Games where a team scores more goals than the oppostion but still loses

[Cmarsh]

like what happened today with Richmond.

Does it bother you that this scenario can happen, where a side kicks the greater number of goals but ends up losing, or do you think that when the winner has the more scoring shots by virtue of the behinds it's fair for them to win the game?

 

[Aussie Rocker]

Pointless thread. yes if you dominate to have 7+ more scoring shots at least and be in front despite bad kicking then I think you should be awarded the 4 points

 

[Tiger_man322]

Whoever has more points at the end of the game, wins. Regardless if they are through goals or points.

 

[treefingers]

 

[El_Scorcho]

I'd suggest i'd find it more unfair if a team could be 10 scoring shots ahead and still lose, but bad kicking is bad football.

 

[Ashton Agar]

Lolwut? Who ever has the more points, surely?

 

[Biggy_Boy]

If you think the team with the most goals should win, we might as well just abolish behinds. Take out the behind posts and award no points for the ball being rushed through or hitting the post.

 

[alfy!]

Richmond should have got the 4 points. I believe Scott will present them to the Tigers during the week. I expect a change of rules by Tuesday.

 

[Cmarsh]

Lolwut? Who ever has the more points, surely?

There are some who believe that the one with the most goals should win, since it is goals you are trying to achieve, not behinds.

 

[Ashton Agar]

There are some who believe that the one with the most goals should win, since it is goals you are trying to achieve, not behinds.

That's just stupid. Then change 150 years of history and get rid of points completely.

 

[Cmarsh]

If you think the team with the most goals should win, we might as well just abolish behinds. Take out the behind posts and award no points for the ball being rushed through or hitting the post.

That's not an absurd suggestion.

This is where the critics of the game from rugby circles mock the game ie "point for missing".

 

[Cmarsh]

That's just stupid. Then change 150 years of history and get rid of points completely.

Behinds and behind posts haven't always been part of the game.

 

[El_Scorcho]

Behinds aren't just for missing though, they are a smaller punishment for the ball being rushed through by the defenders.

 

[McOrist]

1968 Grand Final. Carlton 7 14 (56) def Essendon 8 5 (53). The only time a side has won a Grannie and kicked less goals than it's opposition.

 

[LightTower4]

1948 Grand Final

Essendon 7. 27. 69
Melbourne. 10. 9. 69

Melbourne won the replay.

 

[Crawb]

like what happened today with Richmond.

Does it bother you that this scenario can happen, where a side kicks the greater number of goals but ends up losing, or do you think that when the winner has the more scoring shots by virtue of the behinds it's fair for them to win the game?

That's the scoring system of Australian Rules Football. If you don't like it create your own game with different goal posts.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

That's not an absurd suggestion.

This is where the critics of the game from rugby circles mock the game ie "point for missing".

Maybe we should just put a straight line at the end of the ground and have players run across that too score. At least the people in Rugby circles will enjoy our game more......

In a rugby game, teams can win by scoring less tries than their opposition, so how is what we have different??

No more changes to our game. Overall, it's fine the way it is

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Geelong did it in Round 23 last year, as well. 15.22 to 17.9.

 

[Aussie Rocker]

1948 Grand Final

Essendon 7. 27. 69
Melbourne. 10. 9. 69

Melbourne won the replay.

Classic

 

[hcd199]

Round 13, 1944, is, I believe, the only time a team has won with three less goals that their opponents (although the 1948 grand final came close). North Melbourne 11.21(87) defeated Richmond 14.2(86), after North kicked 3.13(31) in the last quarter to Richmond's 1.0(6).

And no, it doesn't bother me in the slightest that teams can win games with less goals than their opponents, far from it. It's not a "reward for missing"; a team isn't trying to kick goals, they're trying to kick scores, and aiming for the goal because it scores 6 times as much as a behind would. Having a particular scoring system is hardly problematic.

Behinds and behind posts haven't always been part of the game.

Actually, behind posts have been in since the first set of rules, in 1859. "Kick-off posts to be positioned 18.2m from each goal post in a straight line.
After the ball passed behind the goal line, it had to be kicked in directly towards the opposite goal by a member of the defending team from any part of a line drawn 18.2m from and parallel to the goal line." It's just behinds, in the sense of the scoring shot, that were a later addition, in 1897.

 

[Ketchup]

no

 

[copyright]

That's not an absurd suggestion.

This is where the critics of the game from rugby circles mock the game ie "point for missing".

Tell them they have it the wrong way around. They aren't missing, you just get more points for kicking closer to the middle.

 

[kickazz]

Doesnt bother me in the slightest. Adds another dynamic to the game.

I've already said my piece on the whole 'point for missing' crap here: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...nsulting-football.959544/page-4#post-24726627

 

[Mogwai]

Richmond 11.20 86

GWS 12.2 74​

Freakish game, that.

 

[Ethan McGee]

Maybe we should just put a straight line at the end of the ground and have players run across that too score. At least the people in Rugby circles will enjoy our game more......

In a rugby game, teams can win by scoring less tries than their opposition, so how is what we have different??

No more changes to our game. Overall, it's fine the way it is

haha, although a game where you have to simply run across a line would be excruciatingly boring. oh wait, thats rugby right?