Why is it 4 points for a win?

[Timmy from Thomastown]

How many balls in play?

Well, actually wondering if there is a sport with more then two teams in a match...

MULTIBALL of course

 

[basashi]

SANFL has always been 2 - 1 hasn't it?

 

[Apsaalooke]

There's no logical reason for 4 points over 2 but it doesn't really matter in the end. What is more baffling is calculation of percentage though, which is different in the AFL and SANFL (not sure about other leagues).

This is from a SANFL related site

The AFL 'percentage' system is just a simple quotient of one team's score over another: 100 x For/Against.

The SANFL percentage system is a true percentage system. It shows what percentage a team's score is of the aggregate score: 100 x For/(For + Against).

Example:

Let's say Team A scored 125 points, beating Team B who scored 75 points:

Team A's AFL percentage would be:

= 100 x 125/75
= 166.67%

Team A's SANFL percentage would be:

= 100 x 125/(125 + 75)
= 62.50%

Perhaps the most obvious fault with the AFL system is the fact that it generates so-called percentages greater than 100. We are accustomed to seeing percentages in the range of 0 to 100 since 'Percent' means 'per 100'. Cast your mind back to what we were all taught in Primary School. The SANFL formula guarantees that each team's percentage will be in the 0 to 100 range. ie. a true percentage.
Ultimately, the SANFL percentage system is mathematically sound, but the AFL system is not. The AFL system doesn't work if a team fails to score: you can't divide by zero. And that IS a remote possibility, even at SANFL/AFL level.

 

[RogersResults]

What about Sirengate? The Saints had won within the rules at the time. The AFL changed the rules post match and took points away from St Kilda, costing them a top four finish.

In 1909 the score at the end of the match - St Kilda 6.13-49 v Geelong 6.12-48 stood, but the 4 match points were forfeited by St Kilda to Geelong after Geelong protested.

In the only other cases of a result changing post match, St Kilda v Melbourne in round 1 1900 - a Melbourne behind deemed to have been scored after the bell in the third quarter was disallowed turning a draw into a one point win for St Kilda - their first win since joining the League and the the round 5 2006 St Kilda v Fremantle match where St Kilda's last point was deemed to have been scored after the match should have ended and disallowed turning a draw into a Fremantle win. The right to protest the final score has always been there. (There have been a few other unsuccessful protests to alter the final score that failed for lack of evidence.)

I'm sure the followers of St Kilda were glad it was available back in 1900, otherwise the team would have started their career in the League with 76 consecutive matches without a win. Why these incidents all involved St Kilda is one of those unfathomable mysteries of the football universe.

 

[RogersResults]

There's no logical reason for 4 points over 2 but it doesn't really matter in the end. What is more baffling is calculation of percentage though, which is different in the AFL and SANFL (not sure about other leagues).

This is from a SANFL related site

The AFL 'percentage' system is just a simple quotient of one team's score over another: 100 x For/Against.

The SANFL percentage system is a true percentage system. It shows what percentage a team's score is of the aggregate score: 100 x For/(For + Against).

Example:

Let's say Team A scored 125 points, beating Team B who scored 75 points:

Team A's AFL percentage would be:

= 100 x 125/75
= 166.67%

Team A's SANFL percentage would be:

= 100 x 125/(125 + 75)
= 62.50%

Perhaps the most obvious fault with the AFL system is the fact that it generates so-called percentages greater than 100. We are accustomed to seeing percentages in the range of 0 to 100 since 'Percent' means 'per 100'. Cast your mind back to what we were all taught in Primary School. The SANFL formula guarantees that each team's percentage will be in the 0 to 100 range. ie. a true percentage.
Ultimately, the SANFL percentage system is mathematically sound, but the AFL system is not. The AFL system doesn't work if a team fails to score: you can't divide by zero. And that IS a remote possibility, even at SANFL/AFL level.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using percentages greater than 100%. Whether this makes sense depends entirely on the context.

A percentage is simply another way of writing a fraction with a denominator of 100. For example, 6% = 6/100. Just as you can have an improper fraction (a fraction whose numerator is greater than the denominator), such as 4/3, so you can have what we might call an "improper percentage" like 120% or 300%.

There are situations in which a percentage greater than 100% makes no sense. For instance, "The students answered 146% of the questions." This makes no sense because they couldn't possibly answer more than all of them. It's just as nonsensical as saying "I ate 4/3 of the cake."

On the other hand, sometimes percentages are used like this: "The number of units sold was up 15.7%, from 5450 in February to 6305 in March." In other words, the increase from February to March was 6305-5450 = 855, and 855 is 15.7% of 5450.

Now, what if the number of unitss sold went up to 14000 in April? This would be an increase of 122% from March to April. There is nothing wrong with this - no law says that the number of units sold can't do more than double from one month to the next.

So the answer is, there is such a thing as a percentage larger than 100%, but not everything can have a percentage larger than 100%.

The only objection to the AFL way of calculating the percentage (ordering stays the same in either method) that you "can't divide by zero" would only be a "problem" if a team went through a season without scoring or being scored against. The anomaly of a match result in round 1 of a season having a scoreline of 100 to 0 would be of no real consequence as the progressive ladder has no official function or status. Only the final season ladder does and as stated there would only be a "problem" on posting a percentage for a team that didn't score or were not scored against in a season.

Various methods were used to express the relationship of points scored to points conceded with the current method used by the AFL adopted in the 1930s influenced by the popular depiction of percentages over 100 on progessive ladders published in the media. A percentage of 166% looks more commanding than a percentage of 62%.

 

[Mattrox]

There's no logical reason for 4 points over 2 but it doesn't really matter in the end. What is more baffling is calculation of percentage though, which is different in the AFL and SANFL (not sure about other leagues).

This is from a SANFL related site

The AFL 'percentage' system is just a simple quotient of one team's score over another: 100 x For/Against.

The SANFL percentage system is a true percentage system. It shows what percentage a team's score is of the aggregate score: 100 x For/(For + Against).

Example:

Let's say Team A scored 125 points, beating Team B who scored 75 points:

Team A's AFL percentage would be:

= 100 x 125/75
= 166.67%

Team A's SANFL percentage would be:

= 100 x 125/(125 + 75)
= 62.50%

Perhaps the most obvious fault with the AFL system is the fact that it generates so-called percentages greater than 100. We are accustomed to seeing percentages in the range of 0 to 100 since 'Percent' means 'per 100'. Cast your mind back to what we were all taught in Primary School. The SANFL formula guarantees that each team's percentage will be in the 0 to 100 range. ie. a true percentage.
Ultimately, the SANFL percentage system is mathematically sound, but the AFL system is not. The AFL system doesn't work if a team fails to score: you can't divide by zero. And that IS a remote possibility, even at SANFL/AFL level.

Simply the difference between "percentage of opposition score" and "percentage of total game score".

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a percentage greater than 100. It is about context.

The AFL percentage is a direct reflection of points for and against. A percentage over 100 of course transltes into "we have out scored our opposition". The SANFL system doesn't allow that straightforward conclusion. But in the end both ranking systems will have teams ranked in the same order.

 

[Mattrox]

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using percentages greater than 100%. Whether this makes sense depends entirely on the context.

A percentage is simply another way of writing a fraction with a denominator of 100. For example, 6% = 6/100. Just as you can have an improper fraction (a fraction whose numerator is greater than the denominator), such as 4/3, so you can have what we might call an "improper percentage" like 120% or 300%.

There are situations in which a percentage greater than 100% makes no sense. For instance, "The students answered 146% of the questions." This makes no sense because they couldn't possibly answer more than all of them. It's just as nonsensical as saying "I ate 4/3 of the cake."

On the other hand, sometimes percentages are used like this: "The number of units sold was up 15.7%, from 5450 in February to 6305 in March." In other words, the increase from February to March was 6305-5450 = 855, and 855 is 15.7% of 5450.

Now, what if the number of unitss sold went up to 14000 in April? This would be an increase of 122% from March to April. There is nothing wrong with this - no law says that the number of units sold can't do more than double from one month to the next.

So the answer is, there is such a thing as a percentage larger than 100%, but not everything can have a percentage larger than 100%.

The only objection to the AFL way of calculating the percentage (ordering stays the same in either method) that you "can't divide by zero" would only be a "problem" if a team went through a season without scoring or being scored against. The anomaly of a match result in round 1 of a season having a scoreline of 100 to 0 would be of no real consequence as the progressive ladder has no official function or status. Only the final season ladder does and as stated there would only be a "problem" on posting a percentage for a team that didn't score or were not scored against in a season.

Various methods were used to express the relationship of points scored to points conceded with the current method used by the AFL adopted in the 1930s influenced by the popular depiction of percentages over 100 on progessive ladders published in the media. A percentage of 166% looks more commanding than a percentage of 62%.

Explained much better than me. Missed this post, tapatalk error I think.

 

[HappyChappy35]

The 4 points system hasn't always been used. Could be wrong, but in the early 90's didn't they calculate the ladder according to percentage of games won (e.g. 11 wins for the season meant 50% rather than 44 points)?

 

[Tas]

Someone asked this question in 2008 on the AFANA site and they said:

"We consulted with the AFL Media office and the AFL's official historian and the verdict is: they don't know either! The best they can tell us is that it is a historical artifact going back many years."

 

[Apsaalooke]

Simply the difference between "percentage of opposition score" and "percentage of total game score".

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a percentage greater than 100. It is about context.

The AFL percentage is a direct reflection of points for and against. A percentage over 100 of course transltes into "we have out scored our opposition". The SANFL system doesn't allow that straightforward conclusion. But in the end both ranking systems will have teams ranked in the same order.

Yes it does. If you score the same as the opposition your percentage is 50%, any higher and you have outscored them and any lower you have been outscored.

Percentages over 100 are fine for historical comparisons like selling units from one month to another or AFL crowd numbers from year to year, but we're talking about a current finite sum at a single point in time. I'll agree that percentages over 100 sound more impressive though.

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

I reckon you should get the points for the margin you win by, then you calculate the the strength of the opposition, then if it was at home or away, then you divide that by how many goals you kicked in the 3rd quarter, and finally, you multiply the points by what the odds were are the start of the game.

Yeh nah get rid of the 4 points, way too simple.

 

[The Passenger]

At round 16 in 1951, Fitzroy with two drawn matches was on equal points with Essendon although they had lost fewer games. Feeling disadvantaged by the current system, the Maroons proposed changing the match points to five points for a win and three points for a draw.
Under their proposed system, Fitzroy would have been on 56 points and Essendon on 55 points instead of 44 points each after 16 rounds.

does anyone wanna go back to 1951 and bitch slap the fitzroy administration of the time.

"something didn't work for us, how do we change the entire competition?"

proposal declined, fast forward 3 years, fitzroy finish 11 wins and essendon 10 wins 2 draws.

"ahhh yeah hey vfl guys we've been disadvantaged by the system again and that system we thought about a few years back was even worse. we need to change it again, but this time we think it should be 5 points for a win and 2 for a draw"

 

[Kirby]

My best guess is that when the powers that be in the good old days made the rules of our great game many of them were deliberately made to make the game not like rugby.

Bearing the above in mind, maybe they just doubled the scoring system that was used for rugby just to differentiate the game even further?

 

[The Passenger]

The origins of the 15, 30, and 40 scores are believed to be medieval French. It is possible that a clock face was used on court, with a quarter move of the hand to indicate a score of 15, 30, and 45. When the hand moved to 60, the game was over. However, in order to ensure that the game could not be won by a one-point difference in players' scores, the idea of "deuce" was introduced. To make the score stay within the "60" ticks on the clock face, the 45 was changed to 40. Therefore, if both players have 40, the first player to score receives ten and that moves the clock to 50. If the player scores a second time before the opponent is able to score, they are awarded another ten and the clock moves to 60. The 60 signifies the end of the game. However, if a player fails to score twice in a row, then the clock would move back to 40 to establish another "deuce".

whilst that makes sense, but surely it would've been easier to just go 1-0, 2-0, 2-1 etc,. first to 4 winning by 2?

 

[RuFiO]

"Just happy to get the 4 points" wouldn't make any sense if it was only 2 points for a win.

What about if it was 9 points for a win?
"They're happy to get 9 points from outside the pain!" Dwayne

 

[Mattrox]

Yes it does. If you score the same as the opposition your percentage is 50%, any higher and you have outscored them and any lower you have been outscored.

Percentages over 100 are fine for historical comparisons like selling units from one month to another or AFL crowd numbers from year to year, but we're talking about a current finite sum at a single point in time. I'll agree that percentages over 100 sound more impressive though.

But when you compare two teams, lets say one on 62.54% lets call them Norwood and one on 55.22% lets call the Central Districts

Now lets imagine these two being given AFL percentages Norwood is 167% and Central Districts is 123%

In the AFL system is clear to even kids with little mathematical ability that Norwood scored 67% more than their opponents (on average) and Central Districts scored 23% more than their opponents. The starting point of 100 makes it an easy one glance assessment that Norwood was a very high scoring team in 2012. This is not easily discerned from the SANFL system.

 

[Apsaalooke]

But when you compare two teams, lets say one on 62.54% lets call them Norwood and one on 55.22% lets call the Central Districts

Now lets imagine these two being given AFL percentages Norwood is 167% and Central Districts is 123%

In the AFL system is clear to even kids with little mathematical ability that Norwood scored 67% more than their opponents (on average) and Central Districts scored 23% more than their opponents. The starting point of 100 makes it an easy one glance assessment that Norwood was a very high scoring team in 2012. This is not easily discerned from the SANFL system.

I'm guessing Andy D is closely following this argument and probably won't change the current system so I think on that basis you guys win. Still think the SANFL percentage is "purer" though.

As for 4 points vs 2 points - meh.

 

[newcs]

Not as arbitrary and strange as points scoring in Tennis.

Forget tennis have you ever been bowling, I haven't got a clue how they keep score.

 

[CAS79]

Only answer to this I've ever heard is "That's just how it's always been."

And that's the way it's going to stay.

 

[want2spoodge_pettifer]

My understanding is that the 4-2-0 scoring system

The 4-2-0 scoring system has also allowed for countless numbers of australian youths to watch adult swim and eat doritos in their late teens and early twenties

 

[alter_ego]

Pretty obvious - Victorians decided that their competition was "twice as good" as the SANFL, so decided their games should "be worth twice as many points" as SANFL games ie 4 points for a win

 

[Tas]

I often get a little bored at footy games, especially early on in games like the first and second quarters. They seems almost irrelevant in football because you can accumulate any kind of lead at half time and after the long break it can be a total different game in the second half.

I think they could mix things up with shaking up the premiership points scoring system. Say you get 1 point if you win a quarter and 2 points to whomever finishes on top at the end of the game. So you could earn up to 6 points for a game. Any quarter that is tied the points for that pool ride on the end result (with the two you get for winning normally). So if two of the quarters were drawn and each side won one quarter each then there would be 4 points for winning the game. If the game is drawn in the end the points are divided in half.

It would give the quarters, especially the early ones, some meaning and you would get these high excitement periods as teams would go hard during the time on period to win those premiership points.

It would also give you more variance in terms of premiership points and percentage would become less of a factor so annihilating shit teams is less of a factor. Teams are starting to put the sword to weaker teams a lot more nowadays because percentage can play a large role on your position and the blowouts are not as entertaining for neutral observers.

 

[Blackas87]

Too many clubs would get priority picks

 

[FootyJunkie]

Forget tennis have you ever been bowling, I haven't got a clue how they keep score.

Neither does Napolean.

 

[FootyJunkie]

I think they could mix things up with shaking up the premiership points scoring system. Say you get 1 point if you win a quarter and 2 points to whomever finishes on top at the end of the game. So you could earn up to 6 points for a game. Any quarter that is tied the points for that pool ride on the end result (with the two you get for winning normally). So if two of the quarters were drawn and each side won one quarter each then there would be 4 points for winning the game. If the game is drawn in the end the points are divided in half.

You don't want to water down the emotion of a loss too much. Under your system, it would be possible for a side to win 3 quarters and walk away with 3 points, while the winning side walks away with the same amount, which is effectively a draw.

I would keep it so there is still 4 points up for grabs in each game, but in the event that a losing side won 3 of the 4 quarters of a match, then the winning side gets 3 points, and the losing side gets 1. A side that dominated a game for 3 quarters, but dropped the ball badly in the 4th would still be acknowledged for a decent performance in what would turn out be a heart breaking loss in the end. It would rarely happen, just like a draw rarely happens, but it at least would allow for odd numbered flag points from time to time.