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

[mickctiger]

A GF going into OT would not be unique?

not as unique as a draw. Unless you were there or it involved your team, you would more than likely have no reason for knowing if a particular Grand final went into OT

 

[Keys]

I dont think that the replay should have OT either, but thats an accademic question because the probabality of another draw is far less than what it was for saturday. The probability of there still beining draw after playing OT, increases though.

The probability of there being a draw this week is the same as the probability of having a draw last week.

The biggest flaw in the OT argument (apart from its inherent unfainess to one or both teams) is that any extra time played will still produce a drawn result. Logically the only way to break the deadlock after that is a penalty shootout, and really can anyone seriously tell us that that would be an acceptable outcome

How is OT inherently unfair? And why will extra time still produce a drawn result, it can produce another drawn result but it is by no means certain.

Logically a penalty shootout? You're the only one raising this, logically you would play amother 5 minutes each way.

 

[TheBloods]

Not the point. Allowing that ends weren't changed, you think Collingwood should have been awarded the premiership at the 10 minute mark of the first quarter? That's the comparison that you should be looking at.

No it's not. That's an absurd comparison.

In a match if a side gets an early break, part of the beauty is the other team having a chance to pull it back. In extra time early break wins.

So, again, if you get a 1 goal break half way through the last quarter the game is over?

If teams had to regularly play extra time so as strategys could evolve etc, fair enough.

But simply such is not the case. You put up with extra time in the early finals because it is better than impacting other teams. But once you get to grand final, you want to determine the premier in the fairest possible way.

What strategies? What advantage does one team gain because there is extra time? It happens in normal finals - no one is complaining about that.

Which could actually end in extra time in the second week. If it does it will be an admittance than these two teams couldn't reasonably be seperated with the playing of a normal game.

How is that different to just playing extra time this week?

Pretty straight forward really. The only dilemma is non Victorian teams.

Which is a big issue.

 

[Underdog]

not as unique as a draw. Unless you were there or it involved your team, you would more than likely have no reason for knowing if a particular Grand final went into OT

Errrr...logic?

A game needs to end as a draw to go into overtime. Hence both equally unique.

 

[TheBloods]

not as unique as a draw. Unless you were there or it involved your team, you would more than likely have no reason for knowing if a particular Grand final went into OT

You are really struggling now. An extra time game is EXACTLY the 'same uniqueness'* as a draw because it can't occur without a draw at the end of regulation time! And somehow you think no one - but the few million people who watch it - will know about an extra time game but the rest of the world will know of and remember a drawn game!?!?

 

[mickctiger]

"Logically"?

how many terms of OT should the sides play in the event of a draw. surely you are not suggesting that we should have endless terms of OT ?
what if the scores are still tied after all that, how else would you break the deadlock ?

 

[Keys]

not as unique as a draw. Unless you were there or it involved your team, you would more than likely have no reason for knowing if a particular Grand final went into OT

Barry Breen kicked a point 44 years for the Saints to win a flag.

I wasn't born then but I know that - are you seriously saying that people would forget a GF went into OT.

Seriously

 

[mickctiger]

You are really struggling now. An extra time game is EXACTLY the 'same uniqueness'* as a draw because it can't occur without a draw at the end of regulation time! And somehow you think no one - but the few million people who watch it - will know about an extra time game but the rest of the world will know of and remember a drawn game!?!?

That 94 final that you use as an example Vs the 1990 drawn final between wce and collingwood. which match do more people talk about ?

 

[Underdog]

how many terms of OT should the sides play in the event of a draw. surely you are not suggesting that we should have endless terms of OT ?
what if the scores are still tied after all that, how else would you break the deadlock ?

So why aren't you complaining about extra time this weekend?

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

No it's not. It's exactly the same. It may be extremely unlikely no less unrealistic.

In 1997-98 Port and Brisbane played consecutive (home and away) draws. So it can happen.

 

[Keys]

how many terms of OT should the sides play in the event of a draw. surely you are not suggesting that we should have endless terms of OT ?
what if the scores are still tied after all that, how else would you break the deadlock ?

There are other sports that use OT to break a deadlock.

Guess what most of them have a winner after one period of OT, some of them need two, a few go to three, and every now and then some go to four.

They don't turn around and say well forget that game, lets just start again.

 

[Simmonds2Hislop]

Link me to a post that proposes that the game should be decided by a golden goal or penalty shootout.

If it's still tied after OT, you go again.

If the replay is drawn, then we go to OT and I presume will continue doing so until someone wins. So why have the replay?

So far I haven't read any reasoning for going to a replay other than "it's tradition" - going to a replay twice in 100 odd years isn't really tradition particularly when you consider that on those two occasions the non-existence of lights at the ground precluded extra time being an option

Teams train to play 4 quarters.

Playing more than 4 quarters on the day favours the team that puts a greater emphasis on endurance.

If two teams can't be split after 4 quarters, which do you think is fairer:

Playing an extra 10-20 minutes.

Playing another 4 quarters next week, which is what they actually train for.

 

[mickctiger]

Barry Breen kicked a point 44 years for the Saints to win a flag.

I wasn't born then but I know that - are you seriously saying that people would forget a GF went into OT.

Seriously

I never wrote that it wouldnt be remembered. What i did write, however, is that it would not be remebered as much as it would be if it was a draw and then a replay the next week. We rember 66 becuase it was a close match, we rember 77 becuse of the draw. we remember the drawn final between collingwood and wce in 1990, you tell us about the 94 final that was decided by ot, many of us cant even rember who was involved. It could have been any close final thats been played in the last 150 odd years.
see the difference now?

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

There are other sports that use OT to break a deadlock.

Guess what most of them have a winner after one period of OT, some of them need two, a few go to three, and every now and then some go to four.

They don't turn around and say well forget that game, lets just start again.

Here's a college basketball game that wen't to 5 OT's. OT goes for 5 mins. So technically they played more than 1 and a half games.

It got a bit silly.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap/_/id/280230245/playbyplay?gameId=280230245

 

[Suspense]

would OT in the gf be more taxing on the players of interstate clubs who have had to travel than it would be on players of a melb club who have had the advantage of not having to travel?

the inherent fairness factor of OT is a bit spurious for mine...

 

[PumpyChowdown]

I am very comfortable with a replay. I don't see why 111 years of tradition should be broken. Must the AFL always follow soccer and American football by copying their formats?

It's our game, it's our rules and we get TWO GF's in one year.

Superb!!!

 

[TheBloods]

Teams train to play 4 quarters.

Playing more than 4 quarters on the day favours the team that puts a greater emphasis on endurance.

If two teams can't be split after 4 quarters, which do you think is fairer:

Playing an extra 10-20 minutes.

Playing another 4 quarters next week, which is what they actually train for.

<slaps forehead> Are you shitting me!?!

This is the same absurd argument from a few pages ago where someone said that poor old Hawthorn lost in 1994 because they gave 100% but North gave only 80% so had enough left for extra time.

Have teams complained about the inherent unfairness of introducing extra time in other finals?

 

[Underdog]

Teams train to play 4 quarters.

Playing more than 4 quarters on the day favours the team that puts a greater emphasis on endurance.

If two teams can't be split after 4 quarters, which do you think is fairer:

Playing an extra 10-20 minutes.

Playing another 4 quarters next week, which is what they actually train for.

Sorry, but that reasoning is bogus.

They KNOW other finals games can go into overtime so they should already be preparing as such.

 

[Kings Army]

There are other sports that use OT to break a deadlock.

Guess what most of them have a winner after one period of OT, some of them need two, a few go to three, and every now and then some go to four.

They don't turn around and say well forget that game, lets just start again.

How many games that play four 20 minute quaters plus time on have OT in a one off Grand Final match?

 

[Keys]

Teams train to play 4 quarters.

Playing more than 4 quarters on the day favours the team that puts a greater emphasis on endurance.

If two teams can't be split after 4 quarters, which do you think is fairer:

Playing an extra 10-20 minutes.

Playing another 4 quarters next week, which is what they actually train for.

Fair enough point.

I think when you have two victorian based sides like this week that argument is valid, although I do think that a team that can continue to pick himself up and prevail when they are exhausted would be a worthy winner, just as whoever wins this weekend will be a worthy winner.

When you throw a non-victorian team into the mix I think they are unfairly disadvantaged by a replay.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

It's a replay folks. Always has been, and will continue to be for many years to come. Get used to it.

 

[Keys]

Here's a college basketball game that wen't to 5 OT's. OT goes for 5 mins. So technically they played more than 1 and a half games.

It got a bit silly.

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap/_/id/280230245/playbyplay?gameId=280230245

Any idea how many college basketball games are played.

It is very unlikely that games go into that many OT periods

would OT in the gf be more taxing on the players of interstate clubs who have had to travel than it would be on players of a melb club who have had the advantage of not having to travel?

the inherent fairness factor of OT is a bit spurious for mine...

I'd think it would be easier to keep going against a side that it also tired than go home, come back and play a side that has had a far better preparation because they didn't have to spend 10 hours in a plane.

 

[Underdog]

It's a replay folks. Always has been, and will continue to be for many years to come. Get used to it.

No need to pretend you have any idea whatsoever.

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

No it's not. That's an absurd comparison.

You would do your self more justice if you explained why it was an absurd comparison. Both instances are at the start of a game to determine the premier team of the season.

So, again, if you get a 1 goal break half way through the last quarter the game is over?

No. But that has nothing to do with extra time. Extra time is a new lightning premiership format game. Half way through a last quarters is getting towards the end of a test of strength.

What strategies? What advantage does one team gain because there is extra time? It happens in normal finals - no one is complaining about that.
How is that different to just playing extra time this week?


Which is a big issue.

Explained to you that the team that gets the first goal is advantaged to much.

The difference this week is extra time is a consequence of last weeks draw. Your argument boils down to teams should prepare for a draw. Sport is based on teams preparing to win not lose or draw.

Think you'll find the commission will address the interstate issue.

 

[Underdog]

The difference this week is extra time is a consequence of last weeks draw. Your argument boils down to teams should prepare for a draw. Sport is based on teams preparing to win not lose or draw.

Then we should abolish ALL extra time during finals?