Push to axe the replay

[IllBeTheJudge]

Given that I have to colour coordinate clothes pegs on clothes that I hang out to dry*, it drives me (and my OCD .. or CDO as I prefer to call it) bonkers that there are 3 different "results" stemming from a draw, depending on the time of the year.

Extra time for H&A, Finals, and GF.

Do people that spruik replays for the GF also spruik the same for the other finals? Genuinely curious.

* and no, two pegs of the same colour but different style of peg will not do. They must match. Got an old faded blue peg and a brand new bright blue peg? These do not match

 

[walhawk]

So, if two Vic clubs no problem with a replay.
If Vic v Non Vic, simply play the replay at non Vic home state.
If two non Vics, whoever is higher ranked gets the game.
From next year we can do 60k in Perth, 54k in Adelaide, 80k/48k in Sydney, 43k in Brisbane and 40k in GC.
Sorted.

 

[IllBeTheJudge]

So, if two Vic clubs no problem with a replay.
If Vic v Non Vic, simply play the replay at non Vic home state.
If two non Vics, whoever is higher ranked gets the game.
From next year we can do 60k in Perth, 54k in Adelaide, 80k/48k in Sydney, 43k in Brisbane and 40k in GC.
Sorted.

Geez mate, there's enough people here getting their panties in a twist about having extra time in the GF. Cannot begin to imagine the uproar if the replay was kept but it was played in Sydney ...

 

[Randomizor]

I don't know that the GF replay is contractually bound to be played at the G. If the venue is the issue then lets address the issue. Play a replay at an interstate clubs venue if there is a non Vic club in the GF.

Fair compromise. Maybe then Vic supporters could understand the difficulty or organising your way to a GF.

 

[Randomizor]

So, if two Vic clubs no problem with a replay.
If Vic v Non Vic, simply play the replay at non Vic home state.
If two non Vics, whoever is higher ranked gets the game.
From next year we can do 60k in Perth, 54k in Adelaide, 80k/48k in Sydney, 43k in Brisbane and 40k in GC.
Sorted.

Since it happens so rarely, why not just do this? Non-Vic teams aren't snubbed and AFL still makes money. Win-win?

 

[walhawk]

Fair compromise. Maybe then Vic supporters could understand the difficulty or organising your way to a GF.

Replay is not the GF, it is the GF Reply.
One for the lawyers.

 

[Randomizor]

Given that I have to colour coordinate clothes pegs on clothes that I hang out to dry*, it drives me (and my OCD .. or CDO as I prefer to call it) bonkers that there are 3 different "results" stemming from a draw, depending on the time of the year.

Extra time for H&A, Finals, and GF.

Do people that spruik replays for the GF also spruik the same for the other finals? Genuinely curious.

* and no, two pegs of the same colour but different style of peg will not do. They must match. Got an old faded blue peg and a brand new bright blue peg? These do not match

A replay in all of the other finals would put the eventual winning team at a disadvantage for the next final, which will be against another team. The effects of a replay aren't "shared" like in the GF. I figure that's the theory, and it made some sense for the VFL, but doesn't make much for the AFL

 

[joy division]

Goal shootout from the 50 at full time. First to 5 wins, no player can kick twice. Seems fair after you've just busted your ass for four quarters..team who can kick best wins.

 

[Underdog]

The replay is fine. It's the fairest way to decide a deadlock. Let it stay.

I can't understand this point in the slightest?

It's an arbitrary decision.

 

[IllBeTheJudge]

A replay in all of the other finals would put the eventual winning team at a disadvantage for the next final, which will be against another team. The effects of a replay aren't "shared" like in the GF. I figure that's the theory, and it made some sense for the VFL, but doesn't make much for the AFL

That sounds fair enough, re it wouldn't be fair for a Prelim Finalist to have to play twice
A wee bit of overtime seems okay though too, and good enough for the Prelim (hence forth known as the goose)

 

[JD Tomahawk]

Surprising call by the fat cats at hq. A decision that will see them not make extra money.. Can't get my head around it. Big Gil would push a school kid over for a greenback

 

[IllBeTheJudge]

Goal shootout from the 50 at full time. First to 5 wins, no player can kick twice. Seems fair after you've just busted your ass for four quarters..team who can kick best wins.

I reckon after the first GF in 2010 they'd be lucky to find 5 blokes who could still kick it from 50

 

[shintemaster]

Doesn't bother me. I'm comfortable with the replay but wouldn't be devastated if we had extra time. Not my preference though.

No reason whatsoever for removing draw's in the season though. You win, you lose, you draw. All are valid in H&A.

BTW possibility of a GF replay might encourage retiring players to behave themselves in a close Grand Final

 

[Elite Master]

The replay would've been good in the old VFL days but it just shouldn't exist in a national comp. No brainer IMO.

The VFL days pre the Sydney Swans which joined the VFL in 1982. Now I know they never played a Grand Final back then, but had they did it would have been unfair on them much like it would be on them (and all the other interstate clubs) today.

 

[Elite Master]

I like the replay, 2010 was really exciting and strange knowing there will be another Grand Final to watch, but with that said it should be scrapt due to fairness to the interstate clubs.

 

[iluvparis]

How is it gimmicky? It's a perfectly legitimate tie-breaker in EVERY other final (including the Replay). Additionally, it's merely an extension to the game which builds from the preceding 4 quarters. It's more legitimate than saying "we'll try again next week lads" because it accounts for all the circumstances and events that occur in the Grand Final.

It's not perfectly legitimate - it's still gimmicky in every other final - I'm glad they still see enough sense to avoid it in the Grand Final. If you can't beat another team in 4 quarters you shouldn't be rewarded for beating them in an extra 10 minutes.

 

[JPetro83]

3 times its happened in history... its not a big issues. it prob wont happen again for a very long time. play extra time and be done with it.

 

[Underdog]

It's not perfectly legitimate - it's still gimmicky in every other final - I'm glad they still see enough sense to avoid it in the Grand Final. If you can't beat another team in 4 quarters you shouldn't be rewarded for beating them in an extra 10 minutes.

But it's not 10 minutes in isolation like you all portray. It's 10 minutes built from an epic battle.

Why should you be rewarded for failing to beat a team in one match and having a chance to go away, rest, get treatment and try again.

Your argument is completely daft.

 

[Underdog]

3 times its happened in history... its not a big issues. it prob wont happen again for a very long time. play extra time and be done with it.

I think it is. It has the potential to be a massive influence in favouring one side in a Grand Final. This is on top of the fact that the Grand Final is fixed to a particular venue.

 

[iluvparis]

But it's not 10 minutes in isolation like you all portray. It's 10 minutes built from an epic battle.

Why should you be rewarded for failing to beat a team in one match and having a chance to go away, rest, get treatment and try again.

Your argument is completely daft.

Both arguments are daft

i just personally happen to think that beating a team again over another entire match is a fairer outcome than adding an arbitrary amount of 'extra time' to the end of the drawn game.

 

[Underdog]

Both arguments are daft

i just personally happen to think that beating a team again over another entire match is a fairer outcome than adding an arbitrary amount of 'extra time' to the end of the drawn game.

Adding an extra game is arbitrary.

One solution could have a massive influence favouring one side, the other won't. I know which I'd prefer. It's a Grand Final!

 

[iluvparis]

Adding an extra game is arbitrary.

One solution could have a massive influence favouring one side, the other won't. I know which I'd prefer. It's a Grand Final!

Adding extra time is arbitrary

How could one solution have a massive influence favoring one side?

 

[bungwahl]

Goal shootout from the 50 at full time. First to 5 wins, no player can kick twice. Seems fair after you've just busted your ass for four quarters..team who can kick best wins.

I'd hate to see an epic GF ruined by a shoot out. Only the sick minded amongst us enjoy seeing a soccer game go to pens

 

[doona]

Both arguments are daft

i just personally happen to think that beating a team again over another entire match is a fairer outcome than adding an arbitrary amount of 'extra time' to the end of the drawn game.

Only if the grand final is Home and Away. ie. MCG gets the first one, the interstate gets the 2nd one. Making the eagles for example travel to Melbourne twice in 2 weekends (or stay in Melbourne) is a Huge advantage to a Melbourne based team.

What I am saying it is really not fair for interstate teams. What about 2 interstate teams in a grand final? both travelling for 2 games in a row in Melbourne? sounds stupid to me and it is.

 

[Underdog]

Adding extra time is arbitrary

How could one solution have a massive influence favoring one side?

How you been following this thread at all? Or just not understanding the issues?