No Behind Posts in AFL?

[BillyBrainless]

Thought about this again watching the Super Bowl and why it is that the AFL has the consolation prize of behind posts.

Would our game be any less if you were still awarded a point if the ball was touched over the goal line but there were no behind posts?

There's something about having just the one goal area (NFL, rugby, soccer) that looks better, as un-patriotic as that sounds.

 

[faible]

Thought about this again watching the Super Bowl and why it is that the AFL has the consolation prize of behind posts.

Would our game be any less if you were still awarded a point if the ball was touched over the goal line but there were no behind posts?

There's something about having just the one goal area (NFL, rugby, soccer) that looks better, as un-patriotic as that sounds.

Then why would you bother to score goals as 6 points. Just call them goals.

Then why allow the ball to just go through at any height. Add a cross bar.

Removing the point posts would completely change the game, not for the better.

 

[74561347]

Thought about this again watching the Super Bowl and why it is that the AFL has the consolation prize of behind posts.

Would our game be any less if you were still awarded a point if the ball was touched over the goal line but there were no behind posts?

There's something about having just the one goal area (NFL, rugby, soccer) that looks better, as un-patriotic as that sounds.

i cant wait to see who wins the other superbowl and plays new engand in the super duper bowl

 

[Milanista28]

More like super bowel guys...

 

[faible]

i cant wait to see who wins the other superbowl and plays new engand in the super duper bowl

West Coast vs Patriots you think?

Who would be QB for the Eagles I wonder. Gronkowski at FF would be a handful.

 

[Gralin]

Thought about this again watching the Super Bowl and why it is that the AFL has the consolation prize of behind posts.

Would our game be any less if you were still awarded a point if the ball was touched over the goal line but there were no behind posts?

There's something about having just the one goal area (NFL, rugby, soccer) that looks better, as un-patriotic as that sounds.

so for aesthetic purposes when looking at the goals you would prefer to completely change the game?

 

[basashi]

Thought about this again watching the Super Bowl and why it is that the AFL has the consolation prize of behind posts.

Would our game be any less if you were still awarded a point if the ball was touched over the goal line but there were no behind posts?

There's something about having just the one goal area (NFL, rugby, soccer) that looks better, as un-patriotic as that sounds.

If you were doing it in the AFL you would have to do it in all Aussie rules games.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Think the OP's BF name sums up this thread

 

[Dazzler9]

Thought about this again watching the Super Bowl and why it is that the AFL has the consolation prize of behind posts.

Would our game be any less if you were still awarded a point if the ball was touched over the goal line but there were no behind posts?

There's something about having just the one goal area (NFL, rugby, soccer) that looks better, as un-patriotic as that sounds.

Having behinds has the benefit of drastically reducing the number of draws in the game. e.g. the most recent Grand Final would have been a draw with each side kicking 11 goals.
So in those games where the number of goals is equal, you can argue that the dominant team won. i.e. the team with the highest number of scoring shots. This is something that a sport like soccer, for example, struggles with.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Off the top of my head I think if you removed the behind posts you'd see a lot more chipping the ball around in the forward line trying to get the perfect shot on goal like in water polo. The behind posts, and the fact it doesn't go back to the centre, encourage aggressively making shots on goal rather than hedging your bets.

 

[AmericanAFL]

Thought about this again watching the Super Bowl and why it is that the AFL has the consolation prize of behind posts.

Would our game be any less if you were still awarded a point if the ball was touched over the goal line but there were no behind posts?

There's something about having just the one goal area (NFL, rugby, soccer) that looks better, as un-patriotic as that sounds.

What if the minor scores was increased in score? Goals were 12 points and behinds were 3??

 

[Wedge McManus]

What a great sport this is booting a bit of leather through some sticks in the ground. Deadset.... Can't wait for the next scandal from the AFL. Perfect sport for Neanderthals. Cricket is a gentlemans game that requires skill and hardwork. AFL requires long legs and no brains. Discuss

 

[BillyBrainless]

My issue is that when you watch other sports around the world, you're reminded of how we seem to be the only one that rewards failure.

A kicker has to make the field goal to win the game. The shooter has to make the free throw. The striker has to make the penalty shot. Tony Lockett can miss the goal and still send the Swans into a Grand Final. Doesn't seem right or consistent.

If you had 6 points for a goal and 1 point for touched over the line you would still reward accuracy whilst avoiding the issue of too many even scores at the end of a game.

 

[Richard Pryor]

My issue is that when you watch other sports around the world, you're reminded of how we seem to be the only one that rewards failure.

A kicker has to make the field goal to win the game. The shooter has to make the free throw. The striker has to make the penalty shot. Tony Lockett can miss the goal and still send the Swans into a Grand Final. Doesn't seem right or consistent.

If you had 6 points for a goal and 1 point for touched over the line you would still reward accuracy whilst avoiding the issue of too many even scores at the end of a game.

Think of it less as a reward for failure and more as an incentive for risky exciting play.

 

[theyellowsash]

This idea of 'rewarding failure' is the most ****ing ******ed idiotic shit ever spouted.

A behind is a reward for getting the ball over the line. A goal is a higher reward for getting it through a smaller area.

Plus, games like gaelic have the same type of thing. I guess cricketers should only score if they hit a 6, anything else is a failure. Same with baseball. We can also remove all the scores that aren't a bullseye from darts, and you only score in bowls if you are touching the Jack. In basketball you can only score from beyond the d, scoring 2 is just failing to score 3. Remove the field goal from rugby, why should we reward a team for failing to get it past the line.

Billy brainless is clearly trolling but the fact that some people genuinely believe that crap is worrying. Those people get to vote and raise children.

 

[Leeda]

Thought about this again watching the Super Bowl and why it is that the AFL has the consolation prize of behind posts.

Would our game be any less if you were still awarded a point if the ball was touched over the goal line but there were no behind posts?

There's something about having just the one goal area (NFL, rugby, soccer) that looks better, as un-patriotic as that sounds.

no it is kind of special to have both goals and therefore goal sneaks... don't water down the actual level of AFL that we like...
keep the ball going between the four goal posts... dude you aren't thinking straight...

 

[Leeda]

This idea of 'rewarding failure' is the most ******* ******ed idiotic shit ever spouted.


Billy brainless is clearly trolling but the fact that some people genuinely believe that crap is worrying. Those people get to vote and raise children.

the bold is crazy and I defend the right to tell you are crackers...

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

My issue is that when you watch other sports around the world, you're reminded of how we seem to be the only one that rewards failure.

A kicker has to make the field goal to win the game. The shooter has to make the free throw. The striker has to make the penalty shot. Tony Lockett can miss the goal and still send the Swans into a Grand Final. Doesn't seem right or consistent.

If you had 6 points for a goal and 1 point for touched over the line you would still reward accuracy whilst avoiding the issue of too many even scores at the end of a game.

Well, archery and shooting you still get points if you miss the bullseye.

American Football and the Rugbies, the aim is to get the ball over the line. If you aren't good enough, you can go for the consolation field goal for less points.

Having a lesser score isn't unique to Australian Football. If we'd grown up without it, we'd be fine with the extra draws. We've grown up with it and its long been part of our game.

 

[OffTheBit]

Yeah, there was nothing exciting about a 1 point game anyway (or anything <6 points)

 

[Gralin]

My issue is that when you watch other sports around the world, you're reminded of how we seem to be the only one that rewards failure.

A kicker has to make the field goal to win the game. The shooter has to make the free throw. The striker has to make the penalty shot. Tony Lockett can miss the goal and still send the Swans into a Grand Final. Doesn't seem right or consistent.

If you had 6 points for a goal and 1 point for touched over the line you would still reward accuracy whilst avoiding the issue of too many even scores at the end of a game.

and basketball has one hoop and 3 different scores for getting a ball through the hoop
Gaelic has 2 scoring options

cricket has multiple scoring options

rugby and NFL have multiple scoring options

AFL has multiple scoring options

hockey and soccer don't

tennis and volleyball don't

netball doesn't

you know what is great?

not trying to make every sport the same

 

[LordLucifer]

Thought about this again watching the Super Bowl and why it is that the AFL has the consolation prize of behind posts.

Would our game be any less if you were still awarded a point if the ball was touched over the goal line but there were no behind posts?

There's something about having just the one goal area (NFL, rugby, soccer) that looks better, as un-patriotic as that sounds.

Username is "Billy Brainless", you said it !!!

 

[The Passenger]

Not quite the same, but not massively dissimilar. If it were the 1800s and I was drawing up the rules with Tom Wills, I'd suggest the method of deciding the winner be 1) most goals then 2) most behinds.

The vast majority of results would be the same, but 18.10 would beat 17.19. A draw only occurs when both goals and behinds are the same, and you wouldn't calculate or display a total score as it would be superfluous.

But that's not how it was decided to be done, and I don't feel close to passionately enough about it to think they should change the scoring system of the last 120+ years. So carry on.

 

[HTT]

Not quite the same, but not massively dissimilar. If it were the 1800s and I was drawing up the rules with Tom Wills, I'd suggest the method of deciding the winner be 1) most goals then 2) most behinds.

The vast majority of results would be the same, but 18.10 would beat 17.19. A draw only occurs when both goals and behinds are the same, and you wouldn't calculate or display a total score as it would be superfluous.

But that's not how it was decided to be done, and I don't feel close to passionately enough about it to think they should change the scoring system of the last 120+ years. So carry on.

That's how it was (kind of) pre VFL. Goals and behinds were recorded but only goals counted towards the result - though behinds aren't used as a tiebreak as you suggest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1896_VFA_season
(yes I did just source wikipedia)

 

[HTT]

My issue is that when you watch other sports around the world, you're reminded of how we seem to be the only one that rewards failure.

A kicker has to make the field goal to win the game. The shooter has to make the free throw. The striker has to make the penalty shot. Tony Lockett can miss the goal and still send the Swans into a Grand Final. Doesn't seem right or consistent.

If you had 6 points for a goal and 1 point for touched over the line you would still reward accuracy whilst avoiding the issue of too many even scores at the end of a game.

Except Lockett didn't miss. He 'made' a behind. In archery, the archer doesn't have to hit the bullseye.

 

[oak79]

Personally I have no issue with the behind post - it what other game do people score goals from 60m out ?

I would scrap the touched rule though - who cares it if touched or not? If it goes through from a kick it's 6 points. Rushed (including attacking team) via spoil, handball, defender kick etc is still 1 point. Would take a lot of the grey area away from umpiring decisions.

And if it hits the post and goes in, it should be a goal - if it doesnt its play on.