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

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.

whether a golden point or a golden goal, yes i agree there will probably be a rolling maul. whoever gets the ball out of the centre bounce will have a distinct advantage.

continuous 5+5 segments certainly has some appeal but at some stage you have to have a deal breaker. the argument then becomes how many extra minutes can you expect the players to sustain. the medicos and the players would need to have an agreement on this. remember too the 5+5 minutes is actual play, not elapsed time, so 10 minutes is equivalent to half a quarter and therefore 12.5% extra time. if you double-up  this just once you are up to 25% extra.

i think they have probably got it just about right

1 hour ago, Ethan Tremblay said:

They should scrap the rules during the extra 10 minutes. 

And have a cage match to decide the Cup? Step forward Jack Viney ... 

10 hours ago, 1 red eye 1 blue eye said:

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.

With a golden goal it would be the same if not worse. Defending side will flood the backline and try to deny all opportunitie's for attacking sides. They will try to rush behinds. More likely a goal will be scored from a free kick in a heavy congested situation rather than from general play. We have seen that in tight games there can be very long periods before a goal is scored.  A golden goal has a lot of potential for controversial endings like contentious goal reviews. Was the ball touched or not? A behind is clear cut because the ball only has to cross the goal line.

I am utterly astonished at how dumb the AFL can be at times. Truly gobsmacked.

1. The rule is that if you are under pressure, you can rush a behind.

2. At the end of the second period of extra time, if scores are level the coaches box is going to get out to the players that "next score wins".

3. A player will have the ball in defense, will be under pressure, and may rush it out of habit, or may hold onto the ball and be forced over the line by desperate opposing players trying to get the extra score.

4. What you'll get is a Grand Final won and lost by a defender from the losing team. Moronic.

5. Golden goal is no better: you could have a team kick 7 behinds in a row before their opponent scores a goal. They'll have a higher score but will lose because they didn't kick a goal. Moronic.

 

Minimum of two extra periods, with additional periods until a winner is declared.

It's like the higher-ups at the AFL have never spoken to another human being before.

5 minutes ago, praha said:

I am utterly astonished at how dumb the AFL can be at times. Truly gobsmacked.

1. The rule is that if you are under pressure, you can rush a behind.

2. At the end of the second period of extra time, if scores are level the coaches box is going to get out to the players that "next score wins".

3. A player will have the ball in defense, will be under pressure, and may rush it out of habit, or may hold onto the ball and be forced over the line by desperate opposing players trying to get the extra score.

4. What you'll get is a Grand Final won and lost by a defender from the losing team. Moronic.

5. Golden goal is no better: you could have a team kick 7 behinds in a row before their opponent scores a goal. They'll have a higher score but will lose because they didn't kick a goal. Moronic.

 

Minimum of two extra periods, with additional periods until a winner is declared.

It's like the higher-ups at the AFL have never spoken to another human being before.

It is not unusual for defenders to lose games for their teams. Happens all the time. All part of the game.

I'm not going to die in a ditch over it but it seems to be workable either way.

Scoring from behinds has always been part of the game. 15 goals 10 equals 14 goals 16. The team with more scoring shots maybe should have kicked straighter. But they didn't.

Games have been won by kicking fewer goals but lots more behinds. We don't go and reverse the results of those games.

So winning a GF by scoring a behind should not be considered an outrageous proposition.

3 hours ago, praha said:

5. Golden goal is no better: you could have a team kick 7 behinds in a row before their opponent scores a goal. They'll have a higher score but will lose because they didn't kick a goal. Moronic.

Pathological example. Anyway, if you have the ball that close to goal 7 times and can't kick one, maybe you don't deserve to win?

No matter which way you slice it, you can think of examples where it's "unfair".

But it's probably fairer to keep playing 5-min mini quarters each way until one team wins or expires. To really spice it up: take 2 players from each side each 5+5 period.

who ever wins by whatever tie-breaking methodology, it will still create great controversy argued at water coolers and pubs for decades to come

nothing changes in football

Ummm...lets look at the reality of it getting to a golden point scenario...

There have been 3 tied grand finals in 118 GFs.  So there is a 2.5% chance it will be tied.

Now lets look at the chances it will still be tied after another 10 minutes of play.  Although its quite statistically flawed this method, for lack of care, I'll just use the 2.5% we have above.  

We have a 0.06% chance of it going to a golden point...I think we'll be right.  If we see a golden point grand final in our life time, I'll be quite surprised.

4 minutes ago, demon-4-life said:

Ummm...lets look at the reality of it getting to a golden point scenario...

There have been 3 tied grand finals in 118 GFs.  So there is a 2.5% chance it will be tied.

Now lets look at the chances it will still be tied after another 10 minutes of play.  Although its quite statistically flawed this method, for lack of care, I'll just use the 2.5% we have above.  

We have a 0.06% chance of it going to a golden point...I think we'll be right.  If we see a golden point grand final in our life time, I'll be quite surprised.

probably less than 2.5% d4l.

there are 198 + 7 games every year, and if we assume 2 draws on average (guess) per year then that is about 1% and that may be a touch high

22 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

probably less than 2.5% d4l.

there are 198 + 7 games every year, and if we assume 2 draws on average (guess) per year then that is about 1% and that may be a touch high

So since my OCD kicked in a bit, I should probably use accurate statistics.

If we take the history of the VFL/AFL competition, there has been a 305 draws out of 43,600 matches, making it a 0.6% chance of a draw.  Multiple this by itself, means the chances of a golden point scenario in an AFL grand final would be 0.004%.  

And thus...I think we'll be right.  

29 minutes ago, demon-4-life said:

So since my OCD kicked in a bit, I should probably use accurate statistics.

If we take the history of the VFL/AFL competition, there has been a 305 draws out of 43,600 matches, making it a 0.6% chance of a draw.  Multiple this by itself, means the chances of a golden point scenario in an AFL grand final would be 0.004%.  

And thus...I think we'll be right.  

But I don't think you can just assume the probability of a draw after extra time is the same as that after playing for 4 quarters.  It is much higher - more like the probability of the score being tied 10 minutes into a match.  There is a lot less time for one side to pull away, the scores are close to start with and hence it is more likely that the team behind will catch up and there will be a draw.

Simplest solution is to make the extra time a bit longer and just keep doing it till someone wins.  They may be exhausted but they have all summer to recover.

 

32 minutes ago, demon-4-life said:

So since my OCD kicked in a bit, I should probably use accurate statistics.

If we take the history of the VFL/AFL competition, there has been a 305 draws out of 43,600 matches, making it a 0.6% chance of a draw.  Multiple this by itself, means the chances of a golden point scenario in an AFL grand final would be 0.004%.  

And thus...I think we'll be right.  

outstanding research d4l. i hope you found a tally somewhere and didn't have to trawl year by year - lol

If it ever happens to us, hope we're not kicking into a strong wind

5 minutes ago, loges said:

If it ever happens to us, hope we're not kicking into a strong wind

haven't seen strong wind at the G since when they were rebuilding the northern stand 

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

outstanding research d4l. i hope you found a tally somewhere and didn't have to trawl year by year - lol

Yeah, just used Wikipedia

1 hour ago, sue said:

But I don't think you can just assume the probability of a draw after extra time is the same as that after playing for 4 quarters.  It is much higher - more like the probability of the score being tied 10 minutes into a match.  There is a lot less time for one side to pull away, the scores are close to start with and hence it is more likely that the team behind will catch up and there will be a draw.

Simplest solution is to make the extra time a bit longer and just keep doing it till someone wins.  They may be exhausted but they have all summer to recover.

 

Totally agree with your point.  But was more just trying to make a point that I still think its quite unlikely that we'll ever get to golden point in our lifetime.  Maybe once?

23 hours ago, biggestred said:

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

 

And next point wins with no siren after 10 mins? Imagine rushing a behind and losing the grand final. Imagine a score review to see if it hit the point post or not! Mental. 

Imagine a 50m penalty and a kick from the goal square?

Imagine a score review if the ball appears to have hit the point post?

 

There are so many scenarios they wouldn't have thought of. A disaster waiting tp happen.

2 hours ago, demon-4-life said:

So since my OCD kicked in a bit, I should probably use accurate statistics.

If we take the history of the VFL/AFL competition, there has been a 305 draws out of 43,600 matches, making it a 0.6% chance of a draw.  Multiple this by itself, means the chances of a golden point scenario in an AFL grand final would be 0.004%.  

And thus...I think we'll be right.  

And yet again it shows where stats are completely stuffed.

Since 1896 there have been 3 drawn GFs 3 divided by 119 is a 2.5% chance.........

 

Remind me again how many 100 year floods they have had in Queensland in the past 10 years?? About 5.

I think if they are introducing this rule into the GF, and given it already applies in drawn finals, they should introduce it into the season proper as well.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

haven't seen strong wind at the G since when they were rebuilding the northern stand 

Yep, don't reckon you probably have, still hope it doesn't happen to us.

37 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

And yet again it shows where stats are completely stuffed.

Since 1896 there have been 3 drawn GFs 3 divided by 119 is a 2.5% chance.........

 

Remind me again how many 100 year floods they have had in Queensland in the past 10 years?? About 5.

bad stats jnr. you can't just select certain games and anyway the sample is too low. a game is a game is a game and d4l did a good job getting better stats. i'll stick with his 0.6% chance for a drawn gf. but yes, we could get 3 drawn gf's in a row. it's just much longer odds. besides i'd never trust anything out of qld 

Next goal wins has it's problem,what happens if a player touches the ball but the replay proves different is it then fair for a team to be awarded the grand final. 15 mins times two halves with extra bench would be good and if still a draw the team that ended up higher after the home and away matches gets the flag.

3 hours ago, daisycutter said:

bad stats jnr. you can't just select certain games and anyway the sample is too low. a game is a game is a game and d4l did a good job getting better stats. i'll stick with his 0.6% chance for a drawn gf. but yes, we could get 3 drawn gf's in a row. it's just much longer odds. besides i'd never trust anything out of qld 

Nah its not. Scoring is much lower in finals for a start.

I was thinking golden point without a siren was unfair, but then I thought, if there is a wind favouring one end then the team that had it first had the chance to put up a big 3 or 4 goal lead and then get that scoreboard pressure. 

If they can't come out 1 point infront after the OT periods then to counter the scoreboard advantage the other team gets to play with the wind. 

I'd still have a siren and the ball coming back to the middle. But I don't think it's as unfair as some are suggesting.

4 hours ago, PaulRB said:

I think if they are introducing this rule into the GF, and given it already applies in drawn finals, they should introduce it into the season proper as well.

Why? Robbo and Gerard and many others have been saying this as well. I don't see the logic.

You need a win/loss result after finals. Hence it existed after other finals and now this change.

You don't need a win/loss after a home and away round. 2 points each is a perfectly acceptable way of splitting the result. 

I really like draws. They produce interesting ladder permeations. They leave you with that horrible half full/half empty feeling. They cap every game at the 120 odd minutes and you share the points and move on.

I'm just curious to see a game where these new rules are played out, and i also believe there should be consistency in the games rules between H&A and Finals... 

For a player to encounter and have to play these rules for the first time in what might be their one and only chance at winning a Flag seems random. I'd prefer they'd experienced and played this scenario several times in their careers before hitting it in finals or a GF.

I don't mine the current draws either..