Drawn games and should we play extra time after a draw?

[The Coon Dog]

I was just reading Dry Rot's thread on the Essendon drawn game in 2002.

It got me thinking about just how hollow the feeling can be after a draw. It's a nothingness feeling, particularly as no theme song is blasted out over the loudspeakers.

Simply put, in the event of a draw, should we play an addition 5 minutes each way?

A few years back the NRL, adopted the 'Golden Point' rule, where the first team to score wins. In the event no team scores within the extra 5 minutes each way, the draw prevails. I'm not too sure I like that on 2 counts. 1) A side running with a howling gale in the first period of additional time gains an advantage & 2) Why allow the draw to stand, if the nature & intent of additional time is to do away with them.

A draw can be as good as a win, particularly if you have a poor percentage, whilst if you have a decent percentage, it's effectively as good as a loss.

As much as I hate the hollowness after a draw, I'm a bit of a traditionalist & would prefer, on balance, to see the status quo prevail.

What do others think?

Given it's the off season & we need to read about footy stuff, some of your favourite draw memories please.

[GVGjr]

Re: Should we play extra time after a draw?

I'll stick to tradition for the home and away season but I can see the merit in leaving with a result one way or the other. I like draws, especially late in the season, because they get everyone looking at the ladder trying to work out if it has opened to door for someone else.

Some people say they feel empty after a draw but I'm not one of them.

[The Underdog]

Re: Should we play extra time after a draw?

I'm a traditionalist too. I think it's such a rare occurrence in our game, unlike rugby where it's more common. I think there were 3 draws this year and that's a high number compared to most seasons, which over 176 games and 16 teams means you don't get that hollow feeling very often. Leave it alone. I understand the need to play extra time in the finals but leave the regular season as is.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Should we play extra time after a draw?

Draws are so rare and they add another little bit of interest in working out the final ladder.

My memory's gone blank, help me Twodogs. Who was the draw with in 76 that kept Melbourne (or was it Carlton?) out of the finals

[soupman]

Re: Should we play extra time after a draw?

I don't like the idea of extra time for the following reason.

Imagine if it had been a close game all day, goal for goal, and it ended in a draw. In extra time the opposition managed to outscore you, for whatever reason (better, lucky free kick, not as tired etc). How robbed would you feel? To have earnt half the points, and come away with nothing.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Should we play extra time after a draw?

No leave it as it is- the system that came into being when North Melbourne and Hawthorn drew in 1994 works perfectly.

Extra time for finals is the right way, should have been there from the beginning saving the problems presented by draws in 1962, 1972 and 1990, but it is unnecessary for the home and away season. A draw in Round 22 at Princes Park got us into the finals in 1976- what if extra time was played that day and Carlton scored more than we did- we would have missed out and Melbourne made the finals.

Two points is better than none- yes it can be an empty feeling and in most of Footscray's draws, save the above mentioned Carlton 1976 and the Steve McPherson 1987 North Melbourne game, draws have been sickening. But still 2 points though- the opposition didn't beat us- even if it felt that way.

[Bulldog Revolution]

Re: Should we play extra time after a draw?

I fabour leaving it as is, I like the drama of a draw

I remember drawing with Hawthorn at the Whitten Oval when I was a kid and every fan in the Doug Hawkins wing jumped at the same time when the siren went, there were guys falling about all over the place

[The Coon Dog]

Re: Should we play extra time after a draw?

I fabour leaving it as is, I like the drama of a draw

I remember drawing with Hawthorn at the Whitten Oval when I was a kid and every fan in the Doug Hawkins wing jumped at the same time when the siren went, there were guys falling about all over the place

Was that the game Darren Pritchard ran into an open goal late on & decided to dribble the ball through along the ground & missed?

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Should we play extra time after a draw?

I too don't mind the draw scenario. Sometimes it is just a fitting result, and others you can feel a bit robbed.

I also found the overtime period during the finals series quite exciting, and a good concept.

But agree that a draw is good for regular season use.

[Drunken Bum]

Re: Should we play extra time after a draw?

Ok, who is going to own up to being the one who voted for extra time? and your reasoning would be appreciated too please. You are not gonna get a bagging, whilst i disagree with you and would do anything to avoid having extra time in H&A games, i'm interested in your reasons

[westdog54]

Re: Should we play extra time after a draw?

Golden point is one of the more contrived rules I've seen attached to a football code. Completely destroys a game of rugby league IMO. If it was Golden try then I'd say fair enough, but it turns the game into 'push the ball forward, then shoot for a field goal. I think it stinks.

I don't have a problem with draws, with the exception of finals, where there must be a winner. during the season there's nothing wrong with a draw.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Should we play extra time after a draw?

I think draws are a good thing, makes it more interesting at the end of the season...except when we should have won it and have had to settle for a draw of course.

I say keep over time to the finals, seeing it for the first time in the Collingwood v West Coast game was exciting, but it would be detrimental to the teams if they had to do it in the H&A season.

[wimberga]

Re: Should we play extra time after a draw?

I'm playing devils advocate and saying Extra Time.

Its not that i feel particularly strong about it but i believe why settle for a draw when there could still be a possibility to win. I dont think that a Golden Goal rule or something similar would fit AFL. Maybe something as abstract as penalty shots from directly in front on 45 metres. Maybe 2x 5 minute half's. Maybe 2 x 5 minute half's with a changed form of scoring Ie; rushed behinds become goals, points become nothing but kickouts and goals scored gets 10 points. Maybe it doesnt need to be that radical.

Just trying to stir some discussion, as so far it looks a pretty one sided affair.

[Mingo]

Re: Should we play extra time after a draw?

I'm playing devils advocate and saying Extra Time.

Its not that i feel particularly strong about it but i believe why settle for a draw when there could still be a possibility to win. I dont think that a Golden Goal rule or something similar would fit AFL. Maybe something as abstract as penalty shots from directly in front on 45 metres. Maybe 2x 5 minute half's. Maybe 2 x 5 minute half's with a changed form of scoring Ie; rushed behinds become goals, points become nothing but kickouts and goals scored gets 10 points. Maybe it doesnt need to be that radical.

Just trying to stir some discussion, as so far it looks a pretty one sided affair.

Why would we change the rules so a skill that isn't used during the course of a normal match decides the match? We don't have "penaltys" during regular play like soccer does. It's almost like saying "Ok so you're even in terms of Aussie Rules Football today... but lets decide the match on a game of poker!" It doesn't make sense to me.

Keep it as it is. I can understand why games like soccer go into overtime... because then every second game would have no result. Aussie Rules is unique, we don't need overtime to decide matches because draws are extremely rare as it is.

[wimberga]

Re: Should we play extra time after a draw?

Why would we change the rules so a skill that isn't used during the course of a normal match decides the match? We don't have "penalty's" during regular play like soccer does. It's almost like saying "Ok so you're even in terms of Aussie Rules Football today... but lets decide the match on a game of poker!" It doesn't make sense to me.

Keep it as it is. I can understand why games like soccer go into overtime... because then every second game would have no result. Aussie Rules is unique, we don't need overtime to decide matches because draws are extremely rare as it is.

In soccer, League games are recorded as draws, and it is only finals or knock-out games like in tournaments that have extra time.

A skill that isn't used during the course of a normal match? People don't kick goals from 45 meters out? It could be played similar to soccer extra time. 2x 5 minute half's, and then if there is still a deadlock, VERY unlikely, then there could be set shots.

It just seems like draws are a nothing result for both times, so why settle for one?