Tool of the year.....

[liz]

I frankly thought the 19th man saga was a media beat up and the AFL should have left things as they were. The Swans should have been fined. If the North captain knew of the 19 men on the ground he was entitled to call for a count and under the rules our score would have been wiped.

The current rule is ridiculous. Players run an inch to the wrong side of the line, and the opposition gets a free and a 50m penalty. Completely out of line with the "crime". Mind you, before the rules changed, if a player didn't run correctly through the interchange gates, they couldn't come on for the rest of the game. I remember MickyO making that mistake once in the Eade era, and sitting on the bench for the rest of the game looking very sheepish.

What also got swept under the carpet somewhat is that the Swans/Roos game was the third time it had happened in recent memory. The Dogs were guilty of having 19 men on the ground once late in a H&A game when they had a very comfortable lead - hence there wasn't the same level of scandal. And the Hawks managed to start a quarter of a NAB Cup game with 19 men on the ground, and it took them more than a minute to realise it!

[Matty10]

I am a fan of the Grand Final replay concept. However, it is clearly a hard concept to defend (particularly if a non-Victorian based team is playing), as evidenced in the interview of Andrew Demetriou by the panel from On the Couch. Gerard Healy and Mike Sheahan (who were against the replay) won the points. Hird (who is in favour of the replay) was silent during the conversation.

For some bizarre reason, Demetriou tried to suggest that removing the tradition of a replay concept was akin to not awarding a Brownlow Medal. He just looked silly after that.

[undy]

What about the team with the most goals wins in the event of a tie on scores (as the first tie-breaker).

Not that I hate the pies...

[Matty10]

What about the team with the most goals wins in the event of a tie on scores (as the first tie-breaker).

Not that I hate the pies...

It's not a bad idea (in fact it used to be the case in the early days of the sport - at one time points were only calculated in the event of a tie) - but imagine the scrutiny that would be placed on each goal umpiring decision if that was the case!

Taking the final result away from the players to such a degree also opens the sport up to the possibility of post-GF court challenges. People could live with a draw and more time, based on a bad umpiring decision, but I am not sure that they would live with a drawn game being awarded as a win if it was based on a bad umpiring decision.

The whole replay controversy is funny is some ways. Imagine if the old rules were still in place where the team on top of the ladder (at the end of the home & away season) got the right to challenge the team that won the Finals series for the premiership the following week.

The convoluted history of results in our great game shows that:

- sometimes when you have a draw, you end up winning, sometimes you just get the opportunity to win, or lose, sometimes at a later date.
- sometimes, when you lose the GF, you end up playing again anyway, with another opportunity to either win or lose.
- sometimes, even when you have a win a GF, you end up playing again, to either win or lose, in another game.
- sometimes even if you don't play in the Final you get the chance to challenge the team who did win to another game in order to decide who wins the premiership.

You have got to love the glorious (and sometimes inglorious) history of Australian football.

[Bas]

The current rule is ridiculous. I remember MickyO making that mistake once in the Eade era, and sitting on the bench for the rest of the game looking very sheepish.

The two other bizarre things of the night was that a Richmond player did it as well and had to sit out the game and it happened on Friday 13th.