Why is it 4 points for a win?

[Simple Jack]

How would this system work in finals? You win the first three quarters in the GF and are deemed premiers despite losing the game?

Sounds sensational. Applied retrospectively of course.

 

[Dr Awkward]

Not as arbitrary and strange as points scoring in Tennis.

I learnt the other day that the tennis scoring system comes from ye olden days when they used to not have a scoreboard at the court but an umpire would use the hands of a courtside clock to keep tabs. So 15-0 - would indicate that you're a quarter of the way to winning the game.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I learnt the other day that the tennis scoring system comes from ye olden days when they used to not have a scoreboard at the court but an umpire would use the hands of a courtside clock to keep tabs. So 15-0 - would indicate that you're a quarter of the way to winning the game.

Makes a lot of sense. Presumably they shortened 45 to 40 for convenience?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The 2012 final ladder with the above in operation plus 1/2 point each for a drawn quater would have been:

Hawthorn 103
Sydney 96.5
Adelaide 96
West Coast 89.5
Collingwood 85.5
Geelong 84
Fremantle 83.5
Nth Melbourne 83
St Kilda 77
Richmond 67.5
Carlton 64
Brisbane 63.5
Essendon 61
Port Adelaide 46
W. Bulldogs 36
Melbourne 34.5
Gold Coast 34
GWS Giants 19.5

For and Against Percentage last year would have been irrelevant.
Sydney in a home qualifying final v West Coast.
Adelaide in Melbourne for their qualifying final.
Collingwood in an elimination final v Nth Melbourne
Richmond 10th instead of 12th
Carlton 11th instead of 10th
Brisbane 12th instead of 13th
Essendon 13th instead of 11th

(West Coast won 7 more quarters than Collingwood and drew 2 fewer.)

Except the ladder wouldnt look like that at all because if teams knew winning quarters were so important, the tactics and results would be competelyt different.

 

[RogersResults]

Except the ladder wouldnt look like that at all because if teams knew winning quarters were so important, the tactics and results would be competelyt different.

Good point. Changing the parameters in any human activity always has unintended consequences. Might only apply to last quarters and could mean that the distances between the best teams on the ladder and the others would be increased. The other thing with giving points for quarters won, would mean that for and against percentage would become less significant. How might this affect tactics? Maybe the whole emphasis would switch to winning quarters as much as winning the whole match (depending on the points allocation) - once ahead in the scores for a quarter, the tactics could be to go completely defensive? The game could become a string of 4 mini-matches.

We have no evidence that such a system has ever been considered but you can see the points that could have been raised against it, if it had.

2003-2012: Comparison of percentage of matches won (m/w%)
and the percentage of quarters won (Qtrs W%).

Note how the better performed teams win a higher percentage of their
matches than they do the quarters of a match.

Make of this and the table below what you will.

2003-2012: Percentage of each quarter won.

 

[The Passenger]

Under my idea Adelaide would get 3 points and Hawthorn would have gotten 3 points as well

if like your idea but i'd modify it slightly.

if i was starting the afl from scratch there's a few changes i'd make to scoring systems and the like. 1 point for up gor grabs each quarter and 4 points up for grabs for the overall winner. points split on draws. minimum points a winning team can receive is 5 points. should more accurately reflect the dominance of one team over the other rather than the standard 4 points or 0 (or 2 for draw).

i'd also change the scoring system slightly. the teams that kicks the most goals wins and behinds are only used as a tie breaker. so 4.3 defeats 3.10 in a quarter, just as 14.10 defeats 13.21 in a match. wouldn't really change much though.

just my own personal preference. not things i'd feel overly passionate about.

 

[The Goon]

i'd also change the scoring system slightly. the teams that kicks the most goals wins and behinds are only used as a tie breaker. so 4.3 defeats 3.10 in a quarter, just as 14.10 defeats 13.21 in a match. wouldn't really change much though.

Interestingly that was similar to the original system. They counted goals and not points.

From 1878, points were listed but only goals counted towards the score and, therefore, there were a great number of drawn games. Even though behinds did not count towards a result, in 1893 the VFA awarded the Stars and Stripes Trophy to the team kicking the least number of behinds in ratio to the number of goals scored in premiership matches. This was done to encourage accurate kicking for goal. Melbourne won the trophy with a percentage of 78.6, barely ahead of Williamstown at 78.5.[9]

The behinds rule was apparently introduced with the VFL in 1896.

In its first season the VFL introduced three important reforms to the game:[9]
1. behinds were counted towards the score;
2. a finals system was introduced;
3. the 'little mark' was abolished.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Australian_rules_football_in_Victoria_(1859-1900)

 

[Hawkers]

The answer to the OP's question is 'Why isn't it 8 points?'

 

[RUNVS]

if like your idea but i'd modify it slightly.

if i was starting the afl from scratch there's a few changes i'd make to scoring systems and the like. 1 point for up gor grabs each quarter and 4 points up for grabs for the overall winner. points split on draws. minimum points a winning team can receive is 5 points. should more accurately reflect the dominance of one team over the other rather than the standard 4 points or 0 (or 2 for draw).

I can see the validity in that idea as well.

So each match 8 points will be given so assuming one team wins the minimum amount of points they can get is 5 but that would only happen if their opposition won the first 3 quarters and then they (the team that won) wins the last quarter.

 

[RogersResults]

i'd also change the scoring system slightly. the teams that kicks the most goals wins and behinds are only used as a tie breaker. so 4.3 defeats 3.10 in a quarter, just as 14.10 defeats 13.21 in a match. wouldn't really change much though.

Just for interest: If most goals won with behinds only as tie breakers had always been the case, 264 match results that were wins with fewer goals (out of 14,166 matches) from 1897 would have had their results reversed. 83 draws would have become wins.

7 finals that were won with fewer goals (1.2% of all finals) would have had their results reversed, giving Essendon one more premiership and Carlton 1 fewer and Footscray playing in the 1997 GF instead of Adelaide - and Adelaide replacing Hawthorn in the 2012 GF

With the drawn finals , Geelong would have played in the 1962 Grand Final, Collingwood would have premiers in 1977 and St Kilda premiers in 2010.

The 264 teams winning with fewer goals have had more scoring shots in the range of 6 to 21 with an average of 9 more scoring shots.

The 83 teams drawing with fewer goals have had more scoring shots in the range of 5 to 15 with an average of 6 more scoring shots.

​

Matches won with fewer goals 1897-2012​

 

[whiteoak]

We win! We win! We win!!

 

[Ketchup]

Could ask the same question as to why a win isn't worth 100 points and a draw 50 points.

 

[Dr Awkward]

Makes a lot of sense. Presumably they shortened 45 to 40 for convenience?

Yeah I think they probably started out saying 45-0, but then at some point abbreviated it.

 

[Jamurp]

Should be 5 points for a win, 2 and a half for a draw.

 

[Simple Jack]

Even though I hate soccer I do like the 3/1. I think a win should be worth more than 2 draws.

 

[Mattrox]

Except the ladder wouldnt look like that at all because if teams knew winning quarters were so important, the tactics and results would be competelyt different.

They don't do that because come finals it only matters who wins the match. You entire season based on a winning each quarter strategy gives way to a completely different set of strategic parameters.

The game as we know it would be ruined.

After all how many "moral premierships" are they going to give out to teams that lead up to 3 quarter time but loose in close one at the end?

 

[FootyJunkie]

Even though I hate soccer I do like the 3/1. I think a win should be worth more than 2 draws.

Soccer used to be 2 pts for a win, 1 for a draw way back when.... before administrators realized teams/clubs were settling for half wins with scoreless draws to get to where they wanted to be in the premiership table/standings with less effort.

 

[The Passenger]

Soccer used to be 2 pts for a win, 1 for a draw way back when.... before administrators realized teams/clubs were settling for half wins with scoreless draws to get to where they wanted to be in the premiership table/standings with less effort.

i might be wrong here but if you drew every game in a premier league season, to finish on 38 points, you'd be battling not to get relegated right?

 

[Baldur]

The rules weren't changed post-match, just interpreted unfavourably for the Saints.

Rubbish, rules simply ignored. The rules where clear, a game finished when the umpire heard the siren and blew his whistle to end the game. Nothing what so ever about unless the siren is very soft and the umpires does not hear it first time.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

They don't do that because come finals it only matters who wins the match. You entire season based on a winning each quarter strategy gives way to a completely different set of strategic parameters.

The game as we know it would be ruined.

After all how many "moral premierships" are they going to give out to teams that lead up to 3 quarter time but loose in close one at the end?

I wasnt arguing against that point. Its a totally stupid idea and I totally agree with you.

Just pointing out however that recutting last years ladder based on these stupid rules is pointless because games would have panned out differently if these stupid rules were actually in place.

 

[Forward Press]

Rubbish, rules simply ignored. The rules where clear, a game finished when the umpire heard the siren and blew his whistle to end the game. Nothing what so ever about unless the siren is very soft and the umpires does not hear it first time.

The applicable rules were:

"10.4.1 The timekeepers shall sound the siren to signal the end of a quarter until a field umpire acknowledges that the siren has been heard and brings play to an end."
and
"10.4.2 Play in each quarter shall come to an end when any one of the field umpires hears the signal."

The rules prima facie leads to the conclusion that it should be a draw - that is, the umpires hearing and acknowledging the siren brings play to an end under 10.4.2. However, this is based on the presumption that the time-keeper will be sounding the siren long enough until acknowledgment of the siren by one of the field umpires, as required by 10.4.1, and it then becomes an issue of whether the AFL ensured that the time-keeper properly performed his or her duties under 10.4.1 to allow the field umpire to call the end of play. We know that the time-keeper in this case did not do so. This then leads to a situation where the result of a game is then decided by external matters outside the stadium (ie the timekeeper being properly trained in their duties under 10.4.1). Therefore the 4 points must go to Freo.

The Wikipedia extract below probably does a better job than I do in explaining why it's a matter of interpretation rather than actually changing the rules:

Rule 10.4.2 implies that the match does not automatically end when the siren sounds, but rather continues until the umpire hears the siren and signals the end of the game. This would lead to the conclusion that the result must stand as a draw. However, Rule 10.4.1 requires the time-keeper to sound the siren continuously until an umpire acknowledges the siren and calls an end to play. This rule was not correctly observed by the time keeper. This leads to an argument that the match was not brought to an end according to the rules of the game and that the outcome of the game was determined not within the playing arena but rather by external governance matters that are the responsibility of the AFL: the quality of match facilities and the performance of time-keeping duties. This line of argument leads to the view that natural justice required the game to be awarded to Fremantle.

Anyway, it's a bit off-topic, but when you think of it that way, it makes sense. Otherwise, there are possible scenarios where a single time-keeper can unjustly affect the result of a game by simply omitting to perform their duty under 10.4.1.

 

[Andrew Mc]

I had always been under the impression that it was a hold-over from the VFA where not all games were considered the same quality. Reading back over the history, that does not seem to be the case. I did find this fantastic rule change in 1886, though

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.

I can just imagine a 19th century version of Warnie appealing for a free kick.

To be honest though, players do tend to ask for frees pretty often, even now, especially for stuff like holding the ball.

 

[terryo]

I think this is one question that nobody knows the answer to. A win has been worth 4 points since the start I think. I wonder if it was based off rugby or something.

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.

 

[Mattrox]

I wasnt arguing against that point. Its a totally stupid idea and I totally agree with you.

Just pointing out however that recutting last years ladder based on these stupid rules is pointless because games would have panned out differently if these stupid rules were actually in place.

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

4 pts vs 2pts makes no difference though. As previously said, sets Aussie Rules apart from other codes.

 

[pebblestone]

Not as arbitrary and strange as points scoring in Tennis.

Check out royal or real tennis. Its like the rules were invented by a bunch of bored children in their backyard one Sunday.