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.

A draw has happened for the first time in AFL and we are unlikely to ever see one again in our lifetimes. The media thrives on strife and they are at their best and very worst when fomenting 'controversy' to gain an audience. Channel X makes it happen, right, so of course there is a 'controversy'?

It is very worrying that it is so easy for the tabloids and shock jocks to whip up the baying mob. It must remind the now-greying youth of the Sixties how easy it was back when for the chicken hawks in the Liberal party to convince the 'punters', that young men had to die to stop dominoes from falling at the hands of the 'communists'.

The first aim of any sport is not to have a winner, a coin toss could do that, but to engage in an enjoyable contest that stretches the players to do their limits and allows the few lucky ones to show brilliance. Brilliance is not possible with the support of the very valuable team members who support and set up opportunities. More importantly, brilliance or even a good contest is not possible without an opponent who is equal to the task of enabling players to show their best.

This is what is promoted all of the way through AFL, that it is not about playing for sheep stations, the players on both sides are worthy of accolade and the fair contest is all that matters.

cont..

contd..

Fans and the public were fortunate to witness a draw and anyone who paid for a ticket got his moneys worth, if that is a consideration. It is a long-standing tradition and policy of the AFL and the VFL before it that a draw is enough for the day and rather than force a result through count backs, or fortunes throughout the season, a re-match would occur.

For one, I am rejoicing at the opportunity to see two great teams play again However both teams should have been celebrated as equal victors last weekend and given a medal for it, with the final game to decide the Premiership. That is what the teams and spectators missed, some formal recognition, however small, a lasting memento of the magnificent contest they might only be treated to once in a lifetime.

"Play up! Play up! And play the game!"
Henry Newbolt 1897

Cornflower

The first draw in an Aussie Rules Grand Final was in 1948, then another in 1977, the one last weekend being the third.

I agree with MC - 10 minutes at each end of the oval, should produce a winner.

A Grand Final replay is only good for the AFL corporates - they get to clean up from more ticket sales.

The Saints and the Magpies played their very best - it was one of the best games of football I have ever seen. I hope that can both teams do it again this Saturday with a Saints win of course.

:)

I reckon leave it as a draw. That way, that old cliche about Aussie rules football being the winner on the day, might actually have some substance.

Golden point is not much different to a shoot-out for me. Like I said, I’d prefer that they play for stipulated timeframes, until one team is a winner at the end of official time. Grand Finals, Test Games, and State of Origin games, are games of physical and mental endurance, more than football skills, so let the result be determined by that, not a shoot-out or golden point. They’ve all got the skills, but it’s about the mental and physical toughness at these levels of these sports, which is why it’s so tough to win a Grand Final before losing one.

Golden point came about from a State of Origin series that ended in a draw on the third and final game, leaving the series hung at 1-1. It’s the only State of Origin game I’ve been to, and I gotta say, the crowd was bitterly disappointed in no result. And that was what instigated golden point. But it panders to TV programming, IMO, rather than the spirit of the game.

As far as using the positioning on the table at the end of the Premiership, again becomes anti-climactic for both players and the patrons. You watch a Grand Final to see the remaining qualifying two teams battle it out for supremacy. A result that only that day and match can give, so let the two teams demonstrate their supremacy at the game, not at count-backs, golden points, shoot-outs or tiddly winks. Who will stand tall at the end of stipulated time at PLAYING THE GAME?

like you it is not my game rechtub.
Skills crowds commitment are great.
But why a replay.
Lets think of this weekends side that gos down and its fans.
Last weekend deserved a reward for both teams surely.
Dragons by 15.

Houellebecq, a very boaring way to decide a final, however, you do make a good point.

>>The first draw in an Aussie Rules Grand Final was in 1948, then another in 1977, the one last weekend being the third.

Sevein, actually, it is you who are wrong, as the AFL is a failrly new game, much like the NRL.

The two previous draws you refer to were from the VFL.

Now as for the NRL, or its former code, they used to have 2 x 10 halves in the event of a draw. Remeber the 89 grand final.

Some years back the pre season was a 7's tournerment and it proved quite popular.

In the NRL I would like to see 20min extra time, (2 x 10) 7 a side, 3 forwards and 4 backs and 3 interchanges per period.

First team to score a try would be deemed the winner. You could even stipulate where the try needs to be scored, say at least 10m from the touch line.

In any case, I think both codes have got it wrong at the moment.

And belly, best of luck but I think your lot will only come home with a few feathers, not the trophy.

After all, they have proven to be very good brides maids.