A final drawn after extra time: a footy disaster waiting to happen

[Rotayjay]

Big screen not needed. If the siren goes when you are in front you win, but yes it would be weird not knowing straight away, would be a 2 or 3 second delay until siren sounded.

Might be a bit of a 'double cheer' if that happens. Makes me think of the 2005 granny. Barry takes the mark, prompting a roar of delight from the Swans fans. A few seconds pass, the siren blows and a bigger roar erupts.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Lol that is a completely arbitrary decision you are making.

Once again - 1966 grand final - such a an anti-climax - should have gone to ET.

Thought you meant the 96 prelim my bad. Arbitrary or not doesn't take away the optics ................. what's better ET until a determined winner or a golden point anti climax? Seems an argument for both.

 

[Rob]

So why exactly would we not just play another 5 minutes each way?

You really think Channel 7 would object to having 4 million people watching for 15 minutes more?

 

[STFU Donnie]

if a grand final is drawn, the game becomes a WWE match and a big melee erupts in the center square

A Royal Rumble. Outstanding!

 

[kranky al]

I'm tippin the golden point will be removed for one very important reason: rushed behind. - this is not the way to win it IMO.

Ideally ET is played until a winner is determined, however I fear it will go to golden goal.

Imagine a big rugby maul forming with the team closest to their goal just hammering in just trying to push a ball carrier over the line

 

[Dirty Bird]

I thought I’d posted about this before but perhaps not.

Its been raised again in the aftermath of the Cricket World Cup Final debacle.

If an AFL final (including a grand final) is drawn, extra time is played - five minutes, plus time on, each way.

However, if the game is tied after extra time... the game switches to golden point. Next score wins.

The problem: there is, specifically in the rules, NO siren sounded if this happens. Play simply continues in the second half of extra time until somebody scores.

With nobody any the wiser.

What the actual fu**?

Possibly the most important game of the year, the game changes fundamentally from regular scoring to golden point... and there’s NO official notice given to anybody that it’s happened? What on earth?

Scoreboard clocks count up.

What possible reason could there be for this?

If it is to be decided this way then for god’s sake... blow the siren, take it back to the centre, bounce the ball, next score wins.

The other thing is.
The goal umpires are the official score keepers.
Whereas the timekeeper keeps time.
So it is possible for a team to be 1 point up.
But the scoreboard attendant and timekeeper missed a score.
Extra time continues based on the assumption it’s tied.
Where in fact one team may have one.

Very small risk at afl level, but a possibility in state level and very real possibility in local footy.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

So why exactly would we not just play another 5 minutes each way?

You really think Channel 7 would object to having 4 million people watching for 15 minutes more?

One of Gil’s 5yo kids def came up with this setup.

It’s madness and makes zero sense on any level.

 

[iluvparis]

Imagine a big rugby maul forming with the team closest to their goal just hammering in just trying to push a ball carrier over the line

Err wut? It's a ball up in AFL if a ball is trapped to a player and he can't dispose of it.

 

[Dazzler9]

HAS to go back to centre, otherwise team with ball in forward line has an unfair advantage. ANd it should be first goal.

HAS to go back to centre, otherwise team with ball in forward line has an unfair advantage. Absolutely agree. Why would you not just blow the siren, ffs? This has Gil and Hocking all over it.

ANd it should be first goal. I disagree. It needs to be first to 6 points. Imagine if one side kicks 7 straight behinds, turns it over, then their opponent kicks a goal. The first team would have a higher score, but lose.

 

[kranky al]

Err wut? It's a ball up in AFL if a ball is trapped to a player and he can't dispose of it.

Im not talking about a 10 second job - im talking about a couple of seconds where the ball is in dispute - where the players push and maul them over the line

 

[basashi]

If scores are equal then give the win to whichever team hit that score first.

That means that you have to get in front of the leading team, not match them.

 

[HTT]

If scores are equal then give the win to whichever team hit that score first.

That means that you have to get in front of the leading team, not match them.

This sounds like a cricket World Cup waiting to happen
Drawn at final siren
Drawn after extra time
Win awarded... on countback?

 

[basashi]

This sounds like a cricket World Cup waiting to happen
Drawn at final siren
Drawn after extra time
Win awarded... on countback?

Well no, it would be more clear than that. EG Coll 68/ StK 67.... Saints have to get two behinds to take the lead. If they only get one it is:

Coll 68+ victors over StK 68

 

[basashi]

1977 NM win 76+ to Coll 76

 

[Dazzler9]

If scores are equal then give the win to whichever team hit that score first.

That means that you have to get in front of the leading team, not match them.

Is that you Gil?

 

[Dazzler9]

Well no, it would be more clear than that. EG Coll 68/ StK 67.... Saints have to get two behinds to take the lead. If they only get one it is:

Coll 68+ victors over StK 68

Is that you Hocking?

 

[basashi]

It rewards faster scoring, its live, its obvious, its indisputable, its fair....

FFS two teams can't score a the same time. Its the clearest thing possible.

 

[HTT]

Well no, it would be more clear than that. EG Coll 68/ StK 67.... Saints have to get two behinds to take the lead. If they only get one it is:

Coll 68+ victors over StK 68

You can do the exact same thing with the CWC rule. England 241+ def NZ 241
Doesn’t change that a team won without achieving the fundamental definition of a win - scoring more than the opposition.

 

[kranky al]

Golden goal fwaaark winning by a point under that scenario

 

[basashi]

You can do the exact same thing with the CWC rule. England 241+ def NZ 241
Doesn’t change that a team won without achieving the fundamental definition of a win - scoring more than the opposition.

A keen eye would notice the cricket teams are not batting at the same time

 

[HTT]

A keen eye would notice the cricket teams are not batting at the same time

The + clearly shows that England had more boundaries, as per the rule.
It’s just silliness.

 

[basashi]

The + clearly shows that England had more boundaries, as per the rule.
It’s just silliness.

the boundaries thing is a countback. many people watching wouldn't know. its not a valid comparison

 

[HTT]

the boundaries thing is a countback. many people watching wouldn't know. its not a valid comparison

It’s got the same fundamental issue as your idea.
The team that wins needs to score more points.

 

[Dazzler9]

The deciding of the CWC was sh!t. It was a tie, ffs. Doing the same thing in the GF would be disastrous.

 

[basashi]

It’s got the same fundamental issue as your idea.
The team that wins needs to score more points.

the issues are completely different.

the drawback is that both teams have scored the same - fine.

but its completely clear to everyone there including players. no countback, no extra time. nothing vague or unfair.

i am not even a big supportr of this idea - its only a half assed suggestion. but the faults you find with it are not that valid