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

[TheBloods]

No it wasn't. It provided us with the undisputed premiership team..... which is the most important thing in case you'd forgotten!

How does an OT game not provide an undispute premiership team?

Just because you "didn't like" the game is not a reason to have the rule changed.

There have been plenty of reasons cited.

As I said earlier, the game could have been another nailbiter. Then your ONLY semi-decent argument would be that it's potentially unfair to interstate clubs, which is a flimsy argument at best.

Not flimsy - it's true. What's the point in a replay when it can be decided on the day?

If interstate clubs are so against the fact that the Grand Final is played at the MCG, then please defect from the AFL and start your own "super league."

Good luck doing that without Victorian support.

Foolish argument - how do you think the AFL would go as the VFL again?

Otherwise, deal with the rules that are in place, and WERE in place when you decided to relocate or join the competition.

Again a stupid argument - rules change. That the rule existed already does not mean it is appropriate.

As for the money side of things which people keep seem to be bringing up as being some kind of negative.... You people do realise that more money for the AFL is a GOOD thing for our game, don't you?

Not much of an argument as windfall gains are not something to rely on.

 

[SJ]

Find it funny that everyone is describing the replay as a dud or a joke, thus we shouldn't have it.

Did you say the same thing about grand finals in general after 2007? Maybe we should do a Premier League competition and give it to the top of the ladder.

 

[gPhonque]

How does an OT game not provide an undispute premiership team?

Q. Does anybody now dispute that Collingwood were the best team of the season?

A. No


Q. And what is the aim of our entire competition? What is the purpose of the 22 rounds of H&A football and Final series?

A. To find the undisputed premier team of the season.



Now, I'm sure you would agree with those 2 points. So read on...



If we had gone to extra time last week, St Kilda probably would have walked away with the flag. So your preferred option (adding extra time) would have gone against everything our game aims to achieve.

Yes, I understand that St Kilda could have pinched another point and won the game before extra time anyway. And if that had happened, then good luck to them. They steal a flag under the standard rules of the game and Collingwood have to try again next year.

But they didn't. When the final (FINAL) siren went, they weren't any better than Collingwood. Under the standard rules of the game, they couldn't BEAT Collingwood.

Considering we're at the most important part of our entire season (the part where we decide the premiership!), is it really appropriate to change the rules of the game at that point?

Our game goes for 4 quarters of 20 minutes plus time-on.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the premier team of the season (the most important thing in our game) should be decided under the standard rules of the game.

Otherwise, if we change them just so you can feel better on the day, we could end up with premier teams that perhaps don't really deserve to BE premier teams.




Q. At this point in time, after watching what happened on the weekend, would you say that St Kilda deserve to be the premier team of 2010?

A. Of course you wouldn't.



Therefore, the replay achieved its objective.

 

[Suspense]

If we had gone to extra time last week, St Kilda probably would have walked away with the flag.

great argument, all in all - but it stands up just fine without this speculative point imo.

 

[Underdog]

No it wasn't. It provided us with the undisputed premiership team..... which is the most important thing in case you'd forgotten!

You win in extra time and you're still the best team on the day.

As I said earlier, the game could have been another nailbiter. Then your ONLY semi-decent argument would be that it's potentially unfair to interstate clubs, which is a flimsy argument at best.

How is that possibly a flimsy argument? It's a very good argument as the home side would gain a further MASSIVE advantage as the non-Victorian side is hampered with a poor lead up due to excess flying or being in a foreign environment using unknown facilities.

If interstate clubs are so against the fact that the Grand Final is played at the MCG, then please defect from the AFL and start your own "super league."

Good luck doing that without Victorian support.

The VFL would collapse. They wouldn't be able to sustain the level of expenditure and sponsors would jump off as the national audience and interest is cut.

Otherwise, deal with the rules that are in place, and WERE in place when you decided to relocate or join the competition.

You honestly think the game in Victoria even closely resembles it's origins?

Rules change all the time. Victorian sides are no better. Besides, it's now supposedly the AFL, not VFL.

Q. Does anybody now dispute that Collingwood were the best team of the season?

A. No

Q. And what is the aim of our entire competition? What is the purpose of the 22 rounds of H&A football and Final series?

A. To find the undisputed premier team of the season.

Nobody would have disputed it if they won in extra time. Particularly since it is deemed a perfectly credible way of determining a winner all through the finals series.

If we had gone to extra time last week, St Kilda probably would have walked away with the flag. So your preferred option (adding extra time) would have gone against everything our game aims to achieve.

That's pure speculation. You have no idea what would have happened.

Yes, I understand that St Kilda could have pinched another point and won the game before extra time anyway. And if that had happened, then good luck to them. They steal a flag under the standard rules of the game and Collingwood have to try again next year.

But they didn't. When the final (FINAL) siren went, they weren't any better than Collingwood. Under the standard rules of the game, they couldn't BEAT Collingwood.

Considering we're at the most important part of our entire season (the part where we decide the premiership!), is it really appropriate to change the rules of the game at that point?

The point is to change the standard rules of the game because they're silly.

Our game goes for 4 quarters of 20 minutes plus time-on.

Except in finals. I'd suggest the rules of a Preliminary final is far more relevant to the Grand Final then that of a H&A game.

Otherwise, if we change them just so you can feel better on the day, we could end up with premier teams that perhaps don't really deserve to BE premier teams.

Q. At this point in time, after watching what happened on the weekend, would you say that St Kilda deserve to be the premier team of 2010?

A. Of course you wouldn't.

They snag a point with a second to go and they're undisputed and worthy but get spanked the following week they aren't worthy.

It's all a bit tedious and clearly skewed to suit your point of view.

 

[TheBloods]

Q. Does anybody now dispute that Collingwood were the best team of the season?

A. No

Q. And what is the aim of our entire competition? What is the purpose of the 22 rounds of H&A football and Final series?

A. To find the undisputed premier team of the season.

Already addressed these points. Does this somehow taint previous premiers? Is it always necessary to have multiple games? Is a one point winner unworthy?

If we had gone to extra time last week, St Kilda probably would have walked away with the flag. So your preferred option (adding extra time) would have gone against everything our game aims to achieve.

The GF winner is ALWAYS the best team on that day. Under an OT system that would have been the team who won in OT. No problems with that.

Yes, I understand that St Kilda could have pinched another point and won the game before extra time anyway. And if that had happened, then good luck to them. They steal a flag under the standard rules of the game and Collingwood have to try again next year.

There is nothing magical about 'standard rules' - they are just the current rules. There is no reason why they can't be changed.

But they didn't. When the final (FINAL) siren went, they weren't any better than Collingwood. Under the standard rules of the game, they couldn't BEAT Collingwood.

As above.

Considering we're at the most important part of our entire season (the part where we decide the premiership!), is it really appropriate to change the rules of the game at that point?

"At that point"? No. Change them now for future grand finals.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the premier team of the season (the most important thing in our game) should be decided under the standard rules of the game.

As above re "standard rules".

Otherwise, if we change them just so you can feel better on the day, we could end up with premier teams that perhaps don't really deserve to BE premier teams.

The team that wins the GF is the team in front at the end of the GF - that is the rule. They all deserve it equally, regardless of whether it is won in regulation time or overtime.

Q. At this point in time, after watching what happened on the weekend, would you say that St Kilda deserve to be the premier team of 2010?

A. Of course you wouldn't.

Invalid ex-post argument.

Therefore, the replay achieved its objective.

OT result also achieves the objective, and does it a week sooner.

 

[Chewy]

People talk about a draw because it was a close and exciting game. People would talk about an extra time game the same. Adding extra time doesn't make it "just another final" - it becomes a close and exciting game with a conclusion. To suggest that no one would remember a GF won in overtime is truly ludicrous.


Complete and utter nonsense. You don't think a GF win in overtime would "go into folklore"?!?

You are wrong.

People don't remember the 1994 drawn Qualifying Final between North Melbourne and Hawthorn as a classic final. I have never seen anyone replay this exciting game. Nor have I seen anyone write about it or talk about it

North bogged on Hawthorn in the extra time period and the game has been dismissed as a "forgettable" 23 point victory to North.

 

[jimmyclean]

When did knowing a rule mean that rule is appropriate?

Considering its been appropriate for this long. If it wasn't appropriate maybe it would have been changed one of the previous two times a drawn GF occured.

Umm... professional sports normally require a result, especially for the final match.

And that result was achieved?

The thing I want to avoid at the utmost is some sort of penalty shootout. I believe the rules as they stand do the best to avoid this.
If Colllingwood and St Kilda were drawn after 4 or 8 extra 5 minute halves what would they do?
Have a shoot out style decider or a play another GF with both teams essentially having played 1 and a half matches.

As weird as it sounds it really is the most fair way of deciding the winner. There is the least chance of having a game decided by a something small, (read that as a bad umpire decision).

 

[Underdog]

You are wrong.

People don't remember the 1994 drawn Qualifying Final between North Melbourne and Hawthorn as a classic final. I have never seen anyone replay this exciting game. Nor have I seen anyone write about it or talk about it

North bogged on Hawthorn in the extra time period and the game has been dismissed as a "forgettable" 23 point victory to North.

The likelihood of a one-sided result is much greater in a replay then in extra time.

I doubt anyone would have cared about the draw if it was replayed a week later regardless.

Considering its been appropriate for this long. If it wasn't appropriate maybe it would have been changed one of the previous two times a drawn GF occured.

It wasn't a national competition and was substantially less professional both times it occurred.

You could say the amount of sides in the competition was appropriate back then as well, why would you change it? Circumstances change.

The thing I want to avoid at the utmost is some sort of penalty shootout. I believe the rules as they stand do the best to avoid this.
If Colllingwood and St Kilda were drawn after 4 or 8 extra 5 minute halves what would they do?
Have a shoot out style decider or a play another GF with both teams essentially having played 1 and a half matches.

Go to more overtime. Play until you get a result. That is what would have happened in the replay regardless.

 

[jimmyclean]

Go to more overtime. Play until you get a result. That is what would have happened in the replay regardless.

And then one day down the track we end up with a stupid 4 hour game where one team just ran out of players due to exhaustion and injuries.

That would be a great way to decide the premiers...

Also thats right it would have happened in the replay, but at that stage, we have seen over 8 quarters of football with no winners. Any team that won after this effort truly deserves to be.


As for the argument that is wasn't a national competition, I agree actually and I would not be opposed to seeing the replay GF played at an away side home ground (If there is one victorian team and one interstate side).

 

[Underdog]

And then one day down the track we end up with a stupid 4 hour game where one team just ran out of players due to exhaustion and injuries.

That would be a great way to decide the premiers...

That could happen in the replay regardless...

As for the argument that is wasn't a national competition, I agree actually and I would not be opposed to seeing the replay GF played at an away side home ground (If there is one victorian team and one interstate side).

That's the only way it's a fair rule IMO, but it won't happen. It's also still pretty rough on supporters and relies on ground availability and contractual agreements.

 

[TheBloods]

You are wrong.

People don't remember the 1994 drawn Qualifying Final between North Melbourne and Hawthorn as a classic final. I have never seen anyone replay this exciting game. Nor have I seen anyone write about it or talk about it

North bogged on Hawthorn in the extra time period and the game has been dismissed as a "forgettable" 23 point victory to North.

You are wrong.

It's a final not a GF. How many talk about the 77 GF replay? No one.

 

[TheBloods]

Considering its been appropriate for this long. If it wasn't appropriate maybe it would have been changed one of the previous two times a drawn GF occured.

So no rule changes since 1977 are appropriate?

And that result was achieved?

Not on the day.

The thing I want to avoid at the utmost is some sort of penalty shootout. I believe the rules as they stand do the best to avoid this.
If Colllingwood and St Kilda were drawn after 4 or 8 extra 5 minute halves what would they do?
Have a shoot out style decider or a play another GF with both teams essentially having played 1 and a half matches.

As weird as it sounds it really is the most fair way of deciding the winner. There is the least chance of having a game decided by a something small, (read that as a bad umpire decision).

Shoot out argument is a strawman. No one has suggested this.

What happens if the replay is a draw? You think they should come back again?

 

[jimmyclean]

That could happen in the replay regardless...

It could, but by then we have played 200 minutes of football with no clear winner. I am willing to accept that the teams require a unusual set of circumstances to decide it.
Draws are just so unusual in AFL that playing a second game is a perfectly legitimate solution.
Should draws become as regular as Soccer then I could see the need, until then though I consider it ain't broke.

That's the only way it's a fair rule IMO, but it won't happen. It's also still pretty rough on supporters and relies on ground availability and contractual agreements.

I totally agree that it is unfair because of this. The AFL needs to get real and fix this. The biggest problem though is what happens if 2 interstate teams play off, where does the second game get played? At another neutral stadium?

It's a bit of an oversight on the AFL's part, they expand the competition so quickly yet fail to properly adjust the rules.

 

[TheBloods]

And then one day down the track we end up with a stupid 4 hour game where one team just ran out of players due to exhaustion and injuries.

That would be a great way to decide the premiers...

Or we could see continued drawn games that last until next year...

Also thats right it would have happened in the replay, but at that stage, we have seen over 8 quarters of football with no winners. Any team that won after this effort truly deserves to be.

So a team that wins in 8 qtrs deserves it but a team that wins in a 4 hour game doesn't?

As for the argument that is wasn't a national competition, I agree actually and I would not be opposed to seeing the replay GF played at an away side home ground (If there is one victorian team and one interstate side).

Can't happen with the MCG contract.

 

[jimmyclean]

So no rule changes since 1977 are appropriate?

As few as possible would be nice.

Not on the day.
Shoot out argument is a strawman. No one has suggested this.

What happens if the replay is a draw? You think they should come back again?

No like the current rules say, they play 5 minute halves until a winner is decided.

I believe 3 draws occured this year. If the two teams were drawn after both games and an undetermined number of halves, shit flip a coin for all I care, both teams deserve the cup.

 

[jimmyclean]

Or we could see continued drawn games that last until next year...
So a team that wins in 8 qtrs deserves it but a team that wins in a 4 hour game doesn't?Can't happen with the MCG contract.

8 quarters plus unspecified amounts of overtime.

Apples to apples, its more game time. Therefore a more accurate decision.

 

[TheBloods]

As few as possible would be nice.

Bit late now...

No like the current rules say, they play 5 minute halves until a winner is decided.

I believe 3 draws occured this year. If the two teams were drawn after both games and an undetermined number of halves, shit flip a coin for all I care, both teams deserve the cup.

So why is extra time alright in the replay but not in the GF?

8 quarters plus unspecified amounts of overtime.

So OT is okay now?

Apples to apples, its more game time. Therefore a more accurate decision.

People continue to raise some spurious notion of 'accuracy' for determining the premier.

 

[Kapital city TIGER]

Nick Maxwell having a sook. Well worth it.

yar that was great

Ill tell u what is pissweak- extra time in the replay if another draw eventuates.

OK I accept extra time in the finals for scheduling, but the GF is the ultimate match and therefore should reflect the rules of the home and away matches exactly

no winner?

tough

its a draw, and if you cant beat a team in 2 matches, well then, NO CUP!

lets see THAT dummy spit!

 

[jimmyclean]

Bit late now...

So the flood gates are open?

So why is extra time alright in the replay but not in the GF?
So OT is okay now?

As far as I see it, extra time/overtime is a necessity that I do not like. Seeing as little as possible is my hope.

People continue to raise some spurious notion of 'accuracy' for determining the premier.

spurious notion of 'accuracy'? Go and learn, anyone educated in science or research will tell you more data gives better results.

If I still haven't made my reasoning clear I can't help you.

 

[gPhonque]

It's all a bit tedious and clearly skewed to suit your point of view.

Perhaps, but so is your entire argument, apart from one point.

As I said, the only decent and relevant point you guys have is that it's unfair to interstate teams. And fair enough too. Although I still think you're building up the disadvantage too much... a team might have to travel twice in a row. So what? A low-ranked interstate might have to travel EVERY week of the finals. That's just how it is. But that said, I do accept your point that no matter how big or small, it IS a disadvantage to interstate clubs.

However, that is another debate and thread altogether. I personally believe that, if we truly want to be a national competition, the Grand Final should be played at the higher-ranked (after the H&A series) teams home ground. Screw this MCG rubbish. We're a national competition now. Let's have rules that cater to that. Unlike most Victorians, I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.

But unfortunately, that is not the case. And until it IS, there are always going to be anomalies like this.

Therefore, I don't see any reason why we should break a rule simply to try and fix (not that it would anyway) another rule that is broken and that needs to be fixed first. Fix the rule that is broken, and the other rule (replay) is becomes a non-issue.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

a team might have to travel twice in a row. So what? A low-ranked interstate might have to travel EVERY week of the finals.

If a non-Victorian team has to travel every week in the finals it's because they finished 7th or 8th. This is not analogous.

 

[TheBloods]

So the flood gates are open?

It's a bit late in 2010 saying that you'd like not to see any changes after 1977...

spurious notion of 'accuracy'? Go and learn, anyone educated in science or research will tell you more data gives better results.

Applying this notion - and using the replay as an example - to determining the premier is totally flawed.

If I still haven't made my reasoning clear I can't help you.

Given your reasoning, I'm not the one who needs help.

 

[Suspense]

So why is extra time alright in the replay but not in the GF?

The AFL's reasoning is quite simple and straightforward.

Drawn results with no winner and no loser are fine in H&A matches.

In matches that require a winner for the purposes of finals, the optimum way (value judgment) of determining this is by a replay of the drawn match a week later.

In situations where this would hamper the progress of the finals series or could not be provided for due to contractual circumstances (ie. finals leading up to the GF or the GF replay), extra time is played instead of a replay in order to determine a winner.


In my opinion, the only addition I would make to the above would be:

In situations where this replay would hamper the progress of the rest of the finals series, could not be provided for due to contractual circumstances or it is unfair to an interstate club, extra time is to be played instead of a replay a week later in order to determine a winner.

Unfairness would only apply in situations where one team is Victorian and the other is an interstate club. With two Victorian clubs, as was the case this year, there was no inherent unfairness therefore the optimum option (a replay) is viable and fair.

The only argument left remaining to the above is that it is inconvenient to fair weather fans who have ski trips planned for the week after the GF.

lol.

 

[muesli]

Before the drawn grand final i was actually in favour of a replay. But i've actually changed my mind. They should play extra time.