The Decagon should replace the Oval as the shape for an Aussie Rules ground.

[vjknight]

douggie hawkins is drooling at the prospect.

 

[skipjack]

Does the OP realise that a decagon with the goals across the flat sides would make the ground wider than it is long?

mathslol.

 

[Wallaby]

I actually think the shape of the ground (whatever it is) is a restriction on the players ability to freely express their personality through their performances.
Players should be free to run in any direction they want, kick wherever and whenever, score goals however they choose. In this way, Football becomes a performance art, enabling the game to cast reflection on man's struggle in the post-modern era.

 

[Lord_Flashheart]

I actually think the shape of the ground (whatever it is) is a restriction on the players ability to freely express their personality through their performances.
Players should be free to run in any direction they want, kick wherever and whenever, score goals however they choose. In this way, Football becomes a performance art, enabling the game to cast reflection on man's struggle in the post-modern era.

Agreed, we haven't seen any performance art since Matthew lloyd hung up the boots

 

[jerry springer]

dont feed the troll

 

[HSSB]

what is this i don't even

 

[Kanga man]

Introducing...

That's right players, an icosihenagon. 21 glorious sides of unpredictability (I'll see your 144 deg. inside angle, and raise you 24.2 deg.). After all, who said our game's dimensions had to be even?

21 is a figure that resonates with us all. It's the age where men traditionally celebrate their entry into manhood. And footy is a man's game (or used to be anyway).

Furthermore, 21 grams is purportedly the weight lost when our soul leaves the body after death. The spirit leaving for the afterlife, as it were. This only reinforces my opinion that going to the footy is a spiritual experience.

It's also the number of a winning hand in blackjack. AFL footballers have a high disposable income and love to gamble. Just ask Ox, Fev or Goodwin.

Lastly (and this is the clincher I think), 21 is 9 more than 12, and a whopping 11 more than 10. Hell it's even 13 more than 8. If an icosihenagon was adopted as AFL standard it would make the sport 2.625 times better than MMA.

21 offers some uniquness, but it could create more problems than it solves. For instance, it is an odd number, which complicates the angles, and makes it harder for commenatators to work out quickly, where and how far out a player is without doing a quick calculation. 21 is also the sum of the first six natural numbers (1+2+3+4+5+6=21).

If you are going to go down this controversial route, why not just have it at 20?

20, is double 10, so it offers some consistency with the original decagon proposal.

But 20, also has some distinctly human qualities. All of the satellites and Voyager probes that have left Earth have been marked with symbols and so forth, in case they are one day found by an intelligent civilization. One of the things they are marked with is 20 markings. Why 20?

Well, the number of proteinogenic amino acids that are encoded by the standard genetic code is exactly 20. If there is intelligent life out there, it is likely they know the significance of this number as they too, would have have discovered that there are 20 amino acids used in cellular life.

20, is on some ways the most significant number in the Universe.

Now I'm not suggesting we use a 20-sided icosagon, but I think it should be considered. A 20-sided icosogan was also the shape used for the wheel on the Price is Right. So, unlike your 21-sided proposal, the 20 sided icosagon HAS been used before on TV and it works.

 

[Listed]

Silly thread, should be a triangle

And how do you suppose you make it even? BAM, a third team plays

Imagine the Collingwood V Carlton V Essendon crowds

This idea has potential. Should trial in the NAB cup.

 

[WCErevival]

a decahedron would be much better

you set up a 3D cage with an anti gravity machine meaning players float all around

 

[The Teacher]

No.

Dicko

 

[Amber Guzzler]

That's not the same polyhedron, A decahedron has 10 sides, a dodecahedron has 12.

BTW, the colour changing image above isn't a decahedron either, it's a icosahedron.

 

[ParaBellum]

I think the AFL rules committee's best strategy for combatting Collingwood's ugly 'boundary clinging" style of football is to introduce an epitrochoid shaped ground.

They may have to reduce some of the Gold Coast and GWS marketing budget to provide spirograph sets to all the ground curators.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

I think the AFL rules committee's best strategy for combatting Collingwood's ugly 'boundary clinging" style of football is to introduce an epitrochoid shaped ground.

They may have to reduce some of the Gold Coast and GWS marketing budget to provide spirograph sets to all the ground curators.

How about a fractal shaped boundary line, with an infinite length. Let's make those boundary umps earn their keep.

 

[Timmy Houlihan]

Subscribed

 

[ParaBellum]

How about a fractal shaped boundary line, with an infinite length. Let's make those boundary umps earn their keep.

I thought about basing it on the Mandlebrot set, but how would you enforce interchange infringements.

[youtube]G_GBwuYuOOs[/youtube]

 

[Amber Guzzler]

I thought about basing it on the Mandlebrot set, but how would you enforce interchange infringements.

[youtube]G_GBwuYuOOs[/youtube]

Same way they're done now. Pick a number between 1 and 10...

 

[Glorious couch life]

21 offers some uniquness, but it could create more problems than it solves. For instance, it is an odd number, which complicates the angles, and makes it harder for commenatators to work out quickly, where and how far out a player is without doing a quick calculation. 21 is also the sum of the first six natural numbers (1+2+3+4+5+6=21).

If you are going to go down this controversial route, why not just have it at 20?

20, is double 10, so it offers some consistency with the original decagon proposal.

But 20, also has some distinctly human qualities. All of the satellites and Voyager probes that have left Earth have been marked with symbols and so forth, in case they are one day found by an intelligent civilization. One of the things they are marked with is 20 markings. Why 20?

Well, the number of proteinogenic amino acids that are encoded by the standard genetic code is exactly 20. If there is intelligent life out there, it is likely they know the significance of this number as they too, would have have discovered that there are 20 amino acids used in cellular life.

20, is on some ways the most significant number in the Universe.

Now I'm not suggesting we use a 20-sided icosagon, but I think it should be considered. A 20-sided icosogan was also the shape used for the wheel on the Price is Right. So, unlike your 21-sided proposal, the 20 sided icosagon HAS been used before on TV and it works.

These are all valid points Kanga, and I find the argument for an icosogan quite compelling. Channel 7/10 could even draft Larry Emdur in as a special comments man, and to aid the other commentators during the tricky transitional period.

However the icosikaihenagon is not without symmetry itself.

The Number 21 factors as:

21 = 3 x 7

The Numbers 3 and 7 are a kind of division of Unity in the sense of 10 = 3 + 7. They play an essential role in Creation. Most notably in the value of Genesis 1.1:

Sum Genesis 1.1 = 2701 = 37 x 73

The Number 2701 is the 73rd Triangular Number, and both 37 and 73 are prime. In fact, they are palindromic primes.

Therefore, if we build the icosikaihenagon our footy arenas would become legitimate places of worship, as well as screaming parochialism. We could do away with churches forever. How awesome would it be to get married at the footy, catered by four 'n' twenty and carlton draught!?

Oh and forgive my churlishness, but 21 is one more than 20.

 

[stmookeyj]

Where's the support for the trapezoid when you need it?

 

[Amber Guzzler]

These are all valid points Kanga, and I find the argument for an icosogan quite compelling. Channel 7/10 could even draft Larry Emdur in as a special comments man, and to aid the other commentators during the tricky transitional period.

However the icosikaihenagon is not without symmetry itself.

The Number 21 factors as:

21 = 3 x 7

The Numbers 3 and 7 are a kind of division of Unity in the sense of 10 = 3 + 7. They play an essential role in Creation. Most notably in the value of Genesis 1.1:

Sum Genesis 1.1 = 2701 = 37 x 73

The Number 2701 is the 73rd Triangular Number, and both 37 and 73 are prime. In fact, they are palindromic primes.

Therefore, if we build the icosikaihenagon our footy arenas would become legitimate places of worship, as well as screaming parochialism. We could do away with churches forever. How awesome would it be to get married at the footy, catered by four 'n' twenty and carlton draught!?

Oh and forgive my churlishness, but 21 is one more than 20.

They already are. Been to a CCCOOOOOOOOLLINGWOOOOOOOOOODD game lately?

 

[stugots]

wouldnt there be some terrible injuries with players & the occasional ump or streaker cutting or accidentally stabbing themselves on all those sharp edges

lawsuits galore im afraid

 

[Hodgepodge]

Nah, the oval is the best shape. An oval or a circle is just a shape with so many sides that you can't actually see them with the naked eye.

An infinite number, if you will.

Therefore any sport played in an oval or circle has the most sides, and is a superior pursuit.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Nah, the oval is the best shape. An oval or a circle is just a shape with so many sides that you can't actually see them with the naked eye.

Umm... No.

 

[estibador]

A 20-sided icosogan was also the shape used for the wheel on the Price is Right. So, unlike your 21-sided proposal, the 20 sided icosagon HAS been used before on TV and it works.

Then we definitely have to use 21 sides. 20 sides would only make football equally as good as the Price is Right - and your original decagon would make the Price is Right twice as good as footy.

Surely we can aim higher than that.

 

[Hodgepodge]

Umm... No.

Yes it is. Draw a circle and get your microscope out.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Yes it is. Draw a circle and get your microscope out.

No, it's not. And you can't prove it by drawing a circle, because any circle you draw, no matter how you draw it, will only be an approximation of a circle.