With the debarcle in the AFL grand final and, the way in which drawn NRL games are decided, leaves room for improvement.

AFL, not a huge fan, but, how pissed would those supportes be who saved their penies to go, only to be denied a result.

Or how about the players who would have made end of season arrangements, now what.

May I suggest a penilty shoot out. First to miss from say 30 or even 50mt.

Now as for my game, NRL, now instead of golden point, that sees no penalties awarded and a mad scamble for a field goal, what about a good old seven a side and first to score a try.

Teams can have 3 changes per 5 minute half and continue until a try is scored.

What’s wrong with just calling it a draw and leaving it at that?

Why is everyone apparently SO hell-bent on a result?

Supporters of the losing team after the play-off are going to be VERY VERY disappointed.

Then the recriminations are going to start. A lot of bitter and twisted people on the losing side are going to be attacking the referee and saying that somewhere along the line he made an a bad decision that cost them the win first time round, or attacking some of their own players for kicking a point instead of a goal or not holding a mark that cost them the win and resulted in a draw and ultimately a loss.

A lot of unpleasantness will no doubt erupt.

So, they should just leave it as it is – a draw….with two winners!

It's a lot easier to decide before the match who wins if it's a draw. Which ever team came higher on the table wins. Works in my cricket finals.

The added bonus would be the rest of the season counts for something. In the NRL 8 teams make the finals out of 14 teams. ie more teams make the finals than not. Some years teams who have lost more games than they've won actually make the finals. After 26 rounds, if you have lost more than 13 games there's no way you should have a chance of winning the premiership.

@Ludwig, "What’s wrong with just calling it a draw and leaving it at that?"

Because it's a Grand Final!! There is supposed to be A winner, not a pair or winners.

For AFL and NRL, I prefer the idea of playing until a result. I don't like "first to score", for now it nullifies the hard-fought game, and reducing it to a "shoot-out" or "first to score" makes it a lottery of opportunity or luck.

An extra 20 minutes played, with 10 minute halves, will give a result through fitness and the normal play of the game....like in Wimbledon, you play the game until you have a majority of two games to win. NRL being reduced to a penalty kick, for me, makes it a different game. It's the soccer solution. If I wanted to watch a penalty shoot-out, I'd watch soccer!! And while I'm at it, make the soccer goal 6 inches higher, and the goal-mouth a foot wider, and suddenly you would start to see results, rather than shoot-outs.

In short, is the game called soccer, NRL or AFL, because "shoot-out" is a different game altogether...then why play the other format? Just cut to the chase, and spend the hour having shoot-outs, and call the game "Shoot-Out" or something pithy like that.

But, I hazard a guess that television rights has a lot to do with this, and programming. But for a Grand Final, it shouldn't be an issue. I understand that the weekly games would impact on TV programming, if they were to adopt my suggestion for weekly matches, but it shouldn't have anything but a positive effect for the spectators, sponsors and players in a Grand Final.

Magic point.

You don't need any shoot-out in this world of round robin followed by finals. Whoever came higher in the round robin should be the default winner, and any challenger has to beat this team, not draw.

So if the roosters draw with the dragons on Sunday, we already know the dragons came first and the roosters came 5th. The dragons should win, as the roosters haven't proven they are better. Both teams should know this before the game starts.