By Adrian Musolino
July 22nd 2009 @ 12:06am
The case for extra time to settle AFL draws
Josh Gibson of North Melbourne and Jack Riewoldt of Richmond(L) react after a draw in the AFL Round 16 match between the Richmond Tigers and the North Melbourne Kangaroos at the MCG. Slattery Images
Richmond fans have had it tough this season, made worse by the squandering of a 43-point lead and having to share the points with the Kangaroos. The first draw of the season once again raises questions about the merits of extra time to decide matches, a question that deserves a proper debate.
According to Jade Rawlings, Richmond caretaker coach, “I would rather feel worse for losing or elated at winning than sitting there feeling nothing.”
The faces of the players and the MCG crowd showed that hollow feeling.
Draws in the AFL are infrequent and, perhaps as a result, truly unpleasant.
An AFL match is about hearing the victors club song after the final siren and the tribalism of the fans in the stands, celebrating or commiserating, not the emptiness of a non result, especially for Richmond and North Melbourne, neither of whom are in contention for the top eight.
They needed the experience of a win or defeat in a tight contest for their young squads, not to share two meaningless points.
What’s most disappointing is the lack of a proper debate on the merits of extra time.
The AFL intelligentsia are quick to shut down the debate by flying the flag of tradition in the face of the critics who want change.
But is it a tradition worth retaining? Why keep something that is so overwhelmingly disliked by those it impacts most, namely the teams involved and their fans?
If anything, the tradition surrounding draws is the outpouring of displeasure with the current system. The infrequency of AFL stalemates makes any arguments about fatigue or TV schedules seem irrelevant.
An extra ten minutes of play, two five-minute periods, or the like, is a simple yet effective means of deciding a match while adding extra drama to a tight contest.
Think of epic sporting contests, in a variety of codes, which have been decided in extra time. The intensity and pace of the game suits extra time. Meanwhile, comparisons with football (the round ball) home and away draws are facile.
In football, draws are a part of the fabric of the sport. They can be satisfying results for teams in a more defensively minded code and in home and away leagues that aren’t decided with a finals series, point’s accumulation takes on a different meaning.
They are two different sporting cultures.
The AFL needs a uniform way of deciding drawn matches, for home and away, finals and the Grand Final, not the current three unique ways with shared points in home and away, extra time in the first three weeks of the finals and a replay for the Grand Final.
The latter remains one of the most outdated and antiquated irregularities of Australian sport.
Tradition or not, in this professional age, to expect everyone to just turn up a week later for another go is ludicrous.
Imagine the logistical nightmare for an interstate team, not to mention for their fans.
AFL matches, especially a Grand Final, need to be decided on the day. Only then is it a proper contest.
Ask the fans who left the MCG Sunday evening and felt neither the joy of victory or the disappointment of defeat, and you’ll find overwhelming support for extra time.
Get Australia's best AFL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(74)
Steven Metzger said | July 22nd 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
I’m an American, and an employee of the NHL. This country obviously has such an aversion to drawn/tied games that we will pander to any horrible overtime system just to finish a game. The extra-time argument here is solved – it is always needed. Here, in all of hockey and gridiron, there is no single ultimately acceptable overtime system – the two games are drawish in nature and that’s just that. Unfortunately, the powers that be have decided to almost eliminate ties in N. American sport.
I would caution the AFL against changing the current system, less for the sake of tradition, and more for the sake of NOT getting it right. The way it is now is an acceptable result, and often breaks a couple of teams OUT of the not-so-wonderful percentage tiebreaker.
Kurt said | July 22nd 2009 @ 7:25am | Report comment
Yeah, you just have to look at the huge number of tied AFL games both in the regular season and in finals to see what a HUGE problem this is. Gimme a break, there just isn’t sufficient reason to change the current system. So there is the occasional draw in the home and away season, if two teams can play a high-scoring game for two hours and end up level then let them split the points, I just don’t see what the problem is. And as for a replayed GF being ‘antiquated’ I think it would be brilliant. Most probably more opportunities for the ordinary fans to get tickets and a bonus game for the broadcasters, sounds like a money-spinner to me. And given that we’re currently averaging one drawn GF every half-century or so, I reckon we can just about cope with the vast logistical difficulties of holding one additional game at the MCG in early October when the only other users of the ground are the seagulls.
Whilst tradition isn’t always a good reason for keeping things as they are, change for the sake of change is pretty dumb too.
Marlon said | July 22nd 2009 @ 9:14am | Report comment
Nothing wrong with a draw during the season. But extra time should be introduced for the finals campaign and the grand final.
Redb said | July 22nd 2009 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Agree Steven, thanks for your perspective.
My perspective on rule changes also has little to do with tradition. I think rules changes should be based on the frequency of the problem (if we assume a draw is a problem). In finals a draw can be a problem and thus this has been addressed.
In any given season, you get maybe 1- 2 draws out of home and away 176 games! – If two teams end up on equal scores after 100 minutes of football and 10+ goals each so be it.
Some commentators have stated extra time will create a frenzy in the crowd, I would warrant that there was a frenzy in the crowd in that final 5 minutes.
The unknown result is a thing of beauty and few games get the blood flowing than AFL footy in this scenario (Zaharakis!!!!) – both teams have to try to win and play their guts out untill the bitter end. If scores do tie with one minute to go it’s possible both teams will just get defensive knowing extra time will give them another chance.
Redb
Tom said | July 22nd 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
I agree with changing the GF replay system. Frankly it should have been changed in 1981 when the comp got its first interstate team. The GF replay will massively disadvantage fans from interstate sides from watching their team in the deciding game of the season, and will even more greatly disadvantage the interstate team itself. Teams travelling in consecutive weeks have very poor records. That can only get worse if both games are high pressure, high intensity grand finals.
As for draws during the regular season, I really don’t see a strong enough case. The only argument I see is that players and fans ‘feel bad’ after a draw. So? Failing to reach your goal and feeling bad about it is just as much a part of sport as success and triumph. If you can’t win a game in 120 minutes and you’re not happy with that, well then you should feel bad.
And if fatigue is a meaningless argument because draws are rare, why isn’t ‘the emptiness of a non-result’ just as meaningless?
Fatigue is actually more serious because if a game drags on into a few phases of extra time it makes it that much harder to back up the next week. Serious injuries are also more likely when players are fatigued and possibly cramping at the end of a close, high intensity game.
Who is the AFL intelligensia shutting down debate by flying the flag of tradition? First I’ve heard of this.
Redb said | July 22nd 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Tom,
“Who is the AFL intelligensia shutting down debate by flying the flag of tradition? First I’ve heard of this.” Must be in Adrian’s head? For most of us it’s just not an issue.
Richmond blew a 42 point lead – maybe that’s what might be making the Coach feel flat after it ended in a draw.
Interestingly, many of us who watched the epic between St Kilda and Geelong a couple of weeks felt that when the scores were tied on 85 points apeice that would have been a fitting result such was the spectacle.
Redb
Michael C said | July 22nd 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
Without reading anything on this – my opinion on draws in the AFL is to NOT tamper with it. In the H&A season at least. Simply because, for the 1 or 2 times a year – - let’s not change that every game is 80 mins plus time on.
A drawn match is a bit of an empty feeling – what with no club song being played and players all showing an obvious disappointment in not achieving a win.
BUT – it’s a handy reminder that in our game – a ‘draw’ is NOT a sought after result. (unlike certain other codes where draws are often specifically played for and make up about 30% of all results).
It’s also a reminder that 1 or 2 games out of 176 each year is a pretty small ratio and shows that the scoring system is amongst the most efficient going around at avoiding drawn results.
However – the glass half full is that if a club is still in a battle for a finals spot – then, % no longer matters other than against the one other club with a draw.
Brett McKay said | July 22nd 2009 @ 9:30am | Report comment
goal shootouts from 50m anyone??
Pauly Walnuts said | July 25th 2009 @ 6:29pm | Report comment
Ridiculous.
Pippinu said | July 22nd 2009 @ 9:47am | Report comment
I’m with everyone else – it’s a non-issue. Some from either club will feel aggrieved because they both felt they should have won it (the Tiggers blew a 43 point lead, and then got a goal back in the final 15 seconds to tie it up) – great – it’s a draw – end of story – everyone can go and cry in their pretzels and talk about how they were robbed.
In truth, neither deserve to win, so imcompetent they have been this year – the draw sums it up beautifully.
AS redb said: the last 5 minutes of the game would have been at fever pitch anyway – no need for another 5 minutes (and the welfare of the players needs to be thought of as well, most of whom are dead on their feet after 2 hours).
There are instances where teams are actually very thankful for the 2 points (having come from behind to, say, tie it up on the last kick of the day, etc) – if you have a poor percentage, you might be extra thankful for the 2 points.
Conclusion: non issue. Put it in the “don’t look at this again in the next decade” pile.
By the way, the AFL already has extra time for finals (which is fair enough, and more to do with not upsetting the finals schedule, or forcing teams to sit out for two weeks, etc)
The grand final makes an allowance for a replay – once again – fair enough – afterall, no one’s doing anything the following Saturday! (in any event, there have only been two drawn grand finals in 112 years).
Brett
someone may be able to correct me on this, but I’m pretty sure that at least for a few years in the mid 90s, the AFL did allow for some sort of shoot out if scores were still level after extra time (in the finals).
MC will recall that North and Hawthorn played extra time in 1994 (I think it was) – North absolutely trouncing Hawthorn in extra time.
I’m not sure if that rule is still there (from memory the shots were to be form 35m, or something similar) – needless to say, there has never been a need to use the rule!!
Michael C said | July 22nd 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
btw – I was at the first extra time final back in ‘94 when North and Haw were level at full time. Playing out the extra time, North pulled away and kicked 3.5 to nothing. However, had to back up the next week against Geelong in a prelim final – and again, the scores were level when the siren went (alas, G.Ablett had just completed a mark).
Perhaps the fatigue factor came into it – but, most other resolutions aren’t much chop either. We’ve seen the disruption to a finals series of replaying a early round finals match – - and, really, how much more fatigue is there involved in a whole extra game. The ‘low fatigue’ resolution I suppose is some form of ’shoot out’ – - – but I’ve never liked that option.
The irony presently is there’s 3 systems for drawn matches. The H&A just accept the draw. The finals rnds 1-3 extra time scenario, and the GF replay scenario. That’s a bit odd – but, then, we look at the soccer world that accepts draws (of much higher prevalence), only, come finals and the FIFA WC final as well – that extra time and penalty shoot outs come into the equation.
THe question of course raised by that comparison is that where extra time fails – does a penalty shoot out really constitute a desirable “proper contest.”? Of course, in the AFL perspective, it’d be odd to not get a separation after extra time.
Redb said | July 22nd 2009 @ 9:52am | Report comment
Brett,
maybe not goals, what about the best speccie?
Wheel out a ball propelling machine to hoist the sherrin from the centre of the ground to two sets of players from each team (4 in total) the best speccie out of 3 attempts as judged by the umpires, wins!.
Redb
megatron said | July 22nd 2009 @ 9:53am | Report comment
Grand final replay is a joke. I did see that Footy Classified (or is it confidential?) and Craig Hutchinson was supportive of extra time but Gary Lyon and Caroline Wilson disagreed. Think Mike Sheean also wrote something in support of extra time.
megatron said | July 22nd 2009 @ 9:56am | Report comment
Can’t believe people support the GF replay! If you’re a fan coming from interstate you have to get back to Melbourne the following week. Flights, hotel etc all add up. People aren’t made of money!
Pippinu said | July 22nd 2009 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Fans from interstate??
Bugger ‘em!!!
Brian said | July 22nd 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Its a non-issue and a draw can be very meaningful if 2 pts get you into the FInals. I’m sure Hawthorn would take a draw against Geelong on Saturday cause all of a sudden Essendon’s 20% advantage would be meaningless. The real reason the Richmond-North draw was inconsequential was because the game (between two sides that cant make Finals) was inconsequential.
Pauly Walnuts said | July 25th 2009 @ 6:33pm | Report comment
I’d agree, the hawks would have been happy with a draw today….
Michael DiFabrizio said | July 22nd 2009 @ 10:04am | Report comment
I’m guessing Richmond and North fans have walked away from games this year feeling a lot worse than they did on Sunday. It was an entertaining contest; they certainly got their money’s worth. I struggle to see how the disapointment of defeat would improve their feelings all that much, if it all.
Sometimes, as Redb indicated with St Kilda and Geelong, draws seem fitting. I know I couldn’t split the Tigers and North before the game — both had been on the improve since the appointment of new coaches, pretty evenly matched — so perhaps in this case the draw was fitting, too.
The potential for the draw adds another dimension to tight games. Their infrequency also makes drawn games that little bit more memorable (Would the tradition of Coll-Ess on Anzac Day be as strong if that first game wasn’t drawn?)
Redb said | July 22nd 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
I don’t have a problem with extra time in the Grand Final, it’s more logical to push for an ultimate result in this scenario.
Redb
megatron said | July 22nd 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
Pippinu, with attitudes like that it’s amazing Victorians aren’t more loved by the rest of the country
Pippinu said | July 22nd 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
Megatron
I true find it bewildering that we get such a bad press!!
Brett McKay said | July 22nd 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
Pip, I wasn’t aware that the shootout may have once existed, but that by no means means it didn’t. I just thought a shootout from fifty was an obvious option, and I know how well shoot outs in various sports have been received on The Roar
Steven Metzger said | July 22nd 2009 @ 11:14am | Report comment
The general consensus on footy boards is that the next GF replay will very likely be the last, and extra time would be used from that time forward. Besides, if you were coming from interstate and there was a GF replay, would you REALLY go home for this uber-rare circumstance?
One thing that IS strange is the fact that H&A games, the FInals, and the GF all have different formats for solving a drawn match. In a game that has no tradition of playing extra time whatsoever, this seems very odd.
If I were doing the game from the ground up, I’d give the higher seeded team in Finals a half-point at the start of the game – in the case of a draw after 80, they win. No extra time needed, it’s a tangible advantage for finishing higher on the table, and would never really detract from the game because draws are rare enough as it is.
Pauly Walnuts said | July 25th 2009 @ 6:40pm | Report comment
Dude, you’d have to go home! Most people would have booked return flights, still need confirmation that you could score another ticket, have work on that week and need to organise extended accomodation. Maybe I should start practicing my nose wiggling Bewitched-style…
megatron said | July 22nd 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
Steven interesting perspective but people can’t be expected to hang around Melbourne for the following weekend for the replay. I think if a replay did happen nowadays there would be a huge outcry, especially if it involved an interstate team.
Pippinu said | July 22nd 2009 @ 11:35am | Report comment
I think there is something to the idea for getting an advantage if you finished higher up the ladder.
It’s not as if you can hang to that advantage for a whole 120 mintues (i.e. going for a nil all draw), in aussie rules, you have no option but to try and outscore the opposition, the alternative is basically to lose the game.
Pauly Walnuts said | July 25th 2009 @ 6:42pm | Report comment
Although, that would mean instead of a frantic last x number of minutes one team would play keepings off absolutely killing the intensity and spirit of the game when it should be at it’s climax.
Michael C said | July 22nd 2009 @ 11:37am | Report comment
Steven Metzger -
yup, I don’t mind that idea – - it provides an added incentive to get 1st rather than 2nd, 3rd rather than 4th etc etc. Given that we have the 2 paths in via the 2 prelim finals, it’s too easy presently to just be content – - this year especially with 4 Melb teams likely to hold down the top 4 spots – - it’s too easy to be content just to make the top 4, rather than fighting to the end to finish that spot higher.
It’d satisfy some of those soccer folk who think we undervalue the ‘minor premier’.
It’d also assist – in the case of 2 Melb teams – that there is an actual ‘home ground’ advantage given that in reality there is none when 2 Melb teams contest a final.
Yup – I don’t mind that at all.
Redb said | July 22nd 2009 @ 11:46am | Report comment
Can we at least leave the traditions of the game alone!
Like seeing Collingwoog fail at the last hurdle.
Redb
Pippinu said | July 22nd 2009 @ 11:47am | Report comment
MC
can you recall whether sometime in the mid 90s (and maybe even to this day), there was a rule allowing for shoot outs if the scores were still locked together after extra time in a final?
Pippinu said | July 22nd 2009 @ 11:48am | Report comment
redb
it needs to be enacted, or put into the constitution!
Redb said | July 22nd 2009 @ 11:48am | Report comment
I’ve certainly never heard of shoot outs in any form of AFL game.
Redb
Pippinu said | July 22nd 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment
redb
You can imagine that if it’s rare enough having a draw after 120 minutes, that it will be even rarer staying that way after a further 10 minutes (or whatever it is) with all players dead on their feet, i.e. since introducing extra time around 1994, we’ve never had a need to worry about it.
But you could understand that we might make a provision for it, just in case.
Michael C said | July 22nd 2009 @ 12:07pm | Report comment
btw – re tie breakers -
last year, the Zillmere EAgles hosted a pre-season knock out series and it was based on the AFL nab cup structures of a main draw for the teams staying in and the losing sides drop out to ‘challenge’ matches.
Anyway –
The competition also will incorporate a revolutionary tie-breaker should teams finish level at the end of normal time. Instead of extra time the sides will wage a goal-kicking shoot-out in which five players from each side will take 40m shots at goal to break the deadlock.
AndyRoo said | July 22nd 2009 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
If an AFL final was so well contested that it was a draw…. imagine the hype in the week leading up to the replay.
I might even watch it
Michael C said | July 22nd 2009 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
Qualifying the ‘higher seeded’ team theory – - certainly DON’T apply retrospectively, as Collingwood were minor premiers in 1977 and North 3rd – - so, clearly – - as Redb alludes to – - there appears a requirement for a Collingwood rule to be attached.
AndyRoo -
(with the picture)
Hmmmm…..at least it wouldn’t have been a scoreless draw.
AndyRoo said | July 22nd 2009 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
I wasn’t beeing sacrastic (apart from the quip at the end). If the grand final did actualy require a replay the hype would be massive. It would be a huge event.
megatron said | July 22nd 2009 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
For interstate teams it would be a farce. It’s so impractical it would be a joke.
Redb said | July 22nd 2009 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
AndyRoo,
I’m not sure the next game would be that huge, history shows the build up to the Grand Final is massive, people plan their weddings, holidays around it and you have the cost factor. It would still be a big game but not bigger than the first.
Redb
Tom said | July 22nd 2009 @ 1:10pm | Report comment
Agreed Megatron. I’m amazed we can’t get an overwhelming consensus on the GF replay being a crappy idea. Its just flat out unfair for six of the teams in the competition.
Redb said | July 22nd 2009 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
Tom,
We have got close to full consensus it’s just Pip – he’s out there man all on his own.
Redb
Pippinu said | July 22nd 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Yeh – a replay once per century – call the police!!
Steven Metzger said | July 22nd 2009 @ 2:08pm | Report comment
I’m surprised that you guys are supporting that half-point advantage idea…pleasantly surprised
Probably enough to actually suggest it to the AFL for 2010.
BigAl said | July 22nd 2009 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
Nothing wrong with draws – except in finals !
What happens if you have a replay – and that is also a draw ? – and then the replay of the replay is a draw, and then ……. . .
Redb said | July 22nd 2009 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
the fifteenth GF draw becomes the first NAB Cup pre-season game!
Tom said | July 22nd 2009 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
Doubt it’ll happen Steven. Its not really consistent with the philosophy most AFL people have towards finals. Rightly or wrongly, most AFL fans give more credence to what happens in a finals game than throughout the home and away season.
Not to say I think it’s a bad idea. It might feel a little weird for a lot of people though.
Steven Metzger said | July 22nd 2009 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
I sent it through the AFL website just now, I doubt it’ll get seriously considered (or even read).
But hey, it’s late in the work day there (it’s 9:45 pm Tuesday here), so some bored AFL.com.au staffer might just give it a look.
Westcoast929406 said | July 22nd 2009 @ 3:38pm | Report comment
Here is a bit of a history lesson on why the current scoring system was introduced-
Lets go back in our time machine to say the 1880`s in Victoria.
In that era in the Victorian Football Associations seasons several games were being drawn each season – Why because the behind was registered BUT not included in the final score. Up until the 1896 season this method still prevailed where goals only counted and each goal was worth 1 goal just like Soccer Football.
It is believed the Collingwood VFA delegate came up with the awarding of 6 points for a goal and the behind was nominated 1 point. Why was a goal awarded 6 points I have never found out – Just like a lot of other traditions in our game.
Anyhow in late 1896 the breakaway VFA Clubs formed the Victorian Football League who made 2 very important decisions for their first season in 1897 -
They introduced the current scoring system. The number of drawn games dropped dramatically thereafter, and is not an issue IMHO.
.
They reduced the number of ruckmen from 4 to 2 which then saw 18 men a side on the ground – down from the previous 20. This opened the game up – Less congestion, which incidentally the AFL laws committee still today spend hours trying to prevent.
As a side note -Today the AFL officially only recognises a minimum of 14 on the ground.
Always remember – If you do not know where you have been you will not know where you are going.
Steven Metzger said | July 22nd 2009 @ 3:47pm | Report comment
I’ve often thought that behinds would have been more natural as “tiebreakers,” and that no amount of behinds could every equal a goal. Considering the way that they were keeping score, this would have made more sense. Plus, Gaelic Football had this sort of scoring system around the same time – if 19th century sportsmen were thinking that way, how come this concept didn’t stick?
At any rate, at least this wouldn’t have made the goal-to-behind ratio seem so arbitrary. Behinds would still get tallied, they just wouldn’t be amounting to any goals.
Michael C said | July 22nd 2009 @ 3:54pm | Report comment
Steven -
agreed – I’ve often said that perhaps the one thing the AFL could do – is suggest that most goals will win. i.e. the game IS after all about kicking goals (and not own goals, or heading or scoring tries/touchdowns etc).
So, with goals being so specific as per the rules. THen, behinds would only be used to break a dead lock on goals.
I just assume that people have a natural tendancy to ‘tally’ as they go.
After all – in the Rugby codes, initially Trys didn’t return a score, and then, got used for a short while to break a dead lock if goals were level.
SO, not just the Gaelic lads toying with the concept.
Brian said | July 22nd 2009 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
This may surprise Michael C etc but I actually like the replay if the GF is drawn rule. I hate the fact that the football World Cup can be won via a penalty shoot out.
Regarding shoot out rules I dont remember the year but I think there was a year where going into Round 22 Geelong and Essnedon were vying for 2nd on the ladder (could be 1995). Now thier % was very close and I think that going into that Round it was possible, although very improbable that they would finish up on the same points and same %. The journalists looked through the rules and found that should this occur a 50m penalty shoot-out of sorts would be required to determine the 2nd place. This was written back of course in the VFL days when teams could just lob up to a suburban ground on a Monday night and have the shoot-out. Following the 1995 situation I think the AFL re-wrote the rules for 1996 and beyond. It was in the press that week but of course did not eventuate as the results required in Round 22 were very unlikely to occur.
PLease don’t take the above as fact cause I’m working from memory
Steven Metzger said | July 22nd 2009 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
Brian, I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that a penalty shootout decides any game, much less the GF.
In my opinion FIFA dropped the ball by getting rid of golden-goal – extra time in the World Cup final should be “first goal wins,” and keep going for hours until someone scores. After all, the players don’t need to be fresh for the next round – that doesn’t happen in earnest for another 47 months.
The NFL has a long series of tiebreaker rules for standings, with the 15th and final one being a coin flip.
In all honesty, percentage is a great way to decide tiebreaker – but in the rare case that it doesn’t work out (or if you want to reshuffle the tiebreakers), results between teams tied on the ladder, percentage in those games, and goal percentages are great ways to never have shootout or coin toss decide anything.
Michael C said | July 22nd 2009 @ 5:21pm | Report comment
Actually I understand that in the soccer fraternity there’s perhaps a 50/50 split on the penalty shoot outs – those who love them and all the drama/tension etc, and those who loath them as an inappropriate way to decide A. a match and B. a tournament.
The AFL held a lightening premiership tourney pre-season in 1996 (the centenary of the VFL year) – it might well have been part of that.
Pippinu said | July 22nd 2009 @ 4:58pm | Report comment
112 years on – I think we can all safely agree that six points for a goal and one point for a behind is here to stay!!
For those who don’t know, in 1948 we had our first ever draw in a VFL grand final:
Essendon, who topped the ladder, kicked an incredible 7:27 to draw with Melbourne 10:9.
Melbourne won the replay the following week.
As I say, 112 years of a goal being worth 6 points – end of story.
Michael C said | July 22nd 2009 @ 5:24pm | Report comment
btw – congrats to theRoar folk for bringing the post specific ‘reply’ option into this – - having adjusted now, it’s great and should help prevent run away hijacking of the core thread.
Steven Metzger said | July 22nd 2009 @ 6:51pm | Report comment
I second that.
sheek said | July 22nd 2009 @ 5:32pm | Report comment
As others have said, absolutely nothing wrong with drawn games during the regular home & away season. Why the obsession?
It’s only when you get to finals time that you use extra time to avoid draws/ties.
Why unnecessarily complicate life?
Redb said | July 22nd 2009 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
That’s right.
megatron said | July 22nd 2009 @ 5:39pm | Report comment
Don’t see how it is being complicated. If it’s drawn you go into extra time until you have a winner. Simple. Same system for all AFL matches. Almost every other code does it… Bball, netball, soccer in knockout games etc.
Steven Metzger said | July 22nd 2009 @ 7:06pm | Report comment
The benefits of keeping draws outweigh the costs, IMO.
- A drawn match can shake up the ladder.
- The threat of a draw keeps teams from getting complacent late in the game.
- Even a draw is as close as a game can get, so it’s not like the fans aren’t getting their money’s worth.
Getting rid of draws would do a couple of not-so-good things:
- 10 more minutes of football can mean more injuries and fatigue.
- Teams can get complacent late in the game, expecting extra time.
Ultimately, I think there are two questions here:
Does the AFL want to pander to a few anti-traditional voices?
Does the AFL want to necessarily find a winner while screwing up the overall H&A season?
Plus, what would you do with percentage? The extra time can turn a legitimately drawn game into a blowout.
Pauly Walnuts said | July 25th 2009 @ 7:04pm | Report comment
Yes and the blow out would be inequitable. The other factor not yet bantered about on this forum is the extra media coverage and water cooler conversation that a draw brings to the game. It certainly seems to be something controversial that the AFL would be wanting to keep and continue their focus/ resources on eradicating controversial drug and alcohol issues in the sport.
Pippinu said | July 22nd 2009 @ 6:03pm | Report comment
Megatron
Sheek was referring to drawn home and away games (ok to have draws), not finals, where he agreed it’s ok to have extra time..
sheek said | July 22nd 2009 @ 6:10pm | Report comment
Yeah Megatron,
What Pippinu said, of what I said!!!
sheek said | July 22nd 2009 @ 6:14pm | Report comment
BTW,
I reckon the NRL system of ‘golden point’ time on for home & away matches is stupid. I’m sure this is all designed to satisfy the sporting markets.
Sad when you bend to what the ‘bettors’ want. As opposed to ‘bettees’, the poor suckers who do their dough every weekend. I don’t mind having a bet, I just don’t want to be dictated to by those guys.
As I said, leave extra time for the finals matches. That’s when you require it.
Steven Metzger said | July 22nd 2009 @ 6:55pm | Report comment
The norm here in the U.S. for betting is 50/50 stakes, based on the margin of a game (Dallas gives Philadelphia 3.5 points, which means Dallas winning by 3 would give a Philly pick the win). It actually brings in quite a bit of scandal (see also ‘point-shaving’).
If the NRL golden point is about betting (which it probably isn’t, they have two draws so far this year), then it should be just as easy to have draw stakes like most EPL games employ.
sheek said | July 22nd 2009 @ 7:24pm | Report comment
Thanks Steve,
I was merely being uber-cynical about why the NRL adopted ‘golden point’ extra time for poor old home & away games.
MyGeneration said | July 22nd 2009 @ 10:41pm | Report comment
Sheek, there are just a lot more draws in League (even with the ‘golden point’) so dealing with the issue of “kissing your sister” has been a lot more pressing over the years, and I think overall it has been a success (from an entertainment point-of- view, maybe from a betting point-of-view as well). I’m sure this will blow over in the AFL when there are no more draws for another season. Now I’m going to go and bet on all the draws in this AFL round, what odds ya reckon?
Kurt said | July 22nd 2009 @ 9:04pm | Report comment
To all those saying how ‘impossible’ it would be for interstate teams and fans if there was a GF replay – have you heard of these new-fangled things called aeroplanes? They move so quickly you can get from one end of the country to the other in only 3 hours, thus actually making it possible for a team to play a game in Melbourne, fly home that night and then return six days later for the replay! Amazing I know but perhaps we could make use of this remarkable innovation? And given the next GF replay is due in about 2040 I think it’s a fair assumption that there will be ways and means of moving people around the country quickly and efficiently.
Steven Metzger said | July 22nd 2009 @ 10:23pm | Report comment
Actually, by one logic, the 2006 GF was “due” to be drawn (once every 29 years). I guess one point is close enough though, so the next one is probably 2035, not 2040.
sheek said | July 22nd 2009 @ 11:35pm | Report comment
MyGeneration,
Dammit, I’m going to be a dinosaur if I want. I refuse to accept extra time for draws in home & away regular season matches.
And you’re asking me the odds on draws???
Steven Metzger said | July 23rd 2009 @ 6:23am | Report comment
http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/07/23/get-rid-of-extra-time-not-draws/
Tom said | July 23rd 2009 @ 9:20am | Report comment
Kurt, that is the most unbelievably stupid thing I’ve ever seen you write, and you’ve written some shockers.
Have you ever actually been on an aeroplane? Do you understand that its not exactly the best place to relax from strenuous physical activity?
Do you know that teams always fly down prior to the actual day of the game, meaning their preparation routines are more disrupted than the opposition?
Have you ever noticed how poorly teams often perform on the second week on the road in a row?
Do you realise that the AFL recognises this, and never schedules either of the Western Australian teams to play interstate in consecutive weeks?
Its a stupid system, and its evidently only supported by people who deny the obvious.
Kurt said | July 23rd 2009 @ 9:22pm | Report comment
That’s right Tom, if only we were so wonderfully, terribly clever we would all agree with you.
Pauly Walnuts said | July 25th 2009 @ 7:08pm | Report comment
Kurt you’re just being painful.