I did find the answer in an AFL document years ago, but can't now. The closest I've got is The Age from 2005 (previously referenced in BigFooty). But I reckon your instinct is right, just like the 2010 Grand Final Replay they'd be whipping some sort of rule change through to avoid embarrassment.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Stats observations
- Thread starter red+black
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
I did find the answer in an AFL document years ago, but can't now. The closest I've got is The Age from 2005 (previously referenced in BigFooty). But I reckon your instinct is right, just like the 2010 Grand Final Replay they'd be whipping some sort of rule change through to avoid embarrassment.
SJ
Premium Platinum
Surely tossing a coin is fairer and would be more favourable to clubs than a mid-week scratch match.
Thanks for the link. The late Geoff McLure was usually reliable and he references an actual clause in the League's regulations.
Maybe the presidents of the two tied clubs could fight a duel instead of tossing a coin?
I don't expect to live long enough for regulation '2.5.3' to be used.
Only fair to the team that believed it was inferior to the other. Nothing 'fair' about chance in a competition that requires skill.
Would you rather Carter and McGuire toss a coin or Hawkins and Cloke each have 10 set shots at goal? (Well maybe Collingwood wouldn't nominate Cloke as their 'champion'.)
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
SJ
Premium Platinum
It's fair if the rules are known beforehand.
I could equally argue that there is nothing 'fair' about a penalty shootout in a competition to decide the best Australian Football team.
Hoffy95
Norm Smith Medallist
The solution the AFL will come up with is whatever makes the most money so would not be surprised to see something that involves a broadcast and spectators.
Deciding the result of a competition that requires skill by a chance outcome that requires no skill is neither fair nor just. Whether both parties knew beforehand makes no difference to the arrangements being fair or just in an absolute sense.
Imagine if matches tied at the end were given a result by the toss of a coin - including Grand Finals? How would that compare in fairness to awarding each team half the match-points, playing extra time or replaying the match?
In the case of a deadlock situation where a place in the finals is at stake any device used to break that deadlock that involves some skill would be seen to be more just and fair than any result determined by a random chance.
However given all that, it is interesting to note that electoral law allows in the case of votes being equal after a recount, that the winner will be decided by a 'draw out of hat'. (It has occurred).
Such things may date from a time when the outcome of chance events were believed to be subject to divine intervention and I suspect the League's 'toss of a coin' is predicated on a belief that it would never come to it.
Hawthorn so far this year have won 20 second quarters giving them a 2nd quarter/win percentage of 95.2%. (The only one lost was in the 4 quarter loss to Richmond.)
This is currently the highest for any quarter ever recorded.
Next best for a full season are:
Melbourne 1963 - 95.0% for the 3rd quarter (19-1)
Carlton 1919 - 94.1% for the 2nd quarter (16-1)
Essendon 1985 - 93.8% for the 1st quarter (22-1-1)
Now the 'Football Gods' have been alerted can the Hawks win all their remaining 2nd quarters?
This is currently the highest for any quarter ever recorded.
Next best for a full season are:
Melbourne 1963 - 95.0% for the 3rd quarter (19-1)
Carlton 1919 - 94.1% for the 2nd quarter (16-1)
Essendon 1985 - 93.8% for the 1st quarter (22-1-1)
Now the 'Football Gods' have been alerted can the Hawks win all their remaining 2nd quarters?
SJ
Premium Platinum
Well it is not the outcome of the competition, but merely a step towards deciding said outcome.
How is it any different to the toss of the coin before a football match? Or, even more singificantly, a cricket match?
In the scenario being discussed it is exactly the outcome of the competition to determine who plays in the finals and who has the opportunity to be premiers and who won't, that is being decided. That is, the situation were two teams are equal 8th - equal 4th would be much less significant and equal 5th less so again. Season ends - season continues to be decided by chance or an opportunity to best your opponent in a contest that you had some control over?
The toss of the coin at the start of the match doesn't determine the outcome of the match - if you are better than your opponent you will win the match regardless of who kicked to which end first, otherwise the whole season could be decided by coin tosses.
Unfortunately the chance of any of this coming to pass is so remote that we shouldn't expend anymore effort on it.
Meanwhile: The 1940 world was completely unaware of the round 4 situation as Essendon had an extra point in their 'against column' from round 4 and it stayed uncorrected for the whole season. So there was no discussion of what would be done it this situation existed after the final round of matches and 4th place was equal between two teams. (Interestingly in 1940, Essendon and Richmond both ended on 12 wins and both conceded 1,489 points but Richmond scored 176 more points than Essendon.
From memory....the Victorian Senate was tied in the 1985 State election, and Peter Batchelor i think was actually awarded his senate seat by i'm sure a draw out of a hat. Pretty sure this was challenged and it may have led to the Nunawading by-election issue that clouded Peter's political career for the next several years. Pretty certain the Liberals won the replayed election for that seat in '85. That's just going from my memory as an interested 17 y/o back then.
He played 16 minutes of the game only, but Travis Varcoe sang the Geelong theme song for the 88th time in his 101 games. Having missed the season so far and missing Geelong's seven defeats so far, he'd be well on top of the tree for current win percentage for 100+ games now. Still that pesky Clyde Laidlaw will be hard to match!
Actually Varcoe's the 3rd best percentage of all going by this link...http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/alltime/misc_players.html
Geelong and Collingwood having a few losses each this season has taken a little of the starch out of some of those 80+ percent records as at the end of 2011. Plenty of current Pies, Cats and the odd Hawk and Saint in those lists.
Actually Varcoe's the 3rd best percentage of all going by this link...http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/alltime/misc_players.html
Geelong and Collingwood having a few losses each this season has taken a little of the starch out of some of those 80+ percent records as at the end of 2011. Plenty of current Pies, Cats and the odd Hawk and Saint in those lists.
Most 90+ point margins in a season:
Code:
% Gms Year Gms 90+
------------------
10.58 2012 189 20
8.28 1993 157 13
8.14 1991 172 14
8.13 1987 160 13
8.11 1996 185 15
7.65 2011 196 15
7.35 1971 136 10
7.25 1985 138 10
6.98 1992 172 12
6.52 1982 138 9
6.52 1983 138 9
6.49 2000 185 12
5.80 1899 69 4
5.80 1979 138 8
5.80 1981 138 8
5.80 1986 138 8
5.63 1989 160 9
- Thread starter
- #1,989
They say that a team shouldn't peak too early, that you should improve as the season goes and peak leading into the finals. What better example than a team that rises to top spot for the first time in the last or 2nd last round of the season. Below are such teams and how they fared in finals. 12 instances for just 4 premierships, only 2 of which (Richmond) were not by the Minor Premiers right to challenge via the Argus System. In relatively recent times, teams are more likely to not even make the grand final. What fate will befall upon Hawthorn?
Code:
2012 - Hawthorn
2005 - Adelaide (3rd)
1997 - St Kilda (runner up)
1994 - Carlton (5th)
1980 - Geelong (3rd)
1969 - Collingwood (3rd)
1967 - Richmond (premiers)
1949 - North Melbourne (3rd)
1943 - Richmond (premiers)
1930 - Collingwood (premiers in challenge)
1922 - Collingwood (runner up)
1919 - Collingwood (premiers in challenge)
1897 - Geelong (2nd, no grand final)See Myth of the Minor Premiers for information on why the term "challenge" from 1905 does not apply.
That it is believed that it still existed after 1904, is the result of inadequate research done around 25 years ago in explaining past finals systems, that missed vital events.
May also be of interest:
Too Long at the Top? The apparently most successful team leading up to the finals is often not ultimately successful.
Match points of finalists - 22 round seasons (1970-1992, 1994-2011)
% is the percentage of the 259 finals positions.
- Thread starter
- #1,993
Great read, but I think it's merely semantics. Whether you call it a double chance or right to challenge etc, the result is the same. The system was arguably flawed and thankfully common sense finally prevailed. Same goes for the original McIntyre Final 8 system, which while having some definite positives, had some negatives which greatly outweighed those positives. Hence, the AFL saw the light and changed to the revised McIntyre Final 8 system, as did the NRL this year (that's not to say that the current system is absolutely flawless).
The fact that Richmond refused to exercise their right to challenge and not play the grand final against Nth Melbourne, absolutely made it not just a matter of semantics. Henceforth both the VFA and VFL removed the possibility of the 'right' being chosen to be not exercised and made it mandatory for the top team to play again if beaten.
The Argus system was changed in 1931 to the McIntyre system not because it was thought to be unfair - most agreed that the advantage given to the most successful team of the first round of matches was fair, but because it didn't guarantee a 4th or 'grand final'. Even not for profit organizations have to cover costs and the extra revenue from a 4th final each year was welcomed by all. There was too the consideration that the conspiracy minded of the time (they are always with us) believed that the top team would 'throw' a final under the Argus system so that they could get a share of the revenue from a grand final. No actual evidence for that ever came to light.
There were some however who thought it unfair that the top team would have no actual advantage over the 2nd team anymore.
For those who may not know, Ken McIntrye was a university student at the time he came up with his finals system in 1930. He approached one of Richmond's delegates to the League, Percy Page who became its sponsor and presented it to the League, which is why it is sometimes referred to as the Page-McIntrye system. It was a time when football followers could approach a club delegate to the League and have their ideas about improving the game considered.
Some more info on McIntyre here (including a pic in his student days).
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Thread starter
- #1,995
@RogersResults Some corrections to The "Minor" Premiership article on The Myth of the "Minor Premiers":
"right to challenge" -> "right of challenge"
"Minor Premiers" -> "Minor premiers"
an thus had -> and thus had
on such a day or days -> on such day or days
shall be the winner". -> shall be the winner."
And for the Right to Challenge article:
and bought about the -> and brought about the
"right to challenge" -> "right of challenge"
"Minor Premiers" -> "Minor premiers"
an thus had -> and thus had
on such a day or days -> on such day or days
shall be the winner". -> shall be the winner."
And for the Right to Challenge article:
and bought about the -> and brought about the
RedmanWasHere
Rarely in kitchens at parties.
- Aug 23, 2010
- 30,575
- 37,863
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Exers, Gryffindor, Rich+Ess AFLW, Tassie
With Mark McVeigh's retirement and if he plays on next year, Dustin Fletcher will be the last Essendon player of the '90's.
- Thread starter
- #1,997
Assuming Fletcher plays on in 2013, he will become the 9th oldest player to play VFL/AFL.
If Fletcher can play in 10 wins next year, he jumps from 8th to 4th for most wins ever played.
Possibly surprising. Dustin Fletcher has played forever it seems, but Paul Salmon played for longer.
If Fletcher can play in 10 wins next year, he jumps from 8th to 4th for most wins ever played.
Possibly surprising. Dustin Fletcher has played forever it seems, but Paul Salmon played for longer.
I think if he plays in the final round on Friday he'll be 10th, just ahead of Michael Tuck. On Saturday he'd be equal 9th, and Sunday, outright 9th. If he played in a preliminary final, he'd be 8th.
However by the absolute measure of calendar days since birth, he'd be outright 9th even if Essendon played on the Friday, due to the effect of leap years.
i.e. Teddy Rankin 38y106d at last game, 13984 days since birth; Fletcher 38y106d on Friday in R22 2013, 13985 days since birth.
- Thread starter
- #1,999
Are you saying the figures below are wrong? Has Fletcher at 17th oldest.
http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/alltime/misc_players.html#06
http://stats.rleague.com/afl/stats/alltime/misc_players.html#06
No, sorry. I'm talking about the scenario for 2013, if he plays on.
