Proposal for a new AFL scoring system

[Matthew2708]

Soccer has it's own problems with too many draws.

In fact, the newly formed VFL in 1897 introduced our current scoring systems for the express purpose of reducing the incidence of draws - and 115 years on, you'd have to say that it has been successful.

Found an article about that "Every goal counts six points, every behind one point, so that six behinds are now equal to a goal, and this cannot be considered an exaggeration of their value. After all, the general desire is that the best team should win, and this did not always occur under the old regulation. In scoring, therefore, we now more nearly approach the method of the Rugby game."

It's the only article I could find in relation to that.

It was an article posted on 12th March, 1897.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/9187855?searchTerm=vfl scoring&searchLimits=sortby=dateAsc
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/9166320?searchTerm=vfl scoring&searchLimits=sortby=dateAsc

 

[Gigantor]

Found an article about that "Every goal counts six points, every behind one point, so that six behinds are now equal to a goal, and this cannot be considered an exaggeration of their value. After all, the general desire is that the best team should win, and this did not always occur under the old regulation. Inscoring, therefore, we now more nearly approach the method of the Rugby game."

It's the only article I could find in relation to that.

It was an article posted on 12th March, 1897.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/9187855?searchTerm=vfl scoring&searchLimits=sortby=dateAsc
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/9166320?searchTerm=vfl scoring&searchLimits=sortby=dateAsc

Good get - that's an oft quoted article because I'm sure I've come across some of these quotes in the historical texts on the game.

 

[Lord of the Pies]

If this was the case, how many rushed behinds would have the Hawks walked over in the 2008 GF?

 

[Tarkyn_24]

Well that would make St Kilda the 2010 AFL Premiers, would they get a retrospective Flag? If not, does every team in Collingwood's situation before the inception of the new scoring rule have an asterix next to their win?

Way too many implications to make it worthwhile

Haven't gone through the entire ladder, but the Pies had fewer goals than the Crows in Round 21 of the same season. Win becomes a loss, Pies finish second on the ladder, the finals series that eventuated could not have happened.

Do we asterix flags won during round robin premierships? Do we asterix flags won in eras where the 50 metre penalty did not exist (thinking of the Stynes prelim over the mark incident, even though that wouldn't have a material effect) Flags won off the back of incorrect umpiring decisions?

 

[StevenwellerHFC]

Its a good idea.

 

[M_I_G]

might have already been raised, and while it would be interesting to see (but will never happen) - what would happen with rushed behinds? every time someone is under pressure they could just boot it back through and get the ball at a kick in

 

[SCHUMACHER]

What is it about our game that inspires every man and his dog (plus the AFL) to come up with a million 'ideas' a second on how to change it? Here's an idea: Leave the fricken game alone, moratorium on stupid, useless rule changes!

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

The strange part about that scoring system is although the behinds didn't register, they still counted them. I've never found out why they counted something that didn't matter. Then again, we still count hit outs so I guess it's similar.

 

[SaintsManMat]

I think it should be changed to a system where you get closer to the full six points the closer you kick to the centre of the goals. So if you kick it one metre from the goal post, you might get 3 points. In fact, why not remove the goal posts so the goal line is from behind post to behind post. Then set up sensors along the length of the goal line. When the ball goes through it triggers the sensor which calculates how far the ball was from the centre of the goal line and gives you the score. From 6 points dead centre to 1 point right on the post. OH YES.

OR

Remove the posts and make them high powered lasers that face upwards. If the ball 'hits the post', it explodes! No more contentious decisions. People who run into the post may not like it though. You get 10 points for opposition players killed.

OR

Make the ball a grenade.

would Taylor Walker have been charged with murder when he shoved the North player into the post a few weeks ago?

 

[Gigantor]

The strange part about that scoring system is although the behinds didn't register, they still counted them. I've never found out why they counted something that didn't matter. Then again, we still count hit outs so I guess it's similar.

Yeh, I guess it was a stat that they could collect and report on, and it gave a bit of a flavour about the game - and our scoring system, split across four quarters - still gives you a pretty good flavour of how the game has gone over the 120 minutes.

If you see a soccer score of nil-all or 1-0, it tells you absolutely nothing about the game.

One day, soccer might evolve to count some form of minor score that reduces the incidence of draws.

 

[benneth]

Don't think this is a good idea.

In a game thats 5.10 to 4.20 the latter team should win. To have that many more scoring shots they have probably been more dominant in most areas across the ground.

 

[Spider Eater]

Don't think this is a good idea.

In a game thats 5.10 to 4.20 the latter team should win. To have that many more scoring shots they have probably been more dominant in most areas across the ground.

What if the inside 50 count was 70 to 40 in favour of the team kicking 5.10?
or the team kicking 5.10 had 15 more shots that went out on the full?
You might say then they didn't deserve to win... I think the same about a side scoring 4.20 and beating a team scoring 5.10.

Scoring goals is what it is about, if we have a system which allows for the team that achieves that goal more often yet lose then we have a flawed system.

And like I said before... the Coleman Medal is decided by most goals, if points were that relevant it should be a scoring leader including goals and points in total to decide the Coleman.

 

[Johnpoland]

Speaking as someone relatively new to the game (only really followed since I came to Australia as an adult), I think AFL is pretty much in a 'not broken, doesn't need fixed' state at the moment.

A goal is already worth 6 times what a behind is - that's weighted enough without any further tampering. Worst case scenario we get some future Ross Lyon experimenting with going one goal up and then flooding all 18 players into the defensive 50 to protect the goal line and deflect for behinds if necessary.

 

[cos789]

Speaking as someone relatively new to the game (only really followed since I came to Australia as an adult), I think AFL is pretty much in a 'not broken, doesn't need fixed' state at the moment.

A goal is already worth 6 times what a behind is - that's weighted enough without any further tampering. Worst case scenario we get some future Ross Lyon experimenting with going one goal up and then flooding all 18 players into the defensive 50 to protect the goal line and deflect for behinds if necessary.

There have already been games like that were a team has defended a lead point by point.
That proves the value of a point and six points to a goal has worked remarkedly well.
Six points? Probably because it was half dozen and they liked dozens then.

.

 

[Gigantor]

There have already been games like that were a team has defended a lead point by point.
That proves the value of a point and six points to a goal has worked remarkedly well.
Six points? Probably because it was half dozen and they liked dozens then.
.

As the OP says, they kept track of the behinds for about 25 years before the VFL incorporated them into the official score.

In other words, even in 1897, they had a fair bit of data to go off, I imagine it wouldn't have taken too much to go through the scores of previous decades to show that the 6:1 ratio was pretty much spot on.

Back then, it was low scoring, so you'd get teams scoring 0 to 8 goals per match, etc and I expect the individual cases when a team was able to win by scoring fewer goals were far and few between.

In fact, I went back to 1897, looking for the first game won by a team with fewer goals. It was in round 6:
Essendon 1.13 def South 2.4.

Then it happened again in round 12:
Collingwood 3.17 def Fitzroy 4.4

 

[Wallaby]

Scoring goals is what it is about, if we have a system which allows for the team that achieves that goal more often yet lose then we have a flawed system.

No it's not about scoring more goals - it's about scoring more total points. The best way to score a lot of total points is to kick goals, but it's not the only way.

In actuality, a very large number of games have various ways of scoring, with some rated higher than others. In rugby there are tries, and kicks. In cricket, you can score singles, 2s, boundaries etc. Basketball has 3-point shots, free throws and 'normal' baskets. Target sports, bowling, many of the various grappling/fighting sports all have differential scoring systems. And tennis, volleyball, netball, golf, hockey etc don't.

If you see goals as the be-all and end-all of the sport, maybe you should be watching another sport.

 

[MowShow]

What if it pours down in windy conditions until 5 minutes to go, one team has had it in their forward half for 80% of the game but only managed to kick 3.30 to the other teams 2.5.. Conditions suddenly clear up and the team who has hardly had the ball are kicking with the wind in the last quarter, get 2 quick goals and win 4.5 (29 current system score) to 3.30 (48 current system score)??

Much rather see the team that dominated the game and had far more scoring shots win this than the team that barely touched it, and got the ball twice at the end of the game and happened to be kicking with the wind..

Score more points.. Not score more goals.. Hardly any other sports are based on 1 form of scoring alone.. Soccer/Hockey are the only ones that spring to mind immediately.. I really can't see why our scoring system is flawed, why would we change it?

Do find it interesting that they used this system in the past though. Wonder what brought about the change??

 

[Moonwatcher]

The strange part about that scoring system is although the behinds didn't register, they still counted them. I've never found out why they counted something that didn't matter. Then again, we still count hit outs so I guess it's similar.

The points would be used as a tie breaker in case of equal goals scored.

 

[hcd199]

All I am saying is that in Aust. rules, the team that scores the most goals should always be the team that gets awarded the win, since we (are supposed to) value goals alot more than behinds. Why not let our scoring system always reflect this by always allowing the team with the most goals scored by the end of the match actually win the match.

The scoring system already reflects this - we value goals exactly 6 times as much as we do behinds.

EDIT:

But we do already value goals more than behinds, 6 times as much in fact.

Looks like I got beaten to this one...

 

[UpTheGuts]

No. Just no

 

[hcd199]

What if the inside 50 count was 70 to 40 in favour of the team kicking 5.10?
or the team kicking 5.10 had 15 more shots that went out on the full?
You might say then they didn't deserve to win... I think the same about a side scoring 4.20 and beating a team scoring 5.10.

Scoring goals is what it is about, if we have a system which allows for the team that achieves that goal more often yet lose then we have a flawed system.

And like I said before... the Coleman Medal is decided by most goals, if points were that relevant it should be a scoring leader including goals and points in total to decide the Coleman.

The fact that a medal is decided by a particular stat doesn't necessitate that the given stat is the only relevant statistic. Behinds aren't irrelevant in a game because we honour the best kicker of goals.

 

[blue harvest]

No it's not about scoring more goals - it's about scoring more total points. The best way to score a lot of total points is to kick goals, but it's not the only way.

This.

 

[zachary]

I think the motivation for this discussion comes from comments by other codes that our game gives you a point for "missing". Given that the rugbies awards for points for "trying" to score, and you can achieve this by falling over any part of a line which is the entire width of the field, I don't this we should worry too much about what they think. Soccer goals are narrow, but so is the pitch. If you measured the distance between the point posts and compared it with the size of our grounds I think the proportions would be similar. If the only way you could score in our game is through the goal posts, that would be er less good IMO.

 

[Rally]

It's an interesting concept, but I'd hate it to be brought in. As far as I see it the scoring system has been the only constant in the game for over 150 years. Change that, and they may as well introduce an offside rule.

 

[Strahany]

The thing that frustrates me most about soccer is that a team can be absolutely dominating the entire game - a ridiculous share of posession, and a copious number shots on target - but if they don't score once, and make a simple defensive error late in the game and allow the opposition to score with their first, and only shot; they lose.

That's why I laugh when anti-footy people say that players are "rewarded for missing". No. Players are rewarded for winning the ball, maintaining posession, and putting themselves in a position to score.

Why should one facet of our game (accuracy) be worth much more than every other part, which are arguably much harder?

Why should something that can be so easily affected by having "an off day" be the only factor in deciding a winner?

No thank you.