Chance of two teams being "inseparable"

[pipers]

F 1980 A 1800
F 1870 A 1700

Same...

[Ecky]

F 1980 A 1800
F 1870 A 1700

Same...

I didn't say there weren't any cases.

Do you reckon though that they might have a rule such as "the team with the most points for is ranked higher" for such cases? I can't be stuffed working out how often these cases arise as they didn't form part of the how I originally worded the question.

[Hondo]

Do you reckon though that they might have a rule such as "the team with the most points for is ranked higher" for such cases? I can't be stuffed working out how often these cases arise as they didn't form part of the how I originally worded the question.

When I wrote my question I wondered if that would be the tie-breaker - whoever scored the mosts PF

Have to say well done on calcs there Ecky you clearly know your stuff

I think we have established that some time between now and around the year 2900 this scenario will happen

[Strawb]

I know that the old NSWRL/ARL used to have a playoff i dunno if the NRl do nowdays but the old days they used to and it was midweek too.

[sturt1]

Chances are that one day in a game of footy, all the balls will be kicked out of the stadium and their wont be any left. What would happen here? Would is the ruling? A draw? A no game? What about who ever is infront wins at them time?

It could happen you know. There has to be a ruling on this. This is why i always bring my footy to the games, I leave it in my car but my intention is to have it there incase the game needs it.

[pipers]

Chances are that one day in a game of footy, all the balls will be kicked out of the stadium and their wont be any left. What would happen here? Would is the ruling? A draw? A no game? What about who ever is infront wins at them time?

It could happen you know. There has to be a ruling on this. This is why i always bring my footy to the games, I leave it in my car but my intention is to have it there incase the game needs it.

LOL - that is gold.

As for Ecky's question, yes, you would hope in my scenario that the team who scored the most would be ranked higher...

[Mr66]

I emailed the AFL historian/statistician Col Hutchinson and this was his reply.

'In the event of two clubs ending the Homa and Away season with identical match points and percentage, their earlier performance/s against each other would be examined.
Let us examine three cases.
In 2003, if Essendon and Brisbane had finished equal eighth, the Lions would have
qualified because, with their win against the Bombers in round 1 and lost to them in round 16, their aggregate points for in the two encounters were 190 and against was 155 (122.6%).
Had Hawthorn and Fremantle finished equal eighth, the Hawks would have claimed preference due to their 30 point victory in round 13.
If two clubs tie their only encounter of the year and are absolutely equal after
round 22, their ladder positions would be decided by lot conducted and drawn
by the General Manager of Football Operations. (Toss of a coin is how I read it)
The same solution would apply if a pair of clubs achieved one win each with the
same margin in both encounters.'

[spell_check]

I'll bet the AFL wouldn't want it to come to that.

The next question would have been if the fatalberton scenario came into play - is it the higher points for?

[Mr66]

I'll bet the AFL wouldn't want it to come to that.

The next question would have been if the fatalberton scenario came into play - is it the higher points for?

That would be logical and sensible.
If a team scores more that its opponent during a game, it is the winner.
It stands to reason that if a team kicked more than its opponent during a season,
it would therefore qualify higher on the ladder.
But then again, I used the words 'logical' and 'sensible' which automatically would
make this rule inapplicable to the AFL.

[Benchwarmer]

The old Rugby League system Strawb alluded to was odd ... in a Final Five, if the team in fifth and the team in sixth were equal on points even if one side had a better "for and against" record, then there had to be a playoff on the Tuesday after the home and away season had ended (in the week leading up to the finals). Therefore, a team in this scenario would play Sunday-Tuesday-Sunday (3 games in a week - tell that to the AFL clubs ... five day breaks, my arse!).

My interpretation is that it is the head to head record, then a coin toss ... but it would be a whole lot more fun if the two teams had 10 players each involved a kicking shootout from 50 to determine who went through ... or even better ... going with the ol' Handball Championship and get Lou Richards to call out the numbers ... "seven makes four-tie-fi-vie"!

[scott]

I emailed the AFL historian/statistician Col Hutchinson and this was his reply.

'In the event of two clubs ending the Homa and Away season with identical match points and percentage, their earlier performance/s against each other would be examined.
Let us examine three cases.
In 2003, if Essendon and Brisbane had finished equal eighth, the Lions would have
qualified because, with their win against the Bombers in round 1 and lost to them in round 16, their aggregate points for in the two encounters were 190 and against was 155 (122.6%).
Had Hawthorn and Fremantle finished equal eighth, the Hawks would have claimed preference due to their 30 point victory in round 13.
If two clubs tie their only encounter of the year and are absolutely equal after
round 22, their ladder positions would be decided by lot conducted and drawn
by the General Manager of Football Operations. (Toss of a coin is how I read it)
The same solution would apply if a pair of clubs achieved one win each with the
same margin in both encounters.'

Even if it gets that far, you'd think it'd be more logical for the highest-placed finisher from the previous year to be awarded the position in the finals before they had to resort to tossing a coin? At least the finals spot would be awarded based on football success on the field and not a random coin toss.

[am Bays]

Woodville and West Torrens are proof teams can be "inseperable".....

[Pseudo]

If two teams are inseparable on the ladder, I reckon the two team captains should face off in a best-of-three rock-scissors-paper tournament.

... or better, RoShamBo (according to Eric Cartman's rules)

[Rushby Hinds]

http://www.usarps.com

[pipers]

If two teams are inseparable on the ladder, I reckon the two team captains should face off in a best-of-three rock-scissors-paper tournament.

... or better, RoShamBo (according to Eric Cartman's rules)

Better get in quick then, Robert Smith is here next week.

[Grahaml]

You couldn't go on last year's results. What happened last year is last year's problem. I also don't like the idea of the better attack getting through. What's wrong with rewarding the best defense? The game is built on scoring more than your opponent on the day not scoring more than other teams you aren't playing.

What about some sort of penalty shoot out? From the top of the 50m arc the players take it in turns to have shots for goals until one team misses their turn but the other kicks it?

[Benchwarmer]

Could you imagine it, either:

(a) A 10 man a side kick-off (3 shots each from the 50 arc - one dead in front, one from left side on a 45 degree angle and one on the right hand side at the 45 degree mark) with one player between the kicker and the goals on the mark, or

(b) A 5-man handball comp (5 with each hand)

... with the club picking their best men for the job. The networks will push for it if you said just three three words - imagine the ratings! 99% of AFL fans tuning in to see who will make it through to the finals!!!

It's a bit of a catastrophic situation and a bit nastier than missing out on the finals by 0.01% but imagine the spectacle of it all. And don't say you wouldn't watch it either because it would have a dynamic effect on the season.

The players involved would definitely feel finals-like pressure!

It would also be much better viewing than the reality TV or American shite that the networks foist upon us during the week.

The Knockout comp that we have for our cricket club's Dreamteam breaks ties by having a 'throw off" - side on shots viewing one stump from 15 metres out with the first to hit it three times going through or winning the comp. Innovative and it gets an audience!

Imagine that at AFL level ... much more reality TV than Big Bore-ther!

[pipers]

You couldn't go on last year's results. What happened last year is last year's problem. I also don't like the idea of the better attack getting through. What's wrong with rewarding the best defense? The game is built on scoring more than your opponent on the day not scoring more than other teams you aren't playing.

What about some sort of penalty shoot out? From the top of the 50m arc the players take it in turns to have shots for goals until one team misses their turn but the other kicks it?

Ridiculous.

Do you get 18 players from each team together on a mid-week evening and do this???

Nope. The tie-breakers should be:
Pts, %, PF and if that is the same, then head to head, and then in the extremely unlikely scenario that these are tied, then attendances should decide the matter...

[Mr66]

You couldn't go on last year's results. What happened last year is last year's problem. I also don't like the idea of the better attack getting through. What's wrong with rewarding the best defense? The game is built on scoring more than your opponent on the day not scoring more than other teams you aren't playing.

What about some sort of penalty shoot out? From the top of the 50m arc the players take it in turns to have shots for goals until one team misses their turn but the other kicks it?

Ridiculous.

Do you get 18 players from each team together on a mid-week evening and do this???

Nope. The tie-breakers should be:
Pts, %, PF and if that is the same, then head to head, and then in the extremely unlikely scenario that these are tied, then attendances should decide the matter...

It was sensible up to this point.

[pipers]

Ridiculous.

Do you get 18 players from each team together on a mid-week evening and do this???

Nope. The tie-breakers should be:
Pts, %, PF and if that is the same, then head to head, and then in the extremely unlikely scenario that these are tied, then attendances should decide the matter...

It was sensible up to this point.

What? As Ecky said, it's only about a 1:1000 chance. It's never going to come down to that any way, but surely if it did it is a better result than tossing*