Finals Question

[Bomber]

I am just wondering:
say 4th gets beaten by 1st, they play the winner of either 5th v 8th or 6th v 7th (I dont know which one but it is irrelevant)

say for arguments sake it is 5th - and 5th is an interstate side. Does that mean that 4th must then go interstate, being a loser, against an interstate team who won?

Gee I hope this isnt the case, but I was just wondering.

 

[Jaffa]

No.

The only time teams in the bottom 4 get a home final is in week 1.

 

[Dan26]

Bomber.

The loser of 1st vs 4th hosts the winner of 5th vs 8th.

If 1st lost to 8th LAST YEAR they would have to travel agaisnt their opponent in the second week. If 1st lost to 8th last year they would have been drawn to play the 3rd-highest-ranked-winner, and the 3rd highest ranked winner would host that match.

That is perfectly fair by the way. This year its different, becasue thet op 4 play each other, so one of them has to lose !!! You can't blame the loser of 1st vs 4th for losing, becasue they are playing each other and one of the tham HAS to lose. So, therfore, they get a "home" final agaisnt, say, 5th.

Last year, if 1st lost to 8th, they had every opportunity to beat 8th. It's not like they were playing another top 4 side is it ? It's not as if, they are drawn to play another top side and one of them has to lose.

In fact, last year, becasue the top 4 were drawn to lay the bottom 4, the top 4 all had the opportunity to win, so if the muffed that opportunity, they give up their home ground advantage.......and rightly so.

In 1997, Geelong DESERVED to travel to Adelaide, even though Geelong finished 2nd. The Cats played 7th in the first week, and the top 4 teasm had every opportunity to win, so if they stuffed it up, they give up their home ground advantage.

This year, becasue 2nd will play 3rd, and 1st will play 4th it is unfair to make the loser travel in week two, becasue the only reason they lost was becasue they were playing another top team.

That's the logic. And quite sensible logic it is too.

To all those Cats fans, you DESERVED to travel to Adelaide in week two in 1997, as that shows.

 

[Grave Danger]

But of course the stupid MCG finals contract can stuff up where finals SHOULD be played, in favour of Victorian teams.

 

[Bomber]

Thanks Dan and Jaffa.

Yes, this system makes sense that top 4 get the home final even after they lose. I brought this up as I was having a discussion with a friend who told me to beware of Adelaide and Brisbane, because if they finish 5th or 6th they will get home finals which will take them to the prelim.

We didnt know the rule, so thats why I asked.

Phew - I was scared it was gonna be a farcacle top 8 should the bottom 4 sides ever get a home final after week one.

 

[Dan26]

Bomber,

Yes, but remember, under LAST years system, it was perfectly fair for 8th to HOST a home final in the second week, if they were to beat 1st in the first week. That was the rule.

Under this yeas system it is different, becasue the only reason the top 4 will lose is becasue they play each other !!! Can't really blame them for losing, can we !!

But under last years system, the top 4 had evey opportunity, so if 7th and 8th were to cause upsets in the first week over 1st and 2nd, then 7th and 8th would get a home final the next week

Deservedly so.

 

[Grave Danger]

And if you were a Victorian club, you could even lose in week one and then get a home final the next week againt a winning team which finished higher than you! It's known as the "It's really still the VFL" rule.

 

[sainter]

It could also be known as the rule that every Victorian person AND the AFL knew was unfair but that the contract had been signed and the MCC did not want to change.

 

[dons_r_tops]

Grave Danger, That Unfair Rule Turned The MCG From A Second Class Ground into A World Class Stadium, And 1 Final Per Week Is a Small Price To Pay For Having Such A Great Ground and Seating, Unlike the WACA which After The Current Contract Runs out Should never have a game again except westar, The Conditions were terrible last night and the game wasn't much better.

 

[Dan26]

Dons are tops,

Don't try and defend that rule. It's a f*cking stupid rule and you know it.

Has it occured to you that even if that contract was never made, the MCG would still host on average 5-6 finals a year anyway. Given that this is the case, why the f*ck would the AFL make a contract to play minimum one final week at the MCG ? They're stupid.

If they were to make a contract, they at least should have made it so they play minimun 4 finals, but not necessarily one in each week. For example 2 in the first week, NONE in the second, one in the third, and one in the 4th.

But they don't even need to do that. We all know that there doesn't need to be a contact. 5-6, possibly even 7 or 8 finals per year will be scheduled at the MCG, regardless of any contract.

West Coast got an unfair deal in both 1996 and 1999.

Don't ever try and defend that stupid contract.

 

[servo]

Wasn't that contract made during the VFL days?

It would have been fair enough for every one then. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

As a Crows supporter I won't complain too loudly about it. It did,'t seem to hinder us much.