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

[Kings Army]

FFS if I hear or read "its a great and unique part of our game" I am going to jump from the nearest bridge. Hello! we already have a unique game, ie we play with an unusal shape ball, we play on a round oval, we have a lot of different rules, why do we also have to have some stupid replay of a GF? I thought a GF was that one and only last game of the year. It doesnt matter that the rule was in place when WCE joined, its a crap rule, pure and simple. Progression and professionalism should be first and foremost when it comes to our rules. DEMETRIOU CHANGE THE BLOODY STUPID RULE, this is a National Competition, start acting like one.

Thank goodness for that - the Grand Final replay is a great and unique part of our game. Now run along and find a bridge.

Bloody stupid shaped ball - Why have a stupid shaped ball??? Lets change it to a round ball and only 1 player per team can touch it with their hands. Hang on a second!

Love the replay - it is here to stay so move on.

 

[Simmonds2Hislop]

Also, an argument can be made that the season really isn't decided in "ten extra minutes." When was last year's decider won? Last 10 minutes. When were 2002, 2005 and 2006 won? Last 10 minutes.

No. Last years Grand Final was decided by the 80 minutes of actual game time. Not just the last 10.

 

[Clay Davis]

Bwahahahaha ...

Quality. I certainly concede that you seem across ranting angrily and there is no doubt I'd swap my life for you're thrill a minute one, you know the one where you search peoples post and time how many minutes they posted after the GF....

Watching this in Bangkok. Try explaining to folks from all over the world that there is no result.

Complete ****ing joke. It was raised in 2005, 2006 & 2009 and now we get the draw. Demetriou is a ****ing tool and the inability to decide the game on the day is a quaint hangover from an amateur, unprofessional era... joke....

Great game. Joke that its not decided on the day.

Was amusing and pathetic at the time. Remains so.

 

[Kings Army]

I'm starting to side with extra with every post that's made. The best reason I've heard as to why we should switch to extra time is because the rule was made under completely different circumstances. The AFL was the VFL 33 years ago and every team was based in suburban Melbourne bar Geelong who was only an hour or so down the highway. Also, the VFL ran under a part-time basis and it was easier to fit a replay into the MCG schedule.

Now we're contending in a national competition and a corporate environment. It's simply wouldn't be fair for interstate teams to play the grand final, fly home for a few days, come back on Thursday and play another game. Or alternatively it's not fair either to have them holed up in a hotel room for a week even if it is at the AFL's expense.

Remember what happened to the Eagles in 1990? Came over from Perth, fought heroically for a draw against a highly favoured Collingwood, went back to Perth, came back, got flogged by the Pies and then the Bombers a week later. Had the 2002 decider gone to a replay I reckon the Pies would have won.

The MCG also has commitments and I'm sure if there's a draw and replay next year the MCC will be putting their fist down about it having already changed their agreement once for the AFL.

Also, an argument can be made that the season really isn't decided in "ten extra minutes." When was last year's decider won? Last 10 minutes. When were 2002, 2005 and 2006 won? Last 10 minutes.

Say what you want about tradition but in business some things just have to change for the long-term benefit of the sport.

If a player earning half a million dollars cannot get up for an extra week and 2 extra flights then sorry I will not weep for their inconveince.

A Vic team could fly to WA in round 22 and play Freo, fly back in week 1 to play Freo again, fly to Brisbane in week 2 and play the Lions and then fly to WA and play WCE in week 3. 3 trips to WA and 1 to Bris in a month.

Leave as is. There will always be something for the sooks to whinge about. That is why they are sooks.

 

[Keys]

If a player earning half a million dollars cannot get up for an extra week and 2 extra flights then sorry I will not weep for their inconveince.

A Vic team could fly to WA in round 22 and play Freo, fly back in week 1 to play Freo again, fly to Brisbane in week 2 and play the Lions and then fly to WA and play WCE in week 3. 3 trips to WA and 1 to Bris in a month.

Leave as is. There will always be something for the sooks to whinge about. That is why they are sooks.

That would only be because they finished either 7th or 8th so if they have to do a lot of travelling in the finals it's their fault for not finishing higher. They still get to play the GF in their home state which cannot be said for a non-vic side in the same scenario.

The whole point that you seem to be missing is that in a GF replay a non-vic side is at a disadavantage when compared to a victorian side

 

[Normy132]

No. Last years Grand Final was decided by the 80 minutes of actual game time. Not just the last 10.

I think you'll find there were roughly 120 minutes in last year's grand final. At which the scores were level roughly around the 110 minute mark.

If a player earning half a million dollars cannot get up for an extra week and 2 extra flights then sorry I will not weep for their inconveince.

A Vic team could fly to WA in round 22 and play Freo, fly back in week 1 to play Freo again, fly to Brisbane in week 2 and play the Lions and then fly to WA and play WCE in week 3. 3 trips to WA and 1 to Bris in a month.

Leave as is. There will always be something for the sooks to whinge about. That is why they are sooks.

Serves them right for not finishing higher on the ladder in the regular season. If they want those benefits they have to work for them like the other 15 teams in the comp.

This isn't about anything but the Grand Final. It doesn't involve what the other finals do. It doesn't involve what the other sports do. It's about what we do for this one match.

 

[Rob]

If a player earning half a million dollars cannot get up for an extra week and 2 extra flights then sorry I will not weep for their inconveince.

A Vic team could fly to WA in round 22 and play Freo, fly back in week 1 to play Freo again, fly to Brisbane in week 2 and play the Lions and then fly to WA and play WCE in week 3. 3 trips to WA and 1 to Bris in a month.

That is a deadset absurd comparison. Every other final the home ground advantage goes to the team that earns it. If a team has had to travel during the finals it's because they didn't finish high enough on the ladder.
The grand final is played at the arbitrary home ground of a few teams who may not have even earned the right to host it.

Consequently how can you compare the 2? This thread is getting more ridiculous by the day. People are just clutching at straws.

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

You combined a 'logical' argument with 'in theory, an infinite amount '...?!?!

If it's good enough next weekend to have extra time, it's good enough last weekend, especially as the rules were changed today to allow that to happen (so arguments about 'tradition', 'you knew the rules', 'extra time is not appropriate', etc. have no merit).

My only argument in favour of a replay is the fairest way to determine the loser of a once every four decade occurence. Tradition or you knew the rules don't come into it.

The only argument in favour of extra time is the replay disadvantages non Victorian teams.

And that the commission should look at that.

Probably legislate for a mid week night replay 10 days later or something.

On current occurences, that is only going to happen once every sixty years or so.

I would not like either StKilda or Collingwood to be living a grand final loss at the moment from extra time last Saturday. Grand finals should be determined by a normal game in the first instance. If two normal games can't find a winner, then go to an abnormal game.

Grand final winners get written into history. Only right that the winner is determined fairly. Otherwise the game loses a little bit of substance

Normal games usually do find a winner is the main point you seem to be missing in your summation of the situation.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Kings your really not making a case, your just abusing people with silly what ifs to back you up.

I mostly like the argument that if an interstate player earning $500k a year cant get himself up for it then bad luck. Do you have any idea on how insane and insulting that is to everyone not based in victoria.

Your VFL tradition died in the arse when it became the AFL and sides from every state were included. how about you get with the times.

 

[TheBloods]

My only argument in favour of a replay is the fairest way to determine the loser of a once every four decade occurence. Tradition or you knew the rules don't come into it.

The only argument in favour of extra time is the replay disadvantages non Victorian teams.

And that the commission should look at that.

Probably legislate for a mid week night replay 10 days later or something.

On current occurences, that is only going to happen once every sixty years or so.

I would not like either StKilda or Collingwood to be living a grand final loss at the moment from extra time last Saturday. Grand finals should be determined by a normal game in the first instance. If two normal games can't find a winner, then go to an abnormal game.

Grand final winners get written into history. Only right that the winner is determined fairly. Otherwise the game loses a little bit of substance

Normal games usually do find a winner is the main point you seem to be missing in your summation of the situation.

"Normal games" do not always find a winner - see draws during the H&A and extra time in draws for other finals.

If "abnormal games" are the wrong way to find the winner, why do it all? Why not just do it the first time and save all the inconvenience?

A night match mid week 10 days later is a bizarre suggestion compared to extra time.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

"Normal games" do not always find a winner - see draws during the H&A and extra time in draws for other finals.

If "abnormal games" are the wrong way to find the winner, why do it all? Why not just do it the first time and save all the inconvenience?

A night match mid week 10 days later is a bizarre suggestion compared to extra time.

I'm not inconvenienced.
I like watching Grand Finals.

 

[Keys]

The mantra for the Grand Final has always been that the winner was the best team on the day, especially when the seemingly inferior team has won.

By replaying the GF it is effectively we couldn't determine the best team on the day so we'll come back another day to see who is the best then.

I don't see any reason why playing extra time would provide a less worthy winner than by replaying the game. In fact in a sport that prides itself on pushing players to the limit and overcoming physical exhaustion players that performed in that extra period would be held on an even higher pedestal.

 

[mickctiger]

The mantra for the Grand Final has always been that the winner was the best team on the day, especially when the seemingly inferior team has won.

By replaying the GF it is effectively we couldn't determine the best team on the day so we'll come back another day to see who is the best then.

I don't see any reason why playing extra time would provide a less worthy winner than by replaying the game. In fact in a sport that prides itself on pushing players to the limit and overcoming physical exhaustion players that performed in that extra period would be held on an even higher pedestal.

and if the scores are still tied after OT, then what ?
would you consider a penalty shoot-out an accurate reflection of the Better Team ?
if the game did go to OT do you think that they would be talking about it with the same reverence as they are now, just like they still do regarding 77 ?
we remeber the draws and replays, we dont remeber the games that went into OT

 

[SaintsSeptember]

and if the scores are still tied after OT, then what ?
would you consider a penalty shoot-out an accurate reflection of the Better Team ?
if the game did go to OT do you think that they would be talking about it with the same reverence as they are now, just like they still do regarding 77 ?
we remeber the draws and replays, we dont remeber the games that went into OT

I'm sure there are some here who would.

 

[TheBloods]

I'm not inconvenienced.
I like watching Grand Finals.

Thanks gen Y!

 

[TheBloods]

and if the scores are still tied after OT, then what ?
would you consider a penalty shoot-out an accurate reflection of the Better Team ?
if the game did go to OT do you think that they would be talking about it with the same reverence as they are now, just like they still do regarding 77 ?
we remeber the draws and replays, we dont remeber the games that went into OT

Could this post be any more ridiculous?!?

If scores are still tied after extra time there is another extra time.
This is EXACTLY what will happen next week.

Talk of a penalty shoot-out is a ridiculous strawman.

Of course people would still be talking about it - even more so. People still talk about the 1994 final. They talk about the 77 draw but no one talks about the 77 replay. The 1990 draw was a great game - the replay was a dud. We remember the close games - a draw with an extra time win is about as close as you can get with a conclusion.

 

[adelaidecrows]

your wasting your time bloods. they arent listening to reason. you would be better of spending your time watching the grass grow. The stupidity of some of the arguments for a replay is bordering on amazing.

 

[Peck]

I'm sure there are some here who would.

There are some who think that the world has existed for 2000 years.

Some opinions should be ignored

 

[Suspense]

the stupidity of some of the arguments for a replay is bordering on amazing.

.

it would be nice to be able to have a discussion about the topic without being abused for an opinion. Why dont we all take a deep breath...you dont need to abuse everyone left right and centre who doesnt agree with it.

:-/

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

"Normal games" do not always find a winner - see draws during the H&A and extra time in draws for other finals.

If "abnormal games" are the wrong way to find the winner, why do it all? Why not just do it the first time and save all the inconvenience?

A night match mid week 10 days later is a bizarre suggestion compared to extra time.

I aren't entirely comfortable with it for the earlier finals. Find it a bit on the bizarre side. It's preferential to affecting the other teams still in it is its only virtue.


A goal in the first minute of extra time gives the scorer to much advantage relative to a goal in the first minute of a normal game is the way I see it. Makes it a less fair contest from then on.

 

[Ry009]

This may not be enough to outweigh tradition as an argument to retain a GF replay but it should at least be given due consideration.

Im not against the replay, but probably the most balanced and fairest response in this entire thread.

 

[Keys]

and if the scores are still tied after OT, then what ?
would you consider a penalty shoot-out an accurate reflection of the Better Team ?

You play extra time again

Should never go to something akin to a penalty shoot out.

if the game did go to OT do you think that they would be talking about it with the same reverence as they are now, just like they still do regarding 77 ?
we remeber the draws and replays, we dont remeber the games that went into OT

Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the replay is any more memorable than any other GF, the draw is another story because it was unique. It remains to be seen what this weekends match will be like but I'm sure the draw will be equally as memorable as 1977 and will be talked about for years to come.

Given that there has only been 2 games go into OT and that close finals are never remembered as clearly as close Grand Finals, it's spurious to claim that we don't remember the games that went into OT. I have no doubt that any GF that goes into OT will be remembered just as much, if not more than a replay.

Think about some of the great individual acts that have helped win close GF's and tell me that a towering mark / miracle goal / match saving tackle or the like in OT wouldn't be remembered for decades.

 

[Ry009]

You play extra time again

But then what if it's level after that, and after that, and after that?

 

[Eagle87]

Was amusing and pathetic at the time. Remains so.

Wow. Such razor wit.

I am glad I amused you.

 

[TheBloods]

I aren't entirely comfortable with it for the earlier finals. Find it a bit on the bizarre side. It's preferential to affecting the other teams still in it is its only virtue.


A goal in the first minute of extra time gives the scorer to much advantage relative to a goal in the first minute of a normal game is the way I see it. Makes it a less fair contest from then on.

It's half a quarter. You think a game is won if you're 6 points up half way through the last quarter?