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

[TheBloods]

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.

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.

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

No you haven't. There is minimal difference between 10 minutes to go in the last quarter and 10 minutes extra time.

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.

They don't prepare for draws now and they don't need to. Extra time can be managed within their existing games, as happens during other finals.

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

How?

 

[Suspense]

Any idea how many college basketball games are played.

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



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.

maybs; i still don't think it is quite clear cut though.

tbh, if the imbalance of a replay is so severe, in the case of an imbalance in competing teams (ie. in cases of interstate team vs vic team) i wouldn't mind if the interstate captain was offered to option (before the match) of deciding whether to go into OT or to replay. all other gf draws; replay.
this could prob be abused, but whatevs.

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

No you haven't. There is minimal difference between 10 minutes to go in the last quarter and 10 minutes extra time.

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.

There's the difference for you bloods. Had posted it.

Have a think about it. You'll see I'm right.

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

Then we should abolish ALL extra time during finals?

If it was practical yes. But a replay in an earlier final puts the other teams on hold. Best of two imperfect options.

 

[Underdog]

Even the AFL can see it's embarrassing and farcical.

Otherwise they wouldn't add overtime for next week nor compensate clubs and players for rescheduling commitments.

 

[Underdog]

If it was practical yes. But a replay in an earlier final puts the other teams on hold. Best of two imperfect options.

So practically overcomes fairness and credibility in your view?

 

[mess]

Extra time is not feasibly fair unless emergency substitutions are allowed. You want to talk about the differences between our sport and others? How about the fact that our sport has 5.5 times the amount of players on the field as on the bench, before injuries.
And what percentage of games have zero injuries?

Extra time would not be a "may the best team win" proposition, but one of "may the last team standing win".


But I do agree, the AFL needs to put in serious measures to accommodate the possibility of an interstate team drawing with a Melbourne one in a GF. If they can get this right, the interstate team should be less disadvantaged in the second GF than they were in the first.

 

[Kings Army]

Even the AFL can see it's embarrassing and farcical.

Otherwise they wouldn't add overtime for next week nor compensate clubs and players for rescheduling commitments.

An extra 20 million for a replay - they must be very red faced at the AFL. Paying out 50k compensation is a great trade off.

The AFL are so embarrassed that in another 114 years the replay rule will still be in place.

 

[TheBloods]

There's the difference for you bloods. Had posted it.

Have a think about it. You'll see I'm right.

It's not like a new game at all.

As I've stated, it's very similar to the final 10 minutes of the final quarter.

There is no huge and unfair disadvantage to be down 1 goal at that stage.

 

[Underdog]

The AFL are so embarrassed that in another 114 years the replay rule will still be in place.

Pure, uneducated speculation. Given the backlash and the fact the finals will be extended in a growing competition. It mightn't even last a couple of years.

 

[zero]

Even the AFL can see it's embarrassing and farcical.

Otherwise they wouldn't add overtime for next week nor compensate clubs and players for rescheduling commitments.

what a load of trash, they have added overtime next week because the logistics of running three grand finals in one year is beyond the abilities of the game.

two however is managable, fair and right, and in accordance with the traditions of the game

as will be proven on saturday

 

[Underdog]

what a load of trash, they have added overtime next week because the logistics of running three grand finals in one year is beyond the abilities of the game.

two however is managable, fair and right, and in accordance with the traditions of the game

as will be proven on saturday

But everyone's saying how unfair it is to decide the game in overtime. Why is it OK this week?

 

[TheBloods]

Extra time is not feasibly fair unless emergency substitutions are allowed. You want to talk about the differences between our sport and others? How about the fact that our sport has 5.5 times the amount of players on the field as on the bench, before injuries.
And what percentage of games have zero injuries?

Extra time would not be a "may the best team win" proposition, but one of "may the last team standing win".

On the weekend, the general consensus was that if the game had gone to extra time StKilda would have won and they were one man down.

It seems a stretch to say that it is fair for injuries to be incurred during a 4 quarter game, but extending it to 4.5 quarters makes it grossly unfair.

 

[Keys]

Unless trade week, team list lodgements ets are all put back a week, St Kilda and Collingwood will now have one week less to prepare for these - not that they'll probably care atm but it does put them at a further disadvantage when it comes to putting their list together for 2011.

The AFL has become a very controlling and structrured entity - every possibility that they won't like something like a GF replay throwing a spanner in their carefully planned schedule. I wouldn't be so confident that replays are here to stay.

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

So practically overcomes fairness and credibility in your view?

No. It is unfair on the teams left cooling their heels for a week. Extra time is also an unfair way of determining the winner of a final.

The proper answer is not impact on the teams that have not caused the draw.

It's not like a new game at all.

Call it an extension of an old game if you want but still a siren has sounded to end that old game. Whatever, doesn't change the fact that an early break wins extra time.

And doesn't change the fact that both sides have had a fair chance to be in front at the half way mark a last quarter. They have had 3 and half quarters to be in front if good enough. In extra time, there isn't enough time to truly determine a winner. Not sure what else I can say to you. It restricts the possibility and probabilty of lead changes, key parts of the beauty of determing a winner.

 

[Lurker1]

Floods, zones, presses and ever increasing tackle counts are likely to lead to closer games and therefore a higher frequency of draws in the future. I think it's almost a certainty the rule will be changed.

 

[TheBloods]

Call it an extension of an old game if you want but still a siren has sounded to end that old game. Whatever, doesn't change the fact that an early break wins extra time.

That's not a fact. It's not even logical. In extra time, if you kick the first goal, you are one goal up with 10 minutes to go. Why is that a match winning position? Why is that different to 6 points in front with 10 minutes to go in the final quarter? Do you think that is a match winning position?

And doesn't change the fact that both sides have had a fair chance to be in front at the half way mark a last quarter. They have had 3 and half quarters to be in front if good enough. In extra time, there isn't enough time to truly determine a winner. Not sure what else I can say to you. It restricts the possibility and probabilty of lead changes, key parts of the beauty of determing a winner.

What? It's half a quarter. That's like saying the last half of the final quarter is not enough to determine a winner if scores are level with 10 minutes to go. Do you think there are no lead changes in 10 minutes of play? Just has no logic whatsoever to it.

 

[Peck]

What? It's half a quarter. That's like saying the last half of the final quarter is not enough to determine a winner if scores are level with 10 minutes to go. Do you think there are no lead changes in 10 minutes of play? Just has no logic whatsoever to it.

No it isn't. It isn't even close to saying that.
Your comparing playing 10 more minutes of extra time, as opposed to a whole game a week later. Clearly a whole game is longer than 10 minutes.

Your argument isn't going anywhere. Crying that we lack "logic" is incorrect.

 

[sen entertainment bloke]

That's not a fact. It's not even logical. In extra time, if you kick the first goal, you are one goal up with 10 minutes to go. Why is that a match winning position? Why is that different to 6 points in front with 10 minutes to go in the final quarter? Do you think that is a match winning position?

What? It's half a quarter. That's like saying the last half of the final quarter is not enough to determine a winner if scores are level with 10 minutes to go. Do you think there are no lead changes in 10 minutes of play? Just has no logic whatsoever to it.

The so far evidence of two goes at extra time is first score breaks the spirit of the other side.

It's nothing like you say. I've just about had enough. We seem to have a new coach. My point is made.

 

[TheBloods]

No it isn't. It isn't even close to saying that.
Your comparing playing 10 more minutes of extra time, as opposed to a whole game a week later. Clearly a whole game is longer than 10 minutes.

Your argument isn't going anywhere. Crying that we lack "logic" is incorrect.

What are you on about? The claim I am arguing against is that extra time 'is not long enough to determine a winner' and 'extra time gives too much advantage to the team that scores the first goal'. Neither of those propositions are supportable. The game with extra time is equal to 4.5 quarters = enough time to determine a winner.

The so far evidence of two goes at extra time is first score breaks the spirit of the other side.

It's nothing like you say. I've just about had enough. We seem to have a new coach. My point is made.

You've not made your point at all as it has no logic to it.

 

[Old Slugger]

Seriously. I'm convinced the world is coming to an end. Why? The AFL GF was a draw. Only happened twice before. Last time was 77. Was this about the time the Greens were started? Extra time? Replay? What can I say? "Their coming to take me away, ha,ha. To the funny farm. Where the fields are green & the magpies & saints roam, funny men in yellow tops, ha, ha. Strange posts on BigFooty about replays & extra time. Ha ha. Nothing makes sense anymore ha,ha. I'm gone. ha ha"

 

[zero]

Pure, uneducated speculation. Given the backlash and the fact the finals will be extended in a growing competition. It mightn't even last a couple of years.

fear not, a minor backlash from a subset of instant gratification supporters wont come close to the hundreds of millions in revenue the game gets from a replay

the replay will survive the "genuine" revue that takes place next week, and all the short attention span bleating will be put on hold until the next time it happens.

in 2048

 

[zero]

But everyone's saying how unfair it is to decide the game in overtime. Why is it OK this week?

its not unfair, its just less fair than a replay. but it cant be helped this week. 2 grand finals is a stretch, 3 is just not feasible.

its a compromise, just like overtime during the finals.... a semi final replay gives the non-replay competitor a week off and a huge advantage, and overtime is fairest for the competition overall

with no such inequality on GF day, a replay is doable, and the fairest option

(but only once, apparently)

 

[mess]

On the weekend, the general consensus was that if the game had gone to extra time StKilda would have won and they were one man down.

Then they would have done it against the odds, just as they got back into the game against the odds. Missing 25% of your rotation capacity for 50% of the game is not an insignificant obstacle, and in it's light there is little doubt that Collingwood would have been physically fresher going into extra time, and even though they weren't playing as good a brand of football for quarters 3 and 4 it is a dubious bet that after the initial break to steady their wobbles they wouldn't have been able to run over St. Kilda.

It seems a stretch to say that it is fair for injuries to be incurred during a 4 quarter game, but extending it to 4.5 quarters makes it grossly unfair.

4 quarters is the length of a football match. That's non-negotiable and the fairness of how many players you have at your disposal for what percentage of it is irrelevant to the contest. What's in issue is the relative fairness of extending the contest beyond it's accepted parameters.
It seems a stretch to say that personnel limitations acquired mid-contest wouldn't make a significant difference to the end result because the contest is only being extended by a minimum of 12.5%.

 

[TheBloods]

It's deemed to be fair for the rest of finals.