Proposal for a new AFL scoring system

[RogersResults]

Recently reading the history of interstate matches of Australian Rules football on wikipedia, it stated...

"Victoria dominated the first hundred years of intercolonial and interstate football. This was the case in the first ever interstate game, held on Tuesday, 1 July 1879... The final score was Victoria (represented by the VFA) 7 goals, 14 points to South Australia 0.3 — a margin of seven goals as points did not count unless both sides scored the same number of goals."

Did not realise this was the case.
If this scoring system were implemented today, it would eliminate situations where you have a team winning the match despite having scored less goals than the other side, simply because the behinds they kicked contributed to a greater combined score. These situations I have never liked. I think that if you score more goals than the other side, then you should always be awarded the win.

Should we have a scoring system where we only count points if both teams have the same number of goals by the end of the match to determine the winner?
Should we just get rid of points alltogether?

First piece of nonsense: The game has never been called "Rules" by any of the senior Australian Football bodies.
Second piece of nonsense: Wikipedia is a reliable source.
Third piece of nonsense. "points did not count unless both sides scored the same number of goals." There were no points in 1879. No points for goals, no points for behinds. Most goals won otherwise the match was a draw. Points for goals and behinds were introduced for the inaugural season of the VFL in 1897. (Points in rugby were first introduced in the Rugby School rules of 1888.)

Fact: From 1897 to round 15 2012, 262 out of 14,085 matches (1.86%) have been won by teams with fewer goals. 6 of 592 finals have been won by teams with fewer goals. 1 grand final (1968) has been won with fewer goals.

Fact: If points were not in use (Should we get rid of points alltogether?) since 1897 their would have been 926 draws instead of 149. There would have been 50 drawn finals instead of 8. (Including 8 grand finals instead of 3.) 2012 would have had 7 draws already.

 

[jimmy_b]

If you can win with less goals than the other team you must have been the better team to have that many shots, so they deserve the win

 

[DrEvil]

I think shots missing to the left should score 2 points and to the right 1 point.

 

[RogersResults]

​

Matches won with fewer goals 1897-2012 round 15.​

​

​

Matches with equal goals 1897-2012 round 15.​

 

[Gigantor]

the Giants are below University - that's not a good omen.

 

[RogersResults]

the Giants are below University - that's not a good omen.

​

Teams that joined the League after 1897 - first 14 matches.​

 

[Spider Eater]

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.

I watch plenty of other sports.
I find any argument here supporting the point's existence to be very fragile... like yours!
You compare the point to other sports... the difference is in those sports is that they are executing a skill, not failing to execute and getting rewarded for it!
There is no score in basketball for only hitting the backboard!
In bowling you only get rewarded for only the pins you knock down.
In every instance of your comparisons they are getting rewarded for what they are attempting... not 'almost', in those sports they have the choice of going for different scoring options... the 'behind' is not a choice... is a consolation for failing.

And if you believe your own opinion (that the 'behind' is a credible scoring option) then you should support the Coleman medal rewarding the top scorer rather then just the leading goal kicker.

 

[RogersResults]

I watch plenty of other sports.
I find any argument here supporting the point's existence to be very fragile... like yours!
You compare the point to other sports... the difference is in those sports is that they are executing a skill, not failing to execute and getting rewarded for it!
There is no score in basketball for only hitting the backboard!
In bowling you only get rewarded for only the pins you knock down.
In every instance of your comparisons they are getting rewarded for what they are attempting... not 'almost', in those sports they have the choice of going for different scoring options... the 'behind' is not a choice... is a consolation for failing.

And if you believe your own opinion (that the 'behind' is a credible scoring option) then you should support the Coleman medal rewarding the top scorer rather then just the leading goal kicker.

Gaelic Football:
If you miss the net and the ball goes 'over' you get 1 point for the 'over' instead of 3 points for a 'goal'.

In rugby you get points for different types of ways to score. (A history of points in rugby is here.)

In Australian Football a 'behind' is just another way to score.

 

[Zahara]

I watch plenty of other sports.
I find any argument here supporting the point's existence to be very fragile... like yours!
You compare the point to other sports... the difference is in those sports is that they are executing a skill, not failing to execute and getting rewarded for it!
There is no score in basketball for only hitting the backboard!
In bowling you only get rewarded for only the pins you knock down.
In every instance of your comparisons they are getting rewarded for what they are attempting... not 'almost', in those sports they have the choice of going for different scoring options... the 'behind' is not a choice... is a consolation for failing.

And if you believe your own opinion (that the 'behind' is a credible scoring option) then you should support the Coleman medal rewarding the top scorer rather then just the leading goal kicker.

How dare our game be unique

 

[McCrann]

In soccer is the side who wins the one that had the most shots on goal the winner, or the side that actually scores more goals?

In Aust. rules the teams playing are trying to make shots "on goal", not trying to score behinds (or at least one would hope so). So if only goals were counted, this would reflect what the teams were actually trying to achieve, not reward attempts on goal but missing. if you dominate a game, that's great, but that domination should really only be truly reflected if you have more goals scored than the other team, in my opinion.

Who cares what they do in Soccer?

In that sport they can score with their hip, their shoulder, their chest, their butt, their head, their neck, their back, hell - even the Opposition can score goals for them!

How silly is that?

At least in Australian Football - you can only score goals with YOUR FOOT!

 

[Spider Eater]

Gaelic Football:
If you miss the net and the ball goes 'over' you get 1 point for the 'over' instead of 3 points for a 'goal'.

In rugby you get points for different types of ways to score. (A history of points in rugby is here.)

In Australian Football a 'behind' is just another way to score.

I respect there is some comparison with Gaelic Football but really don't see any comparison with scoring in Rugby... all scores in modern rugby are an execution of skill, not a failure to do so.

Who cares what they do in Soccer?

At least in Australian Football - you can only score goals with YOUR FOOT!

The argument isn't really about how you score goals... they certainly don't get a score for missing.

My opinion is that the game would be better off without points (or using them only to separate teams on equal goals). I also think the game would be more marketable to new markets being simpler... Although I am more sure that you wont have to worry about it changing any time soon.
Still, I'd rather see it trialled pre-season over the 9 point goal, 3 point rushed behind and 'play on' after the post is hit.

 

[Gigantor]

​

Teams that joined the League after 1897 - first 14 matches.​

Interesting table. Not many of us would have thought that Port was on top. I recall that they finished mid-table, but didn't realise that they were 8-6 at one point.

Also, North is a surprise in 6th spot.

 

[RogersResults]

I respect there is some comparison with Gaelic Football but really don't see any comparison with scoring in Rugby... all scores in modern rugby are an execution of skill, not a failure to do so.





The argument isn't really about how you score goals... they certainly don't get a score for missing.

My opinion is that the game would be better off without points (or using them only to separate teams on equal goals). I also think the game would be more marketable to new markets being simpler... Although I am more sure that you wont have to worry about it changing any time soon.
Still, I'd rather see it trialled pre-season over the 9 point goal, 3 point rushed behind and 'play on' after the post is hit.

Think of scoring 1 point as a consolation prize for getting the ball within scoring distance and across the goal line and remember too that not all 1 point scores are missed shots for goal. In Australian Football you can score 1 point for punching the ball across the goal line or carrying the ball across the goal line - both of which happen intentionally as well as unintentionally.

The system of points for goals and behinds was introduced in 1897 to reduce the number of draws* (don't know anyone who feels good after a draw) which it did - see the figures already posted?

Scores are level in a vital match, siren could go any second, there is a throw-in in the forward pocket, a ruckman for the attacking side takes the opportunity to punch the ball across the goal line for a 1 point score. That takes some skill. The siren sounds and we have a winner. Would the supporters of the winning team have preferred a draw? Extra time to see if one team could get a goal ahead or if still equal at the end of extra time, some abysmal soccer-style shoot-out?

A behind is another way to score but of much lesser value - 6 times the number of forward entries to equal 1 goal. They do however significantly reduce the number of draws.

*The claim that previously, matches with equal goals were awarded to the team with the most behinds is rubbish.

 

[Natho]

Stop changing the game. You have ruined it enough already.

 

[kosifantutti]

I watch plenty of other sports.
I find any argument here supporting the point's existence to be very fragile... like yours!
You compare the point to other sports... the difference is in those sports is that they are executing a skill, not failing to execute and getting rewarded for it!
There is no score in basketball for only hitting the backboard!
In bowling you only get rewarded for only the pins you knock down.
In every instance of your comparisons they are getting rewarded for what they are attempting... not 'almost', in those sports they have the choice of going for different scoring options... the 'behind' is not a choice... is a consolation for failing.

And if you believe your own opinion (that the 'behind' is a credible scoring option) then you should support the Coleman medal rewarding the top scorer rather then just the leading goal kicker.

In bowling you are attempting to knock down 10 pins. You still get a score if you fail to do it. Darts and archery are the same. Cricket you can go for the slog over the top, get an outside edge and still score four.

In snooker, if you miss the pocket and the ball somehow ends up in a different pocket. That's ok.

Soccer you can be missing completely but if it hits another player and goes in you or your team are awarded a goal. You don't get that same benefit in footy.

 

[cos789]

Soccer you can be missing completely but if it hits another player and goes in you or your team are awarded a goal. You don't get that same benefit in footy.

So in Australian Football you can be rewarded for "missing"
but in soccer you can be rewarded for being a total idiot or klutz by scoring an own goal.

Not only have people repeatedly point out other sports with more scoring types and other sports with scoring differentials but people have neglected the other side of the point - the "rushed" behind.
The rushed behind is similar to the safety - of which many sports have a safety - it is a
penalty against the defensive side being in negative territory.

.