Roar Rookie
Joined July 2009
660
Views
1
Published
16
Comments
Published
Comments
Every time two teams split the points, AFL pundits start talking about draws and throwing around the term "extra time in the home and…
The NHL has 3 television timeouts per PERIOD, for a total of up to 9 (sometimes the TV timeouts get scrapped if there isn’t a stoppage for 10 minutes or so). A quick game takes 2 hours and 20 minutes to complete, at minimum, and most of that downtime is spent because it takes at least 15 minutes to resurface the ice (twice a game). While the clock is going, though, it’s non-stop action.
How to fix the scourge of rugby penalty fests
It’s definitely not a knee-jerk – international rugby union has placed a significantly higher emphasis on having a stellar kicker on your squad who can nail shots from behind 50m, and – as far as I can tell – it’s been a growing issue since professionalism began.
As I stated above, I’ve proposed 2 point tries and 1 point goals before, and I don’t really see any reason against it besides having to come up with an appropriate overtime/extra time system…or give one team a half-point at the start of the match?
How to fix the scourge of rugby penalty fests
Sorry, I really haven’t caught too much of the NPC recently. If it’s improved since a few years ago, then I apologize. I distinctly remember NZ domestic rugby being more about who kicked 50m penalties the best, and not about the other 28 men on the ground (but this WAS several years ago). When I do turn it on…more often than not I’m watching the referee counting down the scrum. Hell, I was a prop and hated the scrum, why would I want to watch it on TV?
So maybe “NPC-style” in my post above should be replaced with “boring,” especially if that’s no longer an indicative term. Or “Bledisloe-style.” 😀
How to fix the scourge of rugby penalty fests
It’s unfortunate because League could absorb more of what gridiron has to offer, and would be a more intriguing sport. First downs, fewer up-and-unders, and a point system that is properly balanced, and League might be watchable.
How to fix the scourge of rugby penalty fests
Wow, I hadn’t really thought of it this way. It’s an incredibly tough sell, but wasn’t it only 40 years ago that tries became worth more than goals? Then again, it was 140 years ago that tries basically only awarded a shot at goal…this is definitely something to think about.
How to fix the scourge of rugby penalty fests
The competition points system is flawed at its core, mainly because it isn’t a zero-sum scenario. Furthermore, the competition points don’t dictate any play styles in brackets and cups – the Bledisloe Cup match wouldn’t have been played any differently, because a point for four tries was never on the table.
While giving stronger incentives for scoring tries is great, it should come out in the basic laws of the game, and not from the table. Making the try bonus worth that much more will probably make the game more about how well you collude with the other teams on a week-by-week basis, and not about beating them.
How to fix the scourge of rugby penalty fests
For a long time, I’ve been in favor of getting rid of the tee – placekicks can still be performed, but would require a holder (as we’ve been doing here in the States for over a century). Should speed up the game significantly, even during penalty kicks – most of the time wasted is for setting up on the tee!
I’ve heard the 2 points for a goal for a long time. A while ago I suggested a complete simplification of the scoring system (1 point for goals, 2 points for tries), and I think it would make more sense as long as a decent form of extra time/overtime were established (good luck with that, though!).
This is definitely the biggest problem with the 15’s game, from a viewer’s standpoint. It’s disheartening to watch the try-fest in 7’s one weekend, then be subjected to typical NPC-style kicking duels in 15’s the next…there needs to be some sort of balance, and I’m wondering if maybe 10’s would help.
How to fix the scourge of rugby penalty fests
I’m glad this got posted – I was considering making an article about this as well, but provide no solution (just highlight the problem). Good stuff.
I do believe that this is the ONLY problem with what is a beautiful system. The Minor Prem still has the easiest road to the GF, regardless of result – beat the 4th seed, and have a bye-advantage for week 3 against someone who didn’t win their QF. It’s just something worth looking at over the long-term, as leagues add teams we may find something that works even better.
NRL finals system provides one little quirk
If Rugby League took more cues from American Football, it’d be a much better game.
I also wish that both codes went with 2 pts for a try and 1 for every goal (converts, penalties, field), and got rid of the stupid kicking tee.
It’s a little strange, but if you combined all this (and gave field goals their proper worth, IMO), it’d be an exciting game.
I’d take Union’s 70m fields, though.
Does rugby league need a dose of the ELVs?
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.
The case for extra time to settle AFL draws
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.
The case for extra time to settle AFL draws
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.
The case for extra time to settle AFL draws
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.
The case for extra time to settle AFL draws
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.
The case for extra time to settle AFL draws
Yeah, I like this – it’s the equivalent to what happens in the NFL, although only after a touchback (the rugby equivalent is a touch-down in-goal), and it makes a lot of sense. Odd that I’d never thought of that as a simple, valid change.
How to fix the scourge of rugby penalty fests