Agreed. But at least they knew he was shit.

The point post is just part of a long line of obscurities that make this one of the least skillful popular ball games. Any sport where players can have never played the game before yet get can still get professional contracts and even excel will never be taken seriously by the international sporting community.

It's obviously struck a nerve with someone.

Many team sports have multiple ways of scoring and/or different points on offer for different scoring zones (both Rugbys, NFL, GAA, Basketball, etc) and even in Soccer you can win a game by the other team putting the ball in the back of their net without you actually scoring a goal yourself. The quirks in each sport are part of their nature and culture and are familiar to those that follow that particular sport.

In any case, not all behinds are scored by the attacking team. Some are deflected or rushed (fumbled to avoid a deliberate free kick) through by the defending team. Removing behinds would remove the scoring penalty which would just encourage more rushing to gain a free possession. Some in the past have suggested copying Soccer and handing possession to the attacking team a certain distance from goal anytime the ball crosses the line to prevent rushed behinds, but it's unworkable in Aussie Rules whenever it has been trialed. It's too hard in a multi-player contest to know who last touched the ball before it crossed the line. Easier to just say it's a behind score and let the game flow.

So you're saying that if the rules were changed in this manner, the team that scored the most goals would have won the match.
And you're saying this as if it's a bad thing. :-k

As for changing the rules for rules. Perhaps scrap ball ups after goals and have the team that got the goal scored against them re-start with the mark on the 50m line or edge of the square (closet to their defending goal). Like basketball or something. You wouldnt even need a square. One team could start each quarter in possession.

With this introduction perhaps 5 players from each team have to be in (behind) the 50m line. So the field isnt too congested up the park.

Youd probably end up with re-start specialists like nfl.

Bomb - Specky - Goal
repeat

Edited by scott21: 18/3/2016 02:09:09 AM

Id change the points system for football #-o

Loss 0
Scoreless draw 1
Draw 1-1 or higher 2
Win 6

Teams should be encouraged to score, especially in the A-League where there is no consequence for losing.

I went for double points instead of bringing in .5 points



Edited by scott21: 18/3/2016 01:56:39 AM

This Kerr article about Aussie Rules reminds me of inane and moronic Graham Cornes articles 'discussing' Soccer. People who don't follow or like a sport and know jack shit about why certain aspects of that sport exist should just shut the fuck up and stop embarrassing themselves.

Historically, Aussie Rules originally started with just two posts and the only score being a goal. To encourage more attacking play and scoring shorts, the 'behind' was introduced by adding two smaller posts either side of the goalposts. Initially, the 'behind' was for tiebreaker situations but in a short space of time it became officially part of the scoring system. Behinds make draws very rare in Aussie Rules and in close games mean a team can go from winning to losing or vice versa with just one kick at goal. The kick-in after a behind is also tactically important. All nuances that a non-follower wouldn't understand nor appreciate.

The argument that removing it would create less blowouts is also swings and roundabouts nonsense. The 2008 AFL Grand Final between Hawthorn (18.7-115) and an inaccurate Geelong (11.23-89) would've seen the scores further apart without behinds. The 1977 Grand Final draw between North Melbourne (9.22-76) and Collingwood (10.16-76) is well remembered in Victoria for the amount of behinds kicked, and removing the behinds would've changed the result and the team that eventually won the premiership. Same thing happened in all 3 drawn Grand Finals. St Kilda would've won the 2010 premiership instead of Collingwood if only goals were recorded (well maybe they should be removed in that case :D).

As for Rugby League, when you go through the 108 years of NSWRL/NRL Grand Final scores, just under a half were blowouts or one-sided contests on the scoreboard. For every cracker like last year's, you have a blowout like the Grand Final the year before when Souths won 30-6. It's just the nature of the various sports. You don't stupidly argue that conversions should be removed just to make one-sided games on the scoreboard closer.

Do they pay up on the bets when they lose?

Gambling. International exotic betting on behinds scored will mean this proposal will not work

i love ALF but they should be forced to play the whole game and not come off for a rest a drink and a hot massage every 5 minutes

You're right about Hurling - it's a wonderful game to watch when played well. However. when the players are not so good it can be a bit chronic. The thing about people who grow up playing hurling (eg in Kilkenny and Cork) is that they tend to be, on my limited observation, adept at all ball sports.

Interesting conversation topic but nothing to do with Football, belongs in Extra time, sorry.

VFL fans don't understand that they can change their rules every year because nobody gives a shit*, football can't do the same because it is played all over the world. It is so cringeworthy when they try to pretend their sport is important.

*This is also necessary because their game is shit.

Make the use of hands illegal, use a round ball, put a cross bar on the goal and make the field rectangular.......then I reckon I could get into it.

remove 10 points each behind then i would watch

The AFL needs more rule changes to make the game work better

Extra time

Goals are far more rare in GAA than in AFL, almost as are as Association Football. In the 2015 All Ireland final, no goals were scored and the game was decided by points. Advancing the ball close enough for a shot on the goal is rather hard, you can't just bomb it in like AFL. Thus singles often decide games and therefore it's a smart tactic to aim for the big sticks if you're in space with about 20-40 yards between you and the goal.

If kicking for a single is a tactical choice,I would be interested to know how many teams win using that tactic.
With regard to Rugby,A penalty is worth a lot more than one sixth of a try.It's 3 points and a try is 5.so that is why teams are happy to take penalties.
In fact in Rugby League a field goal is worth 1 point and a try 4 .With a conversion 2.So that would be a more viable sport to keep tactically kicking field goals.
But of course they don't because it's a totally stupid idea.
If you can't score a try within six visits to an opponents try line ,you are seriously hopeless.
I am sure the same goes for AFL.
If you are close enough to kick a single ,you should go for goal surely.

Preaching to the converted, but if some journo wants to scrap anything in the game to make it more popular to other countries, they could begin by using a ball-shaped ball, a rectangular pitch, a push in the back = a free even if you stick your knees between some oppositions shoulder blades when you jump up, get rid of shepherding, have a designated rectangular, small sized goal that's actually guarded, give each team half the pitch to defend, stop players wrestling in the dirt like a pack of dogs fighting for a bone - in other words just scrap the whole stupid lot and play a game that 95% of the world has been brought up with.
I actually don't mind people watching and enjoying it, but stop treating it as important FFS!


Edited by redcup: 17/3/2016 04:24:33 PM

Man if AFL overhauled to GAA rules i'd be all over it

Still prefer Hurling but will be happy with a Gaelic hybrid

deduct a point if a "behind" is scored....

we might see some minus scores, then you know a team is shit lol

Introduce the Gaelic Football goal.
Then as time goes on, gradually work toward integration.

In 200 years AFL journos will be able to claim they invented Eire.

Case in point the ECL this morning. Juve up 2-0 and in the dying minutes Bayern leveled it off then went on and scored 2 more goals within a 15 min period.

Couple of other suggestions;

1. Leave the point posts there, but only use the points as a tie breaker if the goals are even (a bit like away goals in a two-legged match).
2. As per 1, but the team with the LEAST points wins the tie breaker - that is if the goals are even, the team that has the least missed shots at goal wins.

GAA football is miles better than AFL. Think it would be better with proper tackling but it's still a more better flowing game.

That's not missing. Going for a single in GAA is a tactical choice. Some teams will just choose to shoot for singles from distance rather than risk getting nothing by going for the proper goal. No different to rugby when teams play for penalties and drop goals instead of going for the try.

That is an interesting question though. How did the egg ball shape used in League, AFL and Union evolve.

Was it deliberate? Was it for handling? Did they get a cheap deal on misshapen soccer balls?