'This is a joke we don't play extra time'

[mickctiger]

This coming from a bloke who expresses the intellectual rigor of a 9 year old!

Melbourne would be the strongest pro replay state. A simple sampling of this thread would confirm that and it loses 61:39 there...

So Australia wide 67:33 would be quite likely ...comfortably ...

You flat earthers need to move forward at some point

Descending to personal abuse of those that don't agree with you is a sure sign that you are losing the debate

 

[mess]

If the next week is a thrashing as all the modern day replays are, you could hardly then say they deserved their victory

By what measure of logic do you assert this to be true? Of course they deserved it if they thrashed the side that fought them to a standstill the previous week. In fact they would obviously deserve it immeasurably more having played a full game against said side than if they had got on top of them for but a paltry 10 extra minutes.

The point is that after playing out a draw, both sides deserve the chance to steel themselves for another proper crack at claiming the flag.

and we will essentially be robbed of witnessing one of the greatest grand finals ever.

You didn't watch it?

Footy is always a week to week proposition and next week it could be entirely different, footy is always about the best team on the day wins.

That's right. And if both teams prove the equal of each other one week, they must fight it out the next.

I never want to see any of that best of 3 or 5 series rubbish that they have in the US. One game (no replay), one winner and thats the way it should be.

Calm your fretful heart. The AFL/VFL Grand Final is, has always been and will forever be decided by a best of 1 series.

 

[TheBloods]

This year it is a best of two!

Another problem with the replay is that the definition of a grand final is commonly the final round to determine the premiers. To have two grand finals is an oxymoron.

 

[mess]

I'm a big fan of the scoring system, but compared to all other sports (not just the footy codes) it is one of the few that rewards inaccuracy. To me, this means these appeals to how other codes do things are mindless. Australian Rules is very unique.

No one aims for behinds. The aim is to kick a goal. Very rarely do you see a player happy that he has kicked a behind. Only if it is after the siren and scores are level.

You have contradicted yourself. It is obviously not inaccuracy that has been rewarded, but field position. The fact that a shot was earned by the side is worth something, given they are not meant to be easily come by. Were no score to be awarded for a shot on goal, it would undermine the worth of the players who work to get the ball forward but are not responsible for shooting at goal. The game would not function nearly as well, and big name forwards would be a pack of insufferable ***** - like in soccer.

Plus there would be shit loads more draws.


ps - I understand you are presenting the "silliness" of the behind as a loveable quirk of the game, but I've had this conversation with rugby dudes a few rimes so my response to it is pretty much automated and immune to context.

 

[Clay Davis]

This year it is a best of two!

And next year it will most likely be back to being a best of one proposition.

 

[mickctiger]

IMHO they will be talking about this year for decades, if the match went into OT they wouldn't

 

[2Knights]

A replay is the fairest possible method of getting a definitive result, and for this reason alone it should stay.

 

[mess]

This year it is a best of two!

There is no such thing. Ask a maths dude.

Another problem with the replay is that the definition of a grand final is commonly the final round to determine the premiers. To have two grand finals is an oxymoron.

Nope. The first Grand Final had exactly that much at stake, just as the second will.

 

[sherb]

IMHO they will be talking about this year for decades, if the match went into OT they wouldn't

I agree.

The uniqueness of a draw, especially one occurring in a Grand Final, appears to be completely lost on so many people.

I still remember the 77 draw vividly.

 

[Clay Davis]

You have contradicted yourself. It is obviously not inaccuracy that has been rewarded, but field position. The fact that a shot was earned by the side is worth something, given they are not meant to be easily come by. Were no score to be awarded for a shot on goal, it would undermine the worth of the players who work to get the ball forward but are not responsible for shooting at goal. The game would not function nearly as well, and big name forwards would be a pack of insufferable ***** - like in soccer.

Plus there would be shit loads more draws.

No contradiction. Players aim for goals, are disappointed when they don't get them. In spite of that, they get rewarded for missing. Not a reward in the immediate sense, but a slight chance to be one at the very end. All players would prefer to take the shot again after scoring a behind. They would not see it as a reward.

This isn't an argument for changing the scoring system. I like it. But plenty of people foreign to Australian Rules dislike it or ridicule it. Plenty of people ITT dislike/ridicule the replay system. There are probably others who wish their opinion to be heard for another rule change. And so on.

 

[sherb]

You have contradicted yourself. It is obviously not inaccuracy that has been rewarded, but field position. The fact that a shot was earned by the side is worth something, given they are not meant to be easily come by. Were no score to be awarded for a shot on goal, it would undermine the worth of the players who work to get the ball forward but are not responsible for shooting at goal. The game would not function nearly as well, and big name forwards would be a pack of insufferable ***** - like in soccer.

Plus there would be shit loads more draws.

ps - I understand you are presenting the "silliness" of the behind as a loveable quirk of the game, but I've had this conversation with rugby dudes a few rimes so my response to it is pretty much automated and immune to context.

Wasn't this one of the reasons a behind was introduced to the game in the first place?

 

[TheBloods]

There is no such thing. Ask a maths dude.




Nope. The first Grand Final had exactly that much at stake, just as the second will.

By definition this year is a best of two.

The GF still doesn't fit the definition I stated.

 

[Clay Davis]

By definition this year is a best of two.

The GF still doesn't fit the definition I stated.

So your problem with it is that it doesn't fit the definition of words. You must have Asperger's like Dan26

 

[Simmonds2Hislop]

It affects a lot of things.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/replay-forces-sport-switches-20100925-15rpn.html

- spring carnival
- A-League
- cycling

As well as numerous other plans/events.

Meh. The only people I feel sorry for are those that have weddings the following week, or perhaps a birthday.

Not because they should cancel, but because there will be a number of people that will be very interested in the GF.

This year it is a best of two!

Another problem with the replay is that the definition of a grand final is commonly the final round to determine the premiers. To have two grand finals is an oxymoron.

No its not.

A best of two would mean a 2nd game would be played win, lose or draw. A best of two would require two wins or 1 win, 1 loss and percentage. Or of course the draw and the win.

 

[DeanoT]

Wonder if Riewoldt and St Kilda will refer to this weeks game as Round 27.

Meh. The only people I feel sorry for are those that have weddings the following week, or perhaps a birthday.

Not because they should cancel, but because there will be a number of people that will be very interested in the GF.

No doubt you won't care that the A-League game between the two Melbourne sides is moved by six days, but for many AFL fans who follow other sports, it IS an issue.

No its not.

A best of two would mean a 2nd game would be played win, lose or draw. A best of two would require two wins or 1 win, 1 loss and percentage. Or of course the draw and the win.

With sports that have a best of 7, do they play 7 games, regardless of the outcome of the previous games? Of course not. Do you play 5 sets of tennis if a player wins the first 3? No.

The winner of the premiership this year will be the side that has a 1-1-0 (W-D-L) from two grand finals. It is a best of two by any definition.

 

[mess]

No contradiction. Players aim for goals, are disappointed when they don't get them. In spite of that, they get rewarded for missing.

They do not get rewarded for missing. They miss out on 5 points for missing, which is why they are seldom happy about missing. The point (aka - shot on goal) is earned by the lead up work.

This isn't an argument for changing the scoring system. I like it. But plenty of people foreign to Australian Rules dislike it or ridicule it. Plenty of people ITT dislike/ridicule the replay system. There are probably others who wish their opinion to be heard for another rule change. And so on.

Good analogy. As in the foreigners to the game and their complaints about the unabashed fairness of our scoring system, the detractors of the replay ITT are speaking out of simplicity and will no doubt come around when they have actually watched one.

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

By definition this year is a best of two.

There was no 'best' in the first one.

This is a replay because there was no clear winner in the first game. It's not adding the results of two games together to determine a winner (as in best of two)

 

[TheBloods]

Meh. The only people I feel sorry for are those that have weddings the following week, or perhaps a birthday.

Not because they should cancel, but because there will be a number of people that will be very interested in the GF.

I feel sorry for everyone who is affected - it ruins all their plans. Particularly harsh for those who have organised weddings.

No its not.

A best of two would mean a 2nd game would be played win, lose or draw. A best of two would require two wins or 1 win, 1 loss and percentage. Or of course the draw and the win.

Not necessarily - depends on the game. In most American sports when the number of games needed to be won (usually 2, 3 or 4) is achieved no more games are played. Arguably the AFL/VFL grand final has traditionally been a best of an infinite number with the winner the first to reach one, but this year it is a best of two.

 

[Clay Davis]

They do not get rewarded for missing. They miss out on 5 points for missing, which is why they are seldom happy about missing. The point (aka - shot on goal) is earned by the lead up work.

Just being devil's advocate here. The scoring system works fine for me - I quite like the knowledge that a team won despite kicking fewer goals, or the knowledge that a team won, despite the other team clearly playing better, aside from missing shots on goal.

Good analogy. As in the foreigners to the game and their complaints about the unabashed fairness of our scoring system, the detractors of the replay ITT are speaking out of simplicity and will no doubt come around when they have actually watched one.

Have a friend who thought Australian Rules resembled the kind of game you made up when you were kids, where you just put silly rules in for the fun of it. The grand final was her first full game to watch, and she's a convert. She's absolutely stoked there's another one to watch in a week.

 

[Eagle87]

Descending to personal abuse of those that don't agree with you is a sure sign that you are losing the debate

Wow. How original

Merely responding in kind.

Let me guess, you are a teenager from Melbourne?

 

[danielz_23]

Meh. The only people I feel sorry for are those that have weddings the following week, or perhaps a birthday.

Not because they should cancel, but because there will be a number of people that will be very interested in the GF.

Have you applied for a job with the AFL? You apparently have the same thought process as they do.

Shocking ramifications of this 'rule'... for a starters we look like first-rate tools to the rest of the world who have casually tuned in - surely it sets the game 5 years back in that respect.

I have friends who are traveling from interstate for the Hawthorn B&F... naturally all flights and accommodation is booked and now has to be changed (if possible, with penalties)... I'm sure there are 10,000s of other incidents not related to attending GF2 but its flow on effects.

 

[mess]

By definition this year is a best of two.

No it isn't. I'll break it down for you. There is no best of 2. 2 is an even number. You need an odd number to have a best of series.

If you were to have a best out of 3 Jenkins/Roshambo/RPS competition for shotgun, and you were one all and both pulled out paper in the "grand final", you would naturally stage replays until someone won 2 games. Why? Because 2 is the best of 3. There is no best of 4. (well, there is, but you have to give someone a chance to square up after losing a best of 3 to get there, and that'd be dumb)

tcdu?

Look up "replay".

The GF still doesn't fit the definition I stated.

Yes it does. And yesterday's did, too.

 

[sherb]

This isn't an argument for changing the scoring system. I like it. But plenty of people foreign to Australian Rules dislike it or ridicule it. Plenty of people ITT dislike/ridicule the replay system. There are probably others who wish their opinion to be heard for another rule change. And so on.

Because they don't understand the game. Or in the case of ignoramuses like Rugby League supporters, because they don't want to.

They don't understand how difficult it can be to kick a goal under intense physical pressure, or whilst running flat out, or whilst on a difficult angle, or with the conditions against you (eg cross wind). An alternative scoring option under these circumstances, whilst not the maximum possible score, certainly isn't a bad option.

Or we get the inane "it's the only game/sport in the world where you get a score for missing" argument. Firstly it isn't. And secondly, so what if it were anyway? All games have unique aspects, the last time I checked conformity between different them wasn't a requirement. It's what makes different sports interesting in fact.

And, as has already been pointed out, it reduces the amount of drawn games we experience (and as we have seen, drawn games cause a great deal of angst and confusion among many supporters of our great game ).

 

[sherb]

Shocking ramifications of this 'rule'... for a starters we look like first-rate tools to the rest of the world who have casually tuned in - surely it sets the game 5 years back in that respect.

Or it might impress them that we do things differently. Who knows?

Either way, are you that insecure that you care what the rest of the world thinks?

 

[TheBloods]

No it isn't. I'll break it down for you. There is no best of 2. 2 is an even number. You need an odd number to have a best of series.

You can have any number of games you like depending upon the criteria set to win. For the AFL the criteria is win one game. For the NBA the criteria is win 4 games. For the Ashes it is win more than your opponent if you don't have the Ashes, win at least the same as your opponent if you do have the Ashes.

Yes it does. And yesterday's did, too.

See definition of grand final. It has an objective - it is the final round to determine the premiers. Yesterday satisfied neither of those two things.