2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

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.

yeah, don't like the idea of no siren unless they have some other indication for players.

would prefer siren with ball coming back to a new centre bounce. maybe a 2-5 minute break to discuss tactics and just draw (npi) out the suspense

4 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

yeah, don't like the idea of no siren unless they have some other indication for players.

would prefer siren with ball coming back to a new centre bounce. maybe a 2-5 minute break to discuss tactics and just draw (npi) out the suspense

It would be the centre bounce to end all centre bounces. Do you put a man at half back running through? Do you stack one side of your forward line, direct the kick in there and hope you can then scrum it through for a point. Can you imagine the umpires and how much the whistle would be pretty much swallowed. Almost no chance to get a free kick as a forward with the ball inside 50. 

On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 8:53 AM, america de cali said:

Withisa golde t itoal ion would be the same if not woinse. 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.

Golden goal or golden point.... controversy will arise. What If a team tries to rush It through their goals but for a coat of varnish It grazes the point post yet Is rewarded a point/premiership. Goal Umpire blind sided. Original call a point. Boundary Ump queries It Believing It might be out of bounds. Nothing conclusive on video as angle Isn't helpful. Umpire's call. Point... premiership given on what many saw with their eyes was clearly out of bounds .

Of course the same can be argued against a golden goal outcome. The point being that "controversial" decisions could  arise regardless and this argument should not be a reason for choosing one over the other.

Also defenders are programmed to defend/rush points all season, and are drilled to do so In critical situations. The AFL Is asking them to do same all through a match, even the overtime...except...for the last potential few minutes! All of a sudden theyre expected to have a total change of mindset and strategy just for a few minutes after playing the opposite way for the entire season and match!

Bah humbug I tell yeh! 

Oh... but there Is a solution!!! 

 

Anybody mention number of interchanges after normal game time finish?

14 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

Golden goal or golden point.... controversy will arise. What If a team tries to rush It through their goals but for a coat of varnish It grazes the point post yet Is rewarded a point/premiership. Goal Umpire blind sided. Original call a point. Boundary Ump queries It Believing It might be out of bounds. Nothing conclusive on video as angle Isn't helpful. Umpire's call. Point... premiership given on what many saw with their eyes was clearly out of bounds .

Of course the same can be argued against a golden goal outcome. The point being that "controversial" decisions could  arise regardless and this argument should not be a reason for choosing one over the other.

Also defenders are programmed to defend/rush points all season, and are drilled to do so In critical situations. The AFL Is asking them to do same all through a match, even the overtime...except...for the last potential few minutes! All of a sudden theyre expected to have a total change of mindset and strategy just for a few minutes after playing the opposite way for the entire season and match!

Bah humbug I tell yeh! 

Oh... but there Is a solution!!! 

 

it's not a total change of mindset for the players. same exact situation in a regular game if you were a point up (or drawn) and only seconds to play

If we had a golden goal, and the other team scores 7 or more points then the team with the higher score will lose.

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

it's not a total change of mindset for the players. same exact situation in a regular game if you were a point up (or drawn) and only seconds to play

In a normal match a player doesnt know how many seconds there are to play. Might know there's very little time left but doesn't know the actual seconds left. If It came to a choice between giving away a point or a goal and nothing else a defender would choose a point every time. The team would rather a draw than a potential loss (should a goal be scored) but under the new scenario they lose the premiership for certain If they rush, or accidently rush, a behind.

Like I said....there's a simple solution to the Golden Goal or point argument. It will also resolve the 7 points up argument that those against a Golden Goal are putting forward.

Alternating penalty kick-ins. Taken from the same end to counter any advantage in conditions. Play on until the ball is dead or a score registered. First team to open a seven-point break wins. And maybe some sort of reverse center-square restrictions until the kick is taken. ?

After the second draw siren sounds

5 min break for strategising and rest

NO players in centre square. all players must position themselves anywhere outside the 50m square

umpire places ball on ground in centre circle, steps back 15m then blows whistle to restart game.

first team to get ball out of centre square on their offensive side of the the square wins (i.e. 50 metre line from centre) If you take it past the 50m on the wing sides you lose.

P.S. kicking off the ground is instant loss

2 hours ago, ickey_11 said:

If we had a golden goal, and the other team scores 7 or more points then the team with the higher score will lose.

This problem could have easily been overcome, even with a golden goal, had the AFL used their noggin a little

3 hours ago, willmoy said:

Anybody mention number of interchanges after normal game time finish?

well simply on mathematics it would be 90/8  i.e. 11 or 12 depending how you round, but they might allow more because of extra exhaustion or maybe not?

The golden goal may well be prone to controversy.  The defending team would want rush a point to get control of the ball.  A bit of mind-reading required for the umpires.

To make one new rule(golden goal) it seems there has to be a lot of other rule changes to make it work. Best not get  sucked into contrivance to create an unneeded cheap thrill. The game tension will be heightened to never before felt levels if it ever gets to the golden score scenario. 

The idea of a golden any score is to create a quick clear cut result when the deadlock cannot be broken in extra time.

 

I would like it more if they made the point/behind ruling more consistent so that if the ball is touched through between the goal and point posts, it results in a ball up or boundary throw-in from beside the point post. If it goes to a golden point situation, then it needs to be less easy to score the point.

My reasoning is based on the fact  that if the ball hits the goal post it's a point and if it hits the point post it's out of bounds. It makes no sense that the score is the same regardless of where the ball is rushed through.