Why is it 4 points for a win?

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

To be different and better than ol' two point SA.

The Vics speakers are louder too, because they go up to 11.

 

[crazywildhorse]

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

Has there ever been a better answer?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

No I get it. I was just saying that the complexity you demonstrated was unworkable..

You're trying too hard. I made a simple point that you cant re-cut last years ladder based on new (backdated) rules... because if those rules had actually been in place then the games themselves would have evolved vastly differently.

 

[Mattrox]

You're trying too hard. I made a simple point that you cant re-cut last years ladder based on new (backdated) rules... because if those rules had actually been in place then the games themselves would have evolved vastly differently.

LOL I was agreeing with you.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The Vics speakers are louder too, because they go up to 11.

Why dont they just make 10 louder?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

LOL I was agreeing with you.

Next time just say "I agree"

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

This thread confirms no one knows why this 4-2 quirk over the standard 2-1 occurred.

It would be interesting to know when a premiership table was first used with 4 pts in the VFA, ie was it 1877 when the league was formed, or before that when senior footy was a less organised competition.

I'm travelling at the moment so I don't have access for a few days, but if anyone has an old edition of Kevin Taylor's FootyStatsDiary books with all those stats, he now has on his website, there are few pages of early premiership tables and there might be something in there about when 4pts were first awarded.

I have long wondered how you earn 3 pts and was there ever was a time you could "win" 3 points.

I have for many years thought if a draw happens the teams should play 2 x 5 minutes overtime and like in the National Hockey League award a pt to the loser. The NHL awards an extra pt to the overtime loser, I would do it slightly different and split the points 3 to the overtime winner and 1 to the overtime loser. ( The NHL system is 2pts for a win 1pt each for a tie if after the first overtime is still tied and if their is a winner after the first overtime 2pts for the winner and 1pt for the loser)

 

[The Passenger]

7. The umpire is now required to award free-kicks whenever he sees a breach of the rules. Previously an appeal to the umpire was required for the umpire to award a free kick.

interesting. an obvious throwback to the influence cricket had on australian rules

I have for many years thought if a draw happens the teams should play 2 x 5 minutes overtime and like in the National Hockey League award a pt to the loser. The NHL awards an extra pt to the overtime loser, I would do it slightly different and split the points 3 to the overtime winner and 1 to the overtime loser. ( The NHL system is 2pts for a win 1pt each for a tie if after the first overtime is still tied and if their is a winner after the first overtime 2pts for the winner and 1pt for the loser)

i dunno, i kinda like draws.
and there must be the mathematical side of me that has always preferred ALL games are played for the same amount of points.
i don't like how in nhl some games 3 points are given out, usually only 2 are given out. rugby union there are bonus points etc,.
for me if you score a "bonus" point it should always be taken from the other team. probably the only exception is soccer because draws are so prevalent.

 

[Underarm]

This thread confirms no one knows why this 4-2 quirk over the standard 2-1 occurred.

It would be interesting to know when a premiership table was first used with 4 pts in the VFA, ie was it 1877 when the league was formed, or before that when senior footy was a less organised competition.

4 points for a win and 2 points for a draw was introduced for the 1897 season by both the VFA and VFL.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

This thread confirms no one cares why this 4-2 quirk over the standard 2-1 occurred.

efa

 

[JD-Roo]

One of the reasons given for the fact that a goal is worth six points is that football was created to keep keep cricket players fit over winter. Six points was considered the equal to a six incricket. Perhaps using that logic, if you call it that, could explain it. I would need to check when behinds were introduced, but I'm sure that they weren't part of the earlier game. I'ii give myself a bit of homework.

Pretty sure "sixes" weren't introduced into cricket until the 20th century. I've got a diagram somewhere of a Bradman innings in England where even the shots over the fence are marked as "fours".

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Pretty sure "sixes" weren't introduced into cricket until the 20th century. I've got a diagram somewhere of a Bradman innings in England where even the shots over the fence are marked as "fours".

Bradman only hit six sixes in his test career. Interesting trivia

 

[The Goon]

Despite my original question being unanswered, this thread has been far better than I imagined.

BF at it's best.

 

[RogersResults]

Pretty sure "sixes" weren't introduced into cricket until the 20th century. I've got a diagram somewhere of a Bradman innings in England where even the shots over the fence are marked as "fours".

1910: Six runs given for any hit over the boundary, instead of only for a hit out of the ground.
A brief history of cricket: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/239757.html

 

[old_clint]

Despite my original question being unanswered, this thread has been far better than I imagined.

BF at it's best.

I believe the concept of Senior and Junior Teams comes closest to the truth. In the early days of the VFA (or whatever it may have been called) "The Colonial Champion" was decided by consensus. The objectification of that consensus was apparently assisted by the subjective allocation of points for various matches played throughout the season. A Geel v Melb game would certainly have been a 4 point game whereas Geel v Beechworth may have only been worth one. The Victorian Railways had a team FFS, as did Castlemaine. My guess is the 4 points for a quality match carried over.

 

[RogersResults]

I believe the concept of Senior and Junior Teams comes closest to the truth. In the early days of the VFA (or whatever it may have been called) "The Colonial Champion" was decided by consensus. The objectification of that consensus was apparently assisted by the subjective allocation of points for various matches played throughout the season. A Geel v Melb game would certainly have been a 4 point game whereas Geel v Beechworth may have only been worth one. The Victorian Railways had a team FFS, as did Castlemaine. My guess is the 4 points for a quality match carried over.

Before the formation of the VFA in 1877 it is true that the "Champion Team" (the "Challenge Cup" winner ) of the season was by consensus of the various clubs competing. There was no allocation of points or even any official method of ranking. This continued for the first 10 seasons of the VFA with the team having the least losses in matches regarded to be of 'senior' staus, deemed to be the premier team.

In 1887 at the meeting of the Victorian Football Association on 7 October the following was proposed and accepted.

THE PREMIERSHIP LIST.
Mr. T. S. MARSHALL, the hon. secretary, read the following scheme for determing the premiership list, and proposed that it should be adopted and tried for next year :-

Scheme for fixing positions of clubs in premiership list, based on performances for season 1887. four points for a win, two for a draw. The maximum number of matches played in the season was 21, and the final results are calculated in the table appended on the ratio of the points actually gained in matches played by each club to the points obtained in the maximum number of matches. Thus, Geelong played 21 matches, won 16, draw 3, and lost 2. Their points would be-16x4 + 3x2 = 70. Carlton gained 64 in 18 matches, but taking their ratio of 18 matches to 21, it would show-As 18 is to 21 so is 64 points obtained to 74.6 points obtainable:-

(Carlton are recorded as premiers for 1887.)

See: Page 13 of the Argus 8 October 1887 for more detail. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/title/13

 

[old_clint]

Before the formation of the VFA in 1877 it is true that the "Champion Team" (the "Challenge Cup" winner ) of the season was by consensus of the various clubs competing. There was no allocation of points or even any official method of ranking. This continued for the first 10 seasons of the VFA with the team having the least losses in matches regarded to be of 'senior' staus, deemed to be the premier team.

In 1887 at the meeting of the Victorian Football Association on 7 October the following was proposed and accepted.

THE PREMIERSHIP LIST.
Mr. T. S. MARSHALL, the hon. secretary, read the following scheme for determing the premiership list, and proposed that it should be adopted and tried for next year :-

Scheme for fixing positions of clubs in premiership list, based on performances for season 1887. four points for a win, two for a draw. The maximum number of matches played in the season was 21, and the final results are calculated in the table appended on the ratio of the points actually gained in matches played by each club to the points obtained in the maximum number of matches. Thus, Geelong played 21 matches, won 16, draw 3, and lost 2. Their points would be-16x4 + 3x2 = 70. Carlton gained 64 in 18 matches, but taking their ratio of 18 matches to 21, it would show-As 18 is to 21 so is 64 points obtained to 74.6 points obtainable:-

(Carlton are recorded as premiers for 1887.)

See: Page 13 of the Argus 8 October 1887 for more detail. http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/title/13

I'm thinking more like when the Panel convened to establish a consensus there may have been some foolscap, a pen and ample ink at hand with games being accorded notional points in the analysis to assist in objectifying the exercise. No informal calculations or details in respect of relative points scored would of course needed to be published in relation to the announcement of a Champion. It does help to explain why, arbitrarily, a game should be deemed to be worth 4 points towards a premiership.

 

[terryo]

According ti Wiki prior to 1886 there were 2 halves, not 4 quarters. Not sure if the 4 points precedes or follows this though.

Edit: apparently the 1885 season only listed wins, losses, draws, for and against (goals only though, no points).

Here is a time line compiled from two separate document:
1866

Time limit for matches introduced. Team scoring most goals declared the winner.

Captains tossed for the first time and behind posts used in addition to goal posts.

Oval ball began to replace the spherical type.

1872

Field umpires introduced. Previously, rival captains had awarded free kicks.

1873
Team uniforms introduced. Previously, caps had been the only distinguishing feature.

1886

Game first played with four quarters instead of two halves.
1887

Central umpire required to bounce ball at start of each quarter instead of throwing it up into the air.
System of waving flags to signify goals implemented.
Oval shaped playing areas generally replaced the rectangular versions.
1904

Boundary umpires first appointed to League matches.

If this information is correct then 1866 is when behind posts were introduced. That doesn't answer the original question.
1887 Oval shaped playing areas generally replaced the rectangular versions. Does this make the original proposition that the game is a by-product of cricket?

 

[RogersResults]

Does this make the original proposition that the game is a by-product of cricket?

The cricket connection is that it has come down to us, that Harrison and Wills had the idea of devising a winter game to keep cricketers fit that was not as likely to results in injuries, as did the football games being played in English schools based of the rules of the Rugby school.

Cricket Ovals managed by cricket clubs who were loathe to allow footballers on them, tearing up the surface and wickets.

However once the popularity of football increased and with the mangers of enclosed grounds able to charge admission the restrictions on playing football on cricket ovals were relaxed - the Melbourne Cricket Club from 1879 allowed football to played on the MCG on a regular basis.*

What the shape of the playing area was before cricket ovals were freely available is uncertain and has been open to much conjecture. The rules as published in 1866 stipulated that the playing area to be "200 yards long by 150 yards wide"** without specifying whether it was to be a rectangle or not.

I'd be interested to know the source of "1887 Oval shaped playing areas generally replaced the rectangular versions." Noting that Wikipedia is not a source but bits of information copied from elsewhere - sometimes referenced, sometimes not. (The founders of the game and those who worked to have it recognised nationally earlier last century would be appalled that the group (coterie) who compile the information about Australian Football on Wikipedia keep referring to it with the condescending "rules" tag devised by the press in the rugby hold-out colonies of NSW and QLD!)

* Chronology of the Game - AFL Record Season Guide 2012 p.1044
** Rules Changes - AFL Record Season Guide 2012 p.1040