:54

Originally posted by Mark Rudd
gPhonque???

You have the most ridicules arguments for keeping the draw I've ever seen.

You all say a 'draw is a draw', but what really IS a draw? Its NOTHING!!!! No team wins. No team loses. Why pay all that money(tickets,food, parking, cost of travelling to games) to see nothing! Might as well stay home for all the good it is.

I go to the trouble of watching a team in a particular sport to SEE a team win. If they dont win they lose. A bummer but its something. A draw is nothing. Always will be.

"The LAST thing I and I'm sure every supporter in Australia (apart from you) want to see is our entire season come down to a tired battle between players who have really had enough for one day, and are certainly not in any state to produce a high quality end to the game/season.

Give them a week's rest, let them come back the next week, and perhaps even give the supporters a chance to go to a Grand Final.

Oh, and we get to see an even tougher game."

"A tired battle". That is the meaning of football. Who has the guts to tough it out. The team that lifts when they are nearly exhausted is the team that will come out on top. THAT is the meaning of a great win by a team. And in extra time, there really is nothing better to see that.

"Had enough for one day" Your kidding right? Who said? You? And you speak for every player? Dont you think they want a result on THAT day? Isnt that why they play the game on THAT day? To win?

"A tougher game" How do you know that? Could be worse. They may flog the other team by 50+ points!

During the Super League deal in RL, NSW and QLD played out the final Origin in extra time. It went 103mins, 23 longer than normal. Tough when it already is the toughest code on earth. The game poor because the players had "had enough for one day"?

Some STILL say it has been one of the best games ever. I watched it and fully agree. And in two NRL games this year its gone into extra time. Exciting stuff.

Dont knock it 'till you see it. Remember in AFL, if it was 'Golden Point' rule, only a behind would be enough to win. Could be over in 2 mins. A player couldnt force a rush behind because they'd lose. It would be exciting to say the least.

A draw? Only for boring people

So you're entire argument is based on your lack of patience.

And my argument is ridiculous?

I'm not saying that extra time wouldn't be exciting - of course it would be!

But is it needed?

I don't believe so.

Can you tell me why it is needed, other than to satisfy your urge for an immediate result?

Why do games have to have only a winner and a loser?

Why eliminate the possibility to be able to look back in future and say "those 2 teams were even that day."

?

Fire Storm

13 Jun 2003, 17:06

I gave a reason. To watch my team win. They dont win? They lose. Only two outcomes I want to see. Draw? Its nothing. No result. Who wants no result? I dont. It not exciting. You yourself said it. Extra time IS exciting. Why wouldnt you want to see that? Players lifting to win.

Why even play the game is there is the possiblity of no result? Dont turn up! But the players DO turn up because they play to win. I watch a team to see them win.

Its really not that hard.

A draw is only there because somebody decided it was a good idea at the time. What a fool he was!

Of course, if after the extra time period they're still locked, the game does finish a draw. So you still get what you wanted gPhonque! But I'll be screaming my lungs out to see them win the stinking thing.

Green Eggs and Ham. Try it Sam I am!

Fire

13 Jun 2003, 17:06

You all say a 'draw is a draw', but what really IS a draw? Its NOTHING!!!! No team wins. No team loses. Why pay all that money(tickets,food, parking, cost of travelling to games) to see nothing! Might as well stay home for all the good it is.

You obviously dont like Footy for what it is. What about the West Coast draw? The whole crowd went silent when the sigren went. Then when the goal weas kicked, the stadium errupted with cheers. And then some started booing through the confusion.

Yeah, there was certainly nothing in the atmosphere that day. must have been glad you stayed home. There is certainly no room in the game for the emotion felt after a draw

Fire Storm

13 Jun 2003, 17:19

They only react that way because thats all they can do in a draw. I've attended a game or two and know the feeling.

But I gaurantee(geez i cant spell) that if there WAS extra time, as soon as it starts the crowd will scream like it was the final few minutes of a close GF. It goes up a notch again. Great stuff.

Maybe they can trail in the pre-season and hope to hell a game is drawn so gauge its worth.

Or just change it altogether. Trust me. It doesnt get worse. Unless your team loses and then you get NO points. Hehehe. Oh well!

gPhonque

13 Jun 2003, 17:26

Originally posted by Mark Rudd
I gave a reason. To watch my team win.

And you believe that reason outweighs 100 years of tradition?

They dont win? They lose.

So I take it you believe that it's impossible for 2 teams to be of equal ability on a given day?

Only two outcomes I want to see. Draw? Its nothing. No result. Who wants no result? I dont. It not exciting. You yourself said it.

I never said that..

And if you blatantly put words into my mouth again, you'll be the first person to ever live in my ignore list.

:)

Fire Storm

13 Jun 2003, 17:35

"And you believe that reason outweighs 100 years of tradition?"

Who cares? I dont. Just because its tradition doesnt mean its right. The guy was wrong when he invented the 'no result' draw.

"So I take it you believe that it's impossible for 2 teams to be of equal ability on a given day?"

Is that the excuse you use when your team draws with another? Its a poor one dude!!!:)

I meant that you DID say it would be exciting. You just took it the wrong way. For that your on my ignore list forever.

Just kidding. You wouldnt want to do that to me anyway. I bring balance to the force everywhere I go.

So, is this discussion now a draw?

Fire

13 Jun 2003, 17:35

They only react that way because thats all they can do in a draw. I've attended a game or two and know the feeling.

That goes for every result. Not many people get estatic when they lose, or get depressed after a good win. Really, there is only one feeling for each outcome. Ask a drawn team if they would have rather have won, and they will say yes. Ask them if they would have rather lost, then they would say no. Same with their fans. A draw isnt something to be happy over, its a feeling of neutrallity that is deeply confusing for all involved.
Its apart of the game, and always has been. I would hardly call it nothing though.

scmods

13 Jun 2003, 18:18

One thing for sure - a draw generates more discussion than a win or loss ever does.

gPhonque

13 Jun 2003, 23:36

Originally posted by Mark Rudd
"And you believe that reason outweighs 100 years of tradition?"

Who cares? I dont. Just because its tradition doesnt mean its right. The guy was wrong when he invented the 'no result' draw.

"So I take it you believe that it's impossible for 2 teams to be of equal ability on a given day?"

Is that the excuse you use when your team draws with another? Its a poor one dude!!!:)

I meant that you DID say it would be exciting. You just took it the wrong way. For that your on my ignore list forever.

Just kidding. You wouldnt want to do that to me anyway. I bring balance to the force everywhere I go.

So, is this discussion now a draw?

Why, would you like to play extra time?

No, I actually kicked your arse.

Interesting to note than now you know you've lost, you're calling for a draw. :D

Dan26

14 Jun 2003, 00:28

Originally posted by gPhonque
Why is it absurd?

Because we have extra time for the 8 preceding finals, but not the Grand Final. The Grand Final is just the next - and last - match of the finals series - bit like the final of a tennis tournament. If extra time is available for the Preliminary Final, it should also exist for the Grand Final. The rules aren't any different for the Wimbledon final, than they are for the semi-final.

Originally posted by gPhonque
Firstly, I'd prefer that there wasn't extra time in the finals as I believe (as I said in my earlier post) that it cheapens the game.

It doesn't cheapen the gamr at all. Instead of finding a winner over 80 minutes, we will find a winner over 90 minutes. Does having over-time in the NBA finals cheapen basketball? Of course not.

Originally posted by gPhonque
The LAST thing I and I'm sure every supporter in Australia (apart from you) want to see is our entire season come down to a tired battle between players who have really had enough for one day, and are certainly not in any state to produce a high quality end to the game/season.

Rubbish. When fans go to the Grand Final, they want to see the season decided. Ask them. Now.

And what's this crap about "not being in any state to produce a quality finish." How are the players going to be any different physically in over-time, compared to the last 10 minutes of the final quarter? In ANY close Grand Final, the players are going to be weary at the end of the game, anyway, whether it goes to over-time or not.

Originally posted by gPhonque
What happens if by the end of 'regulation time', one team has 4 injured players and the other team is injury free?

What happens if the game is replayed the next week, and one team has 4 injured players who can't play (meaning they can't play for an entire game as opposed to only missing 10 minutes of "over-time"), and the other team is injury free?

Originally posted by gPhonque
Surely that is completely unfair to the team with no fresh legs.

Surely repalying a game is unfair to the team who copped the worse share of injuries. It is also unfair on the players who would mentally not be prepared to play another Grand Final. The Grand Final is meant to be decided then and there. Any replay is an anti-climax. Look at the disappointing crowds for the two replayed Grand Finals in 1948 and 1977. The 1948 crowd was pathetic, and 1977 was 15,000 below capacity.

Originally posted by gPhonque
It's just ridiculous to even think about reducing the outcome of our season to a tired sloppy 20mins.

What is this verbal diarrhoea you are spekaing? Last years Grand Final was close, right? And it was close 20 minutes before the final siren, right? So, was it ridiculous reducing to outcome of last year's Grand Final to a tired, slopp 20 minutes? (which is what it came down to in the last 20 minutes of the game)

All we are doing is ensuring that Grand Final day produces a winner. It is terribly inconvenient for everyone, for the finals to be extended a week. It's a logistical nightmare for the AFL. The 10 minutes of over-time are essentially no different to the last 10 minutes of "normal time." Why, are you rubbishing the 10 minutes of over-time as "sloppy" when it's no different to the last 10 minutes of a close last quarter?

Like I said, I have no problem with draws in the H&A, but the AFL have made the correct decision in ensuring drawn finals have over-time. Idiotically, they decided that the rule is exempt for the Grand Final. If the AFL have decided in their wisdom that all other finals have over-time (and they have decided this), then it makes sense that the GF does too. It's not an argument for tradition - just one for common sense.

DaveW

14 Jun 2003, 00:34

Dan26

14 Jun 2003, 00:46

Originally posted by DaveW
Actually tennis is a poor analogy there. In most tennis tournaments drawn sets, i.e. 6-6 are decided by a tie breaker, except the fifth (or third) and deciding set where it must be won with a two game break. So for all but the most important set there is a quick and dirty way of breaking the deadlock, and the same goes for all but the most important AFL final.

The rules fo the finals are the same as for the semi-final. The rule states that the 5th set is played to advantage. This rule remains the same in the semi-final, and the final, and indeed throughout the tournament. The rule doesn't change just because we are playing the "final."

Tell me how the rules change in Tennis for the final, as opposed to the semi-final?

DaveW

14 Jun 2003, 01:03

Originally posted by Dan26
The rules fo the finals are the same as for the semi-final. The rule states that the 5th set is played to advantage. This rule remains the same in the semi-final, and the final, and indeed throughout the tournament. The rule doesn't change just because we are playing the "final."

But the way sets are decided is what changes. The deadlocked final set is decided differently to preceding deadlocked sets.
Tell me how the rules change in Tennis for the final, as opposed to the semi-final? In some grand slams the mens doubles semi finals (and the preceding rounds) are best-of-3 sets, whilst the final will be best-of-5 sets.

Dan26

14 Jun 2003, 01:13

Originally posted by DaveW
But the way sets are decided is what changes. The deadlocked final set is decided differently to preceding deadlocked sets.

But that's irrelevant, because the rules of the match are the same from match to match. How the ruels change within the match are not the issue.

Originally posted by DaveW

In some grand slams the mens doubles semi finals (and the preceding rounds) are best-of-3 sets, whilst the final will be best-of-5 sets.

You've got me there, but the reason that exists, is to give the maxiumum opportunity for the best teams to win (and best-of-5 does that more than best-of-3 obviously)

Drwans finals are different. The aim is to get a result. We want a result so we can move on to the next stage. The PF's and GF's are set dates, so the assumpton is that we will have a winner for each match of the finals. There is no reason why that rule should change for the Grand Final.

GIVEN that the AFL have decided that drawn finals in the first three weeks will go to over-time, give me one good reason why the Grand Final shouldn't follow suit? Fair enough, if the AFL decided that all finals are replayed - then we can see the logic of the Grand Final being replayed, because that would be the rule for all finals. But GIVEN that the other finals aren't replayed, please tell me why the Grand Final shouldn't have the same "over-time" rule? Surely if the GF is replayed, all other finals should be too?

gPhonque

14 Jun 2003, 01:25

Originally posted by Dan26
Because we have extra time for the 8 preceding finals, but not the Grand Final. The Grand Final is just the next - and last - match of the finals series - bit like the final of a tennis tournament. If extra time is available for the Preliminary Final, it should also exist for the Grand Final. The rules aren't any different for the Wimbledon final, than they are for the semi-final.

The difference Dan is that a tennis match is always won by somebody.

There is no such thing as a drawn tennis game.

The game of tennis does not allow for such a result.

Ours does.

It doesn't cheapen the gamr at all. Instead of finding a winner over 80 minutes, we will find a winner over 90 minutes. Does having over-time in the NBA finals cheapen basketball? Of course not.

A game of football is far more physical than basketball. Forcing players to play another 20mins when they're:

a) unprepared for it, and

b) already completely tired

...cheapens the game, in that we'd be deciding the champion of our season in circumstances that are completely foreign to the players.

Ask the coaches what they'd prefer.

I'd be fairly confident that they'd prefer the chance to prepare again during the week.

Rubbish. When fans go to the Grand Final, they want to see the season decided. Ask them. Now.

True, as do I, although I'm sure NONE of them would complain the next day when they realise there's another Grand Final on the following weekend.

No football follower would!

Would you?

Honestly?

Two Grand Finals in one year!

Thankyou very much. :)

And what's this crap about "not being in any state to produce a quality finish." How are the players going to be any different physically in over-time, compared to the last 10 minutes of the final quarter? In ANY close Grand Final, the players are going to be weary at the end of the game, anyway, whether it goes to over-time or not.

Again, players are used to playing 4 quarters of football, and 4 quarters only. Deciding the season in circumstances that are rarely if ever experienced by most players just does not make sense to me at all.

I consider a drawn Grand Final a treat for football fans.

And it's another rare and unique part of our game that I don't believe needs to change.

And it doesn't NEED to change.

What happens if the game is replayed the next week, and one team has 4 injured players who can't play (meaning they can't play for an entire game as opposed to only missing 10 minutes of "over-time"), and the other team is injury free?

Fair point.

Although a point that neither of us can win. :)

Surely repalying a game is unfair to the team who copped the worse share of injuries. It is also unfair on the players who would mentally not be prepared to play another Grand Final. The Grand Final is meant to be decided then and there. Any replay is an anti-climax. Look at the disappointing crowds for the two replayed Grand Finals in 1948 and 1977. The 1948 crowd was pathetic, and 1977 was 15,000 below capacity.

So 85,000 - 90,000 people is a disappointing crowd? (I don't recall the exact figure)

Give me a break.

And I don't see why it matters anyway?

It still has to be a money-maker for the AFL, and it gives the many supporters who missed out the first week a chance to get a ticket the following week. (I would like to think that there'd be a lot more general admissions tickets on sale the following week, although it wouldn't surprise me if it was another farce..... Does anybody know what would happen with tickets in such a scenario?)

What is this verbal diarrhoea you are spekaing? Last years Grand Final was close, right? And it was close 20 minutes before the final siren, right? So, was it ridiculous reducing to outcome of last year's Grand Final to a tired, slopp 20 minutes? (which is what it came down to in the last 20 minutes of the game)

A tired sloppy 20mins played within the regulation time.

All we are doing is ensuring that Grand Final day produces a winner. It is terribly inconvenient for everyone, for the finals to be extended a week. It's a logistical nightmare for the AFL. The 10 minutes of over-time are essentially no different to the last 10 minutes of "normal time." Why, are you rubbishing the 10 minutes of over-time as "sloppy" when it's no different to the last 10 minutes of a close last quarter?

It is completely different Dan.

The last 10mins of 'normal time' is not unexpected.

At least by replaying the game the following week, the two teams get another chance to prepare.

Like I said, I have no problem with draws in the H&A, but the AFL have made the correct decision in ensuring drawn finals have over-time. Idiotically, they decided that the rule is exempt for the Grand Final. If the AFL have decided in their wisdom that all other finals have over-time (and they have decided this), then it makes sense that the GF does too. It's not an argument for tradition - just one for common sense.

As I said, a game of football goes for 4 quarters.

Common sense would suggest that the deciding game of the season should be played under those rules.

Also, don't get me wrong - I believe extra time would be fantastic. The intensity would be unbelievable - but no more than any Grand Final.

In which case, you may as well just play another Grand Final.