Next score wins!

[hells bells 2,023]

IMO should be 10 mins either side and then golden goal.  A point, particularly a rushed behind, seems like a terrible way to decide what would to that point have been an epic game.

Edited April 19, 2016 by hells bells

[daisycutter 29,892]

next score after being tied twice (normal end and after 2x5 mins) seems perfectly fair. unlikely to be tied twice anyway.

after 2nd tie should be a siren then ball back to centre bounce as with tie at normal time

[deanox 10,045]

I like golden goal but can you imagine the scenario where a team scores 6 begins in extra time then concedes a goal,  winning the game but scoring less? 

[old dee 24,001]

Why do we have to change ?

3 draws in 150+ years .

It is not as though it happens very other year.

If it ain't broken ...........................

[daisycutter 29,892]

2 minutes ago, old dee said:

Why do we have to change ?

3 draws in 150+ years .

It is not as though it happens very other year.

If it ain't broken ...........................

gives the afl some publicity for another week, od. but seriously, they still do have to make contingency plans if they keep a draw and that can get complicated.

[old dee 24,001]

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

gives the afl some publicity for another week, od. but seriously, they still do have to make contingency plans if they keep a draw and that can get complicated.

Pity they did not make a contingency plan  for the Essendrug 30 getting a length suspension.

 

[John Crow Batty 8,880]

Could be a very dangerous situation with the golden goal scenario. Not only will the players most likely have played their most punishing and taxing full game of their careers plus an  added 10 minutes then quite possibly up to 20-30 minutes for a golden goal to be scored. Completely insane and irresponsible. Players will be falling over everywhere with cramps or worse.

Edited April 19, 2016 by america de cali

[daisycutter 29,892]

21 minutes ago, old dee said:

Pity they did not make a contingency plan  for the Essendrug 30 getting a length suspension.

 

that was too hard for them od, specially when their main contingency plan was to do a deal 

[bandicoot 1,395]

2 hours ago, biggestred said:

Idiotic. A symbol of how the afl has just pandered to corporate media types.

Pandering to corporate media? Channel 7 would love to bring back the players next week and have 2 grand finals. Same with the advertises and the mcg.

this was a decision made purely because the fans wanted it

[leave it to deever 17,591]

3 hours ago, PaulRB said:

No more Grand Final replays as AFL Commission agrees to 'golden score'

Grand final draw, will go to time on (5 min each way), then if still drawn,... next score wins!

Thats so awesomely school yard... I love it!

Hate to lose to it...

 

Whats the bet it bites mfc on the bum first. Bloody Hell I used to a glass half full kind of guy.

[Chris 2,892]

56 minutes ago, old dee said:

Why do we have to change ?

3 draws in 150+ years .

It is not as though it happens very other year.

If it ain't broken ...........................

Has to do with the disadvantage to an interstate side if they are in a draw. That i a the only reason that makes any sense. 

[Chris 2,892]

2 hours ago, america de cali said:

A golden goal disregarding behinds will be a corruption to how the game has been historically played and scored.  Normal games and grand finals can be won by a rushed behind so why change things? The golden goal scenario is rather ghoulish.  I agree the game resets but the team that gets into scoring position first deserves the first chance under normal game rules.

The problem i see with a point counting is you will end up with a Dunn type player taking a pot shot from 70 in hope and if it falls short it would be all but a scrum as players go for the try/rushed behind. I would prefer to see it decided by a more AFL like final play. 

[daisycutter 29,892]

Just now, Chris said:

The problem i see with a point counting is you will end up with a Dunn type player taking a pot shot from 70 in hope and if it falls short it would be all but a scrum as players go for the try/rushed behind. I would prefer to see it decided by a more AFL like final play. 

what? like breen in saints only premiership win in 1964. thrilling stuff

[daisycutter 29,892]

35 minutes ago, Chris said:

The problem i see with a point counting is you will end up with a Dunn type player taking a pot shot from 70 in hope and if it falls short it would be all but a scrum as players go for the try/rushed behind. I would prefer to see it decided by a more AFL like final play. 

what? like breen in saints only premiership win in 1966. thrilling stuff

Edited April 19, 2016 by daisycutter

[Chris 2,892]

23 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

what? like breen in saints only premiership win in 1964. thrilling stuff

I wasnt alive in 64 but i am fairly sure we won that one. 

I havent seen that finish but i dont like the idea of a team trying to get a point knowing it will end the game, as opposed to getting a point not being sure ifthat gives the other team possession and maybe a chance to score. 

[Ron Burgundy 8,587]

About time.

Draws suck.

 

[daisycutter 29,892]

9 minutes ago, Chris said:

I wasnt alive in 64 but i am fairly sure we won that one. 

I havent seen that finish but i dont like the idea of a team trying to get a point knowing it will end the game, as opposed to getting a point not being sure ifthat gives the other team possession and maybe a chance to score. 

freudian slip, corrected to 66.

for the life of me i don't get this concern over golden score and why it has to be a goal

anyway, remember it's very unlikely to happen, requiring a double tie

[1 red eye 1 blue eye 771]

I think dc because it has to be kicked as opposed to every other way to get across the line.

[sue 9,192]

1 minute ago, daisycutter said:

freudian slip, corrected to 66.

for the life of me i don't get this concern over golden score and why it has to be a goal

anyway, remember it's very unlikely to happen, requiring a double tie

you can't just multiply the odds.  It's not as if one side can get 10 goals up in 5 minutes thus making it unlikely for the second tie to occur.  Second tie is far more likely.

[daisycutter 29,892]

11 minutes ago, sue said:

you can't just multiply the odds.  It's not as if one side can get 10 goals up in 5 minutes thus making it unlikely for the second tie to occur.  Second tie is far more likely.

i wasn't attempting to multiply the odds. i'm just saying both teams still being tied after another 10 minutes greatly increases the odds

[daisycutter 29,892]

15 minutes ago, 1 red eye 1 blue eye said:

I think dc because it has to be kicked as opposed to every other way to get across the line.

well all the ways of scoring are equally valid scores in the rules of the game. i still can't see the issue

[Ethan Tremblay 31,243]

They should scrap the rules during the extra 10 minutes. 

[Timothy Reddan-A'Blew 5,560]

43 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

freudian slip, corrected to 66.

for the life of me i don't get this concern over golden score and why it has to be a goal

anyway, remember it's very unlikely to happen, requiring a double tie

(I'm interested in this topic because I hope we're in the frame for it to be actually at all relevant to us!! So...)

I reckon that's the point. So the contingency after the first '5+5' should just be another 5+5, same rules. And another (and another, etc), if necessary but, seriously, how likely? I hope there isn't any OH&S nervousNelliedom: an extra half hour, say, after two dozen weeks of 3 hours? Suck it up. What a spectacle; what tension; what a 'tune in' impetus. And surely there can't be any issue of delaying other programs - look at how lengthy golf major play-offs are accommodated, for example. If one went into the evening's programming (that's about a dozen consecutive ties!) maybe then they can rethink it for subsequent years.

[daisycutter 29,892]

13 minutes ago, Timothy Reddan-A'Blew said:

(I'm interested in this topic because I hope we're in the frame for it to be actually at all relevant to us!! So...)

I reckon that's the point. So the contingency after the first '5+5' should just be another 5+5, same rules. And another (and another, etc), if necessary but, seriously, how likely? I hope there isn't any OH&S nervousNelliedom: an extra half hour, say, after two dozen weeks of 3 hours? Suck it up. What a spectacle; what tension; what a 'tune in' impetus. And surely there can't be any issue of delaying other programs - look at how lengthy golf major play-offs are accommodated, for example. If one went into the evening's programming (that's about a dozen consecutive ties!) maybe then they can rethink it for subsequent years.

i suspect the oh&s is the main reason for putting a limit on it

did you see how much of a break there would be before the first 5 mins? and any break before the second 5 mins? breaks would add to the tension, excitement

[1 red eye 1 blue eye 771]

51 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

well all the ways of scoring are equally valid scores in the rules of the game. i still can't see the issue

I can imagine 36 players on the ball the ball is underneath there somewhere, a rolling maul, it'd be a terrible way for a GF to conclude. I think Tim has it right 5+5 until there's a result.