Bombertalk

A very good idea. Imagine the scramble for points in the last couple of rounds for competing teams!

Why dont we have a points difference rather than percentage?

With percentage, as long as your points against is low, then your percentage will be high.

IE: its better to win 75-25 rather than 150-100.

That's an outstanding idea. It rewards clubs who are daring enough to play free-flowing, attacking football yet will ensure that games aren't complete "run and gun" affairs" as getting the four points is the most important factor. The rule should entice teams to find a happy medium between attacking and defensive football.

Could you imagine a game in the final round of the year where a team needed to kick 150 points to reach the finals? The hype and public interest would be huge! I hope the AFL looks at making the change during the off-season.

This is a great proposal - does not mess with the rules but changes the coaching strategies.

Total point scored is better than margin (as I believe ross suggested) because it gives a reward for kicking goals regardless of outcome. If you only reward the point difference you do not discourage flooding.

spikefan wrote:This is a great proposal - does not mess with the rules but changes the coaching strategies.

Total point scored is better than margin (as I believe ross suggested) because it gives a reward for kicking goals regardless of outcome. If you only reward the point difference you do not discourage flooding.

Thats true.

It's flawed. So a team who predominantly plays at Teltra Dome is hugely advantaged because they are protected from the elements, and other grounds may in fact be smaller. It's not a level playing field because most rounds are played over 3 or 4 days and in different states in different conditions.

The eyesore for me is the running down of the clock and the meaningless possession game of kicking backwards for 5 minutes. This can be arradicated by simply introducing exactly what they do in the VFL and the pre-season competition.......play on if you kick backwards outside of your F50 area.

BenDoolan wrote:It's flawed. So a team who predominantly plays at Teltra Dome is hugely advantaged because they are protected from the elements, and other grounds may in fact be smaller. It's not a level playing field because most rounds are played over 3 or 4 days and in different states in different conditions.

The eyesore for me is the running down of the clock and the meaningless possession game of kicking backwards for 5 minutes. This can be arradicated by simply introducing exactly what they do in the VFL and the pre-season competition.......play on if you kick backwards outside of your F50 area.

Or maybe the coaches can instruct their players to man up? If you kick it bacwards, by the time a player goes to him, he can kick it back to where it came from and it would be paid a mark.

BenDoolan wrote:It's flawed. So a team who predominantly plays at Teltra Dome is hugely advantaged because they are protected from the elements, and other grounds may in fact be smaller. It's not a level playing field because most rounds are played over 3 or 4 days and in different states in different conditions.

.

i agree with this, and that is why i think rosso's option for point difference is the best.

would love to see this, particularly as in a tight comp like we currently have percentage (or point diff as it may become know) is very important, so teams will adjust to maximise benefit from the rule.

BenDoolan wrote:It's flawed. So a team who predominantly plays at Teltra Dome is hugely advantaged because they are protected from the elements, and other grounds may in fact be smaller. It's not a level playing field because most rounds are played over 3 or 4 days and in different states in different conditions.

You are right percentage is independent of the playing ground while point scored is not. The idea does not work, too bad.

The eyesore for me is the running down of the clock and the meaningless possession game of kicking backwards for 5 minutes. This can be arradicated by simply introducing exactly what they do in the VFL and the pre-season competition.......play on if you kick backwards outside of your F50 area.

This will work, no question.

BenDoolan wrote:It's flawed. So a team who predominantly plays at Teltra Dome is hugely advantaged because they are protected from the elements, and other grounds may in fact be smaller. It's not a level playing field because most rounds are played over 3 or 4 days and in different states in different conditions.

The eyesore for me is the running down of the clock and the meaningless possession game of kicking backwards for 5 minutes. This can be arradicated by simply introducing exactly what they do in the VFL and the pre-season competition.......play on if you kick backwards outside of your F50 area.

Don't those same factors influence percentage as well? There will never be an entirely even playing field (exuse the pun).

Kicking backwards would also be curbed by the new rule, as it encourages teams to score as many points as possible. We need to stay clear of fundamental rules changes where possible.

gringo wrote:

BenDoolan wrote:It's flawed. So a team who predominantly plays at Teltra Dome is hugely advantaged because they are protected from the elements, and other grounds may in fact be smaller. It's not a level playing field because most rounds are played over 3 or 4 days and in different states in different conditions.

The eyesore for me is the running down of the clock and the meaningless possession game of kicking backwards for 5 minutes. This can be arradicated by simply introducing exactly what they do in the VFL and the pre-season competition.......play on if you kick backwards outside of your F50 area.

Don't those same factors influence percentage as well? There will never be an entirely even playing field (exuse the pun).

No, it doesn't. If you kick a score of 120 for, and 100 against, you will have a percentage (naturally) of 120. You will also have the same percentage if you kick a score of 60 for, and 50 against. Just allowing for most points for, allows teams who play at the Dome more often than others, a better chance to kick bigger scores because they are protected from wind and rain.

BenDoolan wrote:It's flawed. So a team who predominantly plays at Teltra Dome is hugely advantaged because they are protected from the elements, and other grounds may in fact be smaller. It's not a level playing field because most rounds are played over 3 or 4 days and in different states in different conditions.

The eyesore for me is the running down of the clock and the meaningless possession game of kicking backwards for 5 minutes. This can be arradicated by simply introducing exactly what they do in the VFL and the pre-season competition.......play on if you kick backwards outside of your F50 area.

So is every solution flawed.The grounds have always varied in size and even in condition in the same city or state.Wind direction,playing surface and so on.
But now all grounds are almost perfect each week.
Teams intent on negative tactics and bottling things up will attempt it no matter where they play.
Hawthorn in the days they suddenly discovered Hudson decided they could kick big scores at that then tin pot,mud infested ground they had at Glenferrie.Wasn't so small anymore.
Sheedy brought this up a couple of weeks ago although he was relating it to stopping teams tanking it at the end of the season for draft picks.Or more correctly protecting their percentage.
Good idea although you'd never get it through all the defensive types coaching and running things almost everywhere.Plus all the accountants and Lawyers none of whom like risk.

Rover 7 wrote:

BenDoolan wrote:It's flawed. So a team who predominantly plays at Teltra Dome is hugely advantaged because they are protected from the elements, and other grounds may in fact be smaller. It's not a level playing field because most rounds are played over 3 or 4 days and in different states in different conditions.

The eyesore for me is the running down of the clock and the meaningless possession game of kicking backwards for 5 minutes. This can be arradicated by simply introducing exactly what they do in the VFL and the pre-season competition.......play on if you kick backwards outside of your F50 area.

So is every solution flawed.The grounds have always varied in size and even in condition in the same city or state.Wind direction,playing surface and so on.
But now all grounds are almost perfect each week.
Teams intent on negative tactics and bottling things up will attempt it no matter where they play.
Hawthorn in the days they suddenly discovered Hudson decided they could kick big scores at that then tin pot,mud infested ground they had at Glenferrie.Wasn't so small anymore.
Sheedy brought this up a couple of weeks ago although he was relating it to stopping teams tanking it at the end of the season for draft picks.Or more correctly protecting their percentage.
Good idea although you'd never get it through all the defensive types coaching and running things almost everywhere.Plus all the accountants and Lawyers none of whom like risk.

Refer to my post above ^

BenDoolan wrote:

gringo wrote:

BenDoolan wrote:It's flawed. So a team who predominantly plays at Teltra Dome is hugely advantaged because they are protected from the elements, and other grounds may in fact be smaller. It's not a level playing field because most rounds are played over 3 or 4 days and in different states in different conditions.

The eyesore for me is the running down of the clock and the meaningless possession game of kicking backwards for 5 minutes. This can be arradicated by simply introducing exactly what they do in the VFL and the pre-season competition.......play on if you kick backwards outside of your F50 area.

Don't those same factors influence percentage as well? There will never be an entirely even playing field (exuse the pun).

No, it doesn't. If you kick a score of 120 for, and 100 against, you will have a percentage (naturally) of 120. You will also have the same percentage if you kick a score of 60 for, and 50 against. Just allowing for most points for, allows teams who play at the Dome more often than others, a better chance to kick bigger scores because they are protected from wind and rain.[/quote]

I see your point, but playing conditions and grounds will always influence percentage in material ways. For example, a team stands a far greater chance of dishing out a hiding on a dry ground rather than a wet one, and hence increasing its percentage by a greater margin. If West Coast were to play Richmond on the WACA in dry conditions, they'd win by a far greater margin than if the same two teams met on the SCG in soaking rain. Accordingly, West Coast would attain a higher percentage if the game was played on the WACA rather than a wet SCG.

gringo wrote:

BenDoolan wrote:

gringo wrote:

BenDoolan wrote:It's flawed. So a team who predominantly plays at Teltra Dome is hugely advantaged because they are protected from the elements, and other grounds may in fact be smaller. It's not a level playing field because most rounds are played over 3 or 4 days and in different states in different conditions.

The eyesore for me is the running down of the clock and the meaningless possession game of kicking backwards for 5 minutes. This can be arradicated by simply introducing exactly what they do in the VFL and the pre-season competition.......play on if you kick backwards outside of your F50 area.

Don't those same factors influence percentage as well? There will never be an entirely even playing field (exuse the pun).

No, it doesn't. If you kick a score of 120 for, and 100 against, you will have a percentage (naturally) of 120. You will also have the same percentage if you kick a score of 60 for, and 50 against. Just allowing for most points for, allows teams who play at the Dome more often than others, a better chance to kick bigger scores because they are protected from wind and rain.[/quote]

I see your point, but playing conditions and grounds will always influence percentage in material ways. For example, a team stands a far greater chance of dishing out a hiding on a dry ground rather than a wet one, and hence increasing its percentage by a greater margin. If West Coast were to play Richmond on the WACA in dry conditions, they'd win by a far greater margin than if the same two teams met on the SCG in soaking rain. Accordingly, West Coast would attain a higher percentage if the game was played on the WACA rather than a wet SCG.

[/quote]
Hmm, I'm not convinced. I think percentage is a great "leveller" in any condition. For example, if a game is severely affected by poor weather, it is almost certain the game would be low scoring. You can still maintain a healthy percentage if you win by 5 goals i.e 70 - 40 gives you 175%. If you played at the Dome in a shootout, you will require to kick a score of 175 -100 to maintain that percentage (12.5 goal win as opposed to a 5 goal win).

But with idea proposed, the team that kicked 175 points would benefit while the team that won with 70 points wouldn't - even though they have the same percentage and played in worse conditions.

gringo wrote:For example, a team stands a far greater chance of dishing out a hiding on a dry ground rather than a wet one, and hence increasing its percentage by a greater margin. If West Coast were to play Richmond on the WACA in dry conditions, they'd win by a far greater margin than if the same two teams met on the SCG in soaking rain. Accordingly, West Coast would attain a higher percentage if the game was played on the WACA rather than a wet SCG.

No. You're still making the mistake of conflating big winning margins with big percentages.

The percentage outcome from a West Coast v Richmond game would not necessarily alter depending on whether it was played in dry or wet conditions. If it was played in dry conditions, the Eagles might win 150-75 and thus get a percentage of 200. If it was played in the wet, they might win by much less in absolute terms, but the ratio of points scored and thus percentage outcome between the teams could well be the same, e.g. 70-35.

gotta agree with Denis here. a very good proposal to curb the choking of a game,which i dont think the vfl rule addresses. Sydney, in the hawks match i saw, look more to kill the movement of the ball, rather than play possession football to milk a clock. I like the VFL rule, though i think it needs to be revised a little. a kick backwards to switch the side of play (a tactic ive seen Melbourne and the hawks use well) isnt a blight on the game.

re: BD's theory that the grounds make for an unlevel scoring playing field there are 2 things i must point out

1-the recent trend has been high scoring teams, not grounds.
Carl v Hawks. 80 vs 180, 260 all up@dome. i.e protected from elements
WBD v Freo 141 v 115. 256 all up in extreme conditions. similar amounts of scores, but Carlton@the dome were 6 off the pace. kicked less than the cats at SS and Ess AND Port at AAMI.
Previous week Carlton Port kicked the highest score of the round@TD. next dome game was one of the lowest scores b/w Kangs and StK.
2 rds ago saw the rich bris draw at the dome and was the lowest scoring match of the round.
Highest 3 scoring matches were 2 at the G (again Carlton in the top spot game) and 1 at Subi.
Conclusion-recent form has shown that certain teams allow for a more free flowing game and the grounds do not affect the total score kicked in a full game

2-different conditions on different days would disadvantage all teams across the round. has never been an issue in terms of points and % (i would argue rain-affected low scoring matches when % points might determine the top 8 is an advantage over teams who might win with a big margin kicked against them in the overall scheme of things.)
i.e a 60-54 win vs a 200-184 win. winner in game 1 wins by a kick. winner in game 2 nearly 3. % would favour game 1 winner despite smaller winning margin.

jimmyc1985 wrote:

gringo wrote:For example, a team stands a far greater chance of dishing out a hiding on a dry ground rather than a wet one, and hence increasing its percentage by a greater margin. If West Coast were to play Richmond on the WACA in dry conditions, they'd win by a far greater margin than if the same two teams met on the SCG in soaking rain. Accordingly, West Coast would attain a higher percentage if the game was played on the WACA rather than a wet SCG.

No. You're still making the mistake of conflating big winning margins with big percentages.

The percentage outcome from a West Coast v Richmond game would not necessarily alter depending on whether it was played in dry or wet conditions. If it was played in dry conditions, the Eagles might win 150-75 and thus get a percentage of 200. If it was played in the wet, they might win by much less in absolute terms, but the ratio of points scored and thus percentage outcome between the teams could well be the same, e.g. 70-35.

I don't think I'm conflating the two scenarios at all, although your point is well made. Put simply, the Eagles will always beat the Tigers by greater multiples on a dry big ground than a small wet one.

What do other sports do to separate teams?Not that we want to copy much more.There's too much already.