Opinion When are you willing to call a game "over"

Remove this Banner Ad

After the Port win, Campbell Brown by memory call the game 5 seconds before Rioli kicked the goal.

The old saying it's not over until the fat lady sings might not be relevant given 19 on the field no longer resets the score.

So when is it time to make the call.

I think 14 points is still gettable so long as you leave 40 seconds to get the last two like Port did. In perfect circumstances a team can score a goal in 6 to 8 seconds from centre bounce. Then there's 50m penalties free kicks etc.

Obviously nailing centre bounces repeatedly is hard but still possible.

I'd say 28 points for 2 minutes and I'd call the game barring some stupid double goal. Even 21 points is gettable so long as the goal comes immediately.

36 points for 3 minutes.

Huh? What math is this?

14 points with how long left? 40 seconds? Nope, game over.

28 points with 2 minutes? Definitely over. 21 points? Also definitely over.

36 in 3 minutes????

You do realise a goal is 6 points right?

You'd need to be within x+1 goals with X amount of time remaining. Key point is within, otherwise a draw is probably the best result you can get.

But then it becomes exponentially harder the greater X is, so realistically the equation only comes into play in the last few minutes. 4 probably the absolute max (would mean 5 goals in 4 minutes).
 
Almost like he's never seen a game of footy before. Like 2 goals in a min or 3 in 2 min has never happened

I think Sportsbet closes mid game betting when the odds are too low for a team to come back and win. We should probably just go with that.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Huh? What math is this?

14 points with how long left? 40 seconds? Nope, game over.

28 points with 2 minutes? Definitely over. 21 points? Also definitely over.

36 in 3 minutes????

You do realise a goal is 6 points right?

You'd need to be within x+1 goals with X amount of time remaining. Key point is within, otherwise a draw is probably the best result you can get.

But then it becomes exponentially harder the greater X is, so realistically the equation only comes into play in the last few minutes. 4 probably the absolute max (would mean 5 goals in 4 minutes).
40 seconds IF you get the first goal before then
 
The 6-6-6 has changed a lot, but there was an interesting suggestion on the Dogs board post the Port win - with 22 seconds on the clock and a centre bounce, would Hawthorn have been better off to concede a 6-6-6 violation free kick (and hand the ball to Port) by flooding their defensive 50 prior to the ball being bounced, rather than risk Port getting a centre clearance and kicking into an open forwardline?
 
The old goal a minute thing is really only applicable for three (goals/minutes) or less. To think one team could score four goals in four minutes is pretty fanciful, but to then think that a team that is leading by four goals with four minutes left could let through four goals is even more fanciful.
 
The 6-6-6 has changed a lot, but there was an interesting suggestion on the Dogs board post the Port win - with 22 seconds on the clock and a centre bounce, would Hawthorn have been better off to concede a 6-6-6 violation free kick (and hand the ball to Port) by flooding their defensive 50 prior to the ball being bounced, rather than risk Port getting a centre clearance and kicking into an open forwardline?
When you concede the free it should still be 6-6-6 until the ump calls play on from the free kick
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I'm a if they have to score the same number of goals as they have to this point just to get level, then you are rooted. An easy late third or start of the forth quarter call.
 
When you concede the free it should still be 6-6-6 until the ump calls play on from the free kick
I don't believe that's the case - a free kick would release all players from their 6-6-6 starting positions.

However, on checking the rulebook, it's not possible anyway due to Law 18.2.2 (e) which I guess is designed to prevent this exact scenario: Where a field Umpire is satisfied that an intentional breach of Law 13.1 (Starting Positions) has occurred, a Free Kick and Fifty Metre Penalty shall be awarded to the Player of theopposing Team who is in the Centre Circle
 
I don't believe that's the case - a free kick would release all players from their 6-6-6 starting positions.

However, on checking the rulebook, it's not possible anyway due to Law 18.2.2 (e) which I guess is designed to prevent this exact scenario: Where a field Umpire is satisfied that an intentional breach of Law 13.1 (Starting Positions) has occurred, a Free Kick and Fifty Metre Penalty shall be awarded to the Player of theopposing Team who is in the Centre Circle
A ruckman having a shot from 30 out may not have been the worst option
 
Lethal formula was true in his era. Fitness was worse then, and generally it was a slog in the last quarter (and defenders could wallop forwards and get away with it).

The stuff ITT about 666 makes sense, and I think the Pies have shown having a load of fit blokes makes narrow margins gettable in short time frames.

36 points in 180 seconds isn't realistic though. It may happen someday, but i doubt I'll live to see it.

Sides give up too. They go through the motions but you see when they are mentally of physically shot. So nominal gettable margins have to consider the sides' fitness and motivation, as well as their style.
 
what's the question? when are you willing to call a game? I'm always willing. Just waiting for BT to stop mocking the game and piss off, and I will happily step in. Oh hang on. When are you willing to call a game over. Sorry I didn't read the whole thing. I don't know. Not yet. Can I give a shout out to someone on social media, I think it was twitter after the Freo Magpies fiasco this guy described McBurney as a 'Johnny Sinns wannabe'. Whoever wrote that, thanks. Made my weekend. I thought I was the only degenerate in the world, but there you go. I'm not alone. Ever wondered why govt haven't banned pr0n on the internet? I've asked that question many a time and no-one ever gave me a decent answer, until recently I heard this theory and it's pretty terrifying but I'll share it if you like. OK, so it goes, the powers that be, right, how do I put this, ok so I don't know who did the research, and I say a prayer for the test subjects, but anyway, apparently people are most compliant if they have a history of sexual abuse. Particularly if the abuse has lasted two generations in a family. I told you it's pretty dark. Anyway let's say for example that they want us to roll up our sleeve and put an experimental substance in our body, just to pluck an example out of thin air, well they reckon that abuse victims are more pliable and more susceptible to mind control than anyone else. So there you go. It's freely available on your computer because they want kids exposed to it. Game over.
 
I watched my team concede like 3 goals in 30 seconds and attended a final where we were 40 points up halfway through the second quarter and still lost so my answer is never until the siren blows.
 
Well I remember the Gather round game between Pies and Saints last year where the Pies were 25 points up with 2:15 on the clock. There were still 30 secs left when Saints got it back to 6 points.

KB last year it was still 17 points the diff with just over a min left. A quick behind and 2 goals later, the margin was 4 points with 25 secs to go.

Generally with 2 mins to go, 4 goals i would call it
5 mins to go, 6 goals diff
For every min after 5, an additional half a goal buffer required, so 7 mins 7 goals, 9 min 8 goals and so on
 
I'm a if they have to score the same number of goals as they have to this point just to get level, then you are rooted. An easy late third or start of the forth quarter call.

Eagles nearly pulled this off last weekend. They scored more in the last part of the 4th quarter than they had all game up to that point
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top