22 to 17
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
- perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9051
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 60 times
- Been thanked: 353 times
22 to 17
The teams that we now won't play twice are Melbourne, Carlton, Geelong, Fremantle and Adelaide. Let's hope that, with respect to the last three, the games that are cancelled are the "away" games and not the "home" games. On the other hand, the value of home ground advantage minus the crowd noise, will be interesting to see.
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3626 times
- Been thanked: 2897 times
Re: 22 to 17
Not being at all smart arsey here...
What’s the benefit of reducing the season from 22 to 17?
What’s the benefit of reducing the season from 22 to 17?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11941
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3650 times
- Been thanked: 2548 times
Re: 22 to 17
To retain the ‘integrity of the competition’ for season 2020 to go ahead and at the same time allowing flexibility to pause and reassess in a few weeks time while also balancing the needs of all stakeholders including the fans
That’s code for; It still means you can have a bet on the footy
That’s code for; It still means you can have a bet on the footy
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 2592
- Joined: Fri 20 Jan 2012 4:57pm
- Has thanked: 2043 times
- Been thanked: 1163 times
Re: 22 to 17
Also code for ... "we're completely sh!tting ourselves if we don't get some kind of season underway and every game - after the season opener - is a bonus because that will mean less cash that Ch 7 / Foxtel are able to withhold from us next year".Scollop wrote: ↑Thu 19 Mar 2020 10:59am To retain the ‘integrity of the competition’ for season 2020 to go ahead and at the same time allowing flexibility to pause and reassess in a few weeks time while also balancing the needs of all stakeholders including the fans
That’s code for; It still means you can have a bet on the footy
The ramifications of this are wide ranging. There's only two AFL clubs that made an actual profit off their own backs last year (WCE/Coll). The other ones that made a "profit" include their handout from the AFL in their revenue figures. No handout = no profit.
Us and a few others will be in all sorts without the mooted gov't assistance loan
Go you red, black & white warriors
- perfectionist
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9051
- Joined: Mon 30 Jul 2007 3:06pm
- Has thanked: 60 times
- Been thanked: 353 times
Re: 22 to 17
I'm not sure about "benefit" but the reason is to allow more time between now and October to play the 17 rounds, with the expectation that there will have to be breaks because of virus issues. That could be any number of things, with the main being multiple infections at a club. The season would be paused for (say) 7 or more days to allow recovery. The alternative of running the original fixture would have been to award teams affected a bye and 2 points, but that could be very uneven. They did the right (and prudent) thing.
- Spinner
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8502
- Joined: Sat 02 Dec 2006 3:40pm
- Location: Victoria
- Has thanked: 185 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
Re: 22 to 17
What world are you living in?
Haven’t noticed sport being stopped, paused, postponed right around the globe?
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3626 times
- Been thanked: 2897 times
- Spinner
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8502
- Joined: Sat 02 Dec 2006 3:40pm
- Location: Victoria
- Has thanked: 185 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
Re: 22 to 17
Less games.
Do you know how long this virus will last? Please inform the rest of the world.
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3626 times
- Been thanked: 2897 times
Re: 22 to 17
Hey
If it’s going to spread in games the 5 game difference btw 17 to 22 isn’t going to be the difference in containing the spread
Anyway, the question has been rationally answered above... reads it as you clearly don’t get it
And try to contribute something other than trolling or just don’t post
Are you being intentionally daft?
If it’s going to spread in games the 5 game difference btw 17 to 22 isn’t going to be the difference in containing the spread
Anyway, the question has been rationally answered above... reads it as you clearly don’t get it
And try to contribute something other than trolling or just don’t post
- Spinner
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8502
- Joined: Sat 02 Dec 2006 3:40pm
- Location: Victoria
- Has thanked: 185 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
Re: 22 to 17
skeptic wrote: ↑Fri 20 Mar 2020 11:30am HeyAre you being intentionally daft?
If it’s going to spread in games the 5 game difference btw 17 to 22 isn’t going to be the difference in containing the spread
Anyway, the question has been rationally answered above... reads it as you clearly don’t get it
And try to contribute something other than trolling or just don’t post
You’re welcome.
So in case it still isn’t clear though, less games allows the season to be more easily managed , and increases chance of a completed season.
Not trolling at all.. just answering dumb questions with the same tone as they deserve.
- samuraisaint
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5914
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2011 3:23pm
- Location: M32
- Has thanked: 856 times
- Been thanked: 798 times
Re: 22 to 17
We might actually win at Geelong this year! Hurrah!!perfectionist wrote: ↑Thu 19 Mar 2020 6:57am The teams that we now won't play twice are Melbourne, Carlton, Geelong, Fremantle and Adelaide. Let's hope that, with respect to the last three, the games that are cancelled are the "away" games and not the "home" games. On the other hand, the value of home ground advantage minus the crowd noise, will be interesting to see.
Your friendly neighbourhood samurai.
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Sun 27 Jan 2008 9:05am
- Has thanked: 769 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: 22 to 17
22 to 17 is stupid, simple. The AFL could of said we plan to play 22 but as that may not possible we will be changing the fixture so all sides will play each other in the first 17 rounds and then the repeats will be played after that if possible. As I said , simple. They could even go with there floating last 5 rounds ideas that they have thrown around previously
Plan for the best and have contingency from there.
Plan for the best and have contingency from there.
- Spinner
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8502
- Joined: Sat 02 Dec 2006 3:40pm
- Location: Victoria
- Has thanked: 185 times
- Been thanked: 133 times
Re: 22 to 17
So just make it up as they go?Goose is king wrote: ↑Sun 22 Mar 2020 9:17am 22 to 17 is stupid, simple. The AFL could of said we plan to play 22 but as that may not possible we will be changing the fixture so all sides will play each other in the first 17 rounds and then the repeats will be played after that if possible. As I said , simple. They could even go with there floating last 5 rounds ideas that they have thrown around previously
Plan for the best and have contingency from there.
Yep... being up front and clear from the start is much much worse than changing the rules half way through... no outrage in that.
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Sun 27 Jan 2008 9:05am
- Has thanked: 769 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Re: 22 to 17
[quote=Spinner post_id=1842993 time=1584832328 user_id=3595]
[quote="Goose is king" post_id=1842992 time=1584829051 user_id=17709]
22 to 17 is stupid, simple. The AFL could of said we plan to play 22 but as that may not possible we will be changing the fixture so all sides will play each other in the first 17 rounds and then the repeats will be played after that if possible. As I said , simple. They could even go with there floating last 5 rounds ideas that they have thrown around previously
Plan for the best and have contingency from there.
[/quote]
So just make it up as they go?
Yep... being up front and clear from the start is much much worse than changing the rules half way through... no outrage in that.
[/quote]
Yes make it up as you go but be clear at every point along the way. May not even get a 17 game season with finals, may get 22 and final series. Round two may not go ahead. Give yourself all options. The AFL can stare down any fake outrage over shifting goal posts
[quote="Goose is king" post_id=1842992 time=1584829051 user_id=17709]
22 to 17 is stupid, simple. The AFL could of said we plan to play 22 but as that may not possible we will be changing the fixture so all sides will play each other in the first 17 rounds and then the repeats will be played after that if possible. As I said , simple. They could even go with there floating last 5 rounds ideas that they have thrown around previously
Plan for the best and have contingency from there.
[/quote]
So just make it up as they go?
Yep... being up front and clear from the start is much much worse than changing the rules half way through... no outrage in that.
[/quote]
Yes make it up as you go but be clear at every point along the way. May not even get a 17 game season with finals, may get 22 and final series. Round two may not go ahead. Give yourself all options. The AFL can stare down any fake outrage over shifting goal posts
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3626 times
- Been thanked: 2897 times
Re: 22 to 17
Why so combative spinner?Spinner wrote: ↑Sun 22 Mar 2020 1:49amskeptic wrote: ↑Fri 20 Mar 2020 11:30am HeyAre you being intentionally daft?
If it’s going to spread in games the 5 game difference btw 17 to 22 isn’t going to be the difference in containing the spread
Anyway, the question has been rationally answered above... reads it as you clearly don’t get it
And try to contribute something other than trolling or just don’t post
You’re welcome.
So in case it still isn’t clear though, less games allows the season to be more easily managed , and increases chance of a completed season.
Not trolling at all.. just answering dumb questions with the same tone as they deserve.
Your tone these days on all posts is so hostile and your so on the front foot that you’re actually missing what people mean as clearly evidenced here and playing the old words in mouth game.
So explain then... what challenges will they experience in 22 games that they won’t in 17 assuming 17 goes smoothly.
Quite literally the answer seems to be that 17 is the number where everybody plays each other once and it’s the least amount of games.
What’s the point though... it’s either safe to play or it’s not. After a 153 games cutting the next 45 makes things significant easier, logical and safer?
That absurd
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Thu 10 Oct 2019 12:19pm
- Has thanked: 258 times
- Been thanked: 211 times
Re: 22 to 17
Surely most footy fans have already accepted as round 1 has progressed that the season is hours/days are away from being cancelled.skeptic wrote: ↑Sun 22 Mar 2020 11:57amWhy so combative spinner?Spinner wrote: ↑Sun 22 Mar 2020 1:49amskeptic wrote: ↑Fri 20 Mar 2020 11:30am HeyAre you being intentionally daft?
If it’s going to spread in games the 5 game difference btw 17 to 22 isn’t going to be the difference in containing the spread
Anyway, the question has been rationally answered above... reads it as you clearly don’t get it
And try to contribute something other than trolling or just don’t post
You’re welcome.
So in case it still isn’t clear though, less games allows the season to be more easily managed , and increases chance of a completed season.
Not trolling at all.. just answering dumb questions with the same tone as they deserve.
Your tone these days on all posts is so hostile and your so on the front foot that you’re actually missing what people mean as clearly evidenced here and playing the old words in mouth game.
So explain then... what challenges will they experience in 22 games that they won’t in 17 assuming 17 goes smoothly.
Quite literally the answer seems to be that 17 is the number where everybody plays each other once and it’s the least amount of games.
What’s the point though... it’s either safe to play or it’s not. After a 153 games cutting the next 45 makes things significant easier, logical and safer?
That absurd
As a health worker can you mount a case for sport to continue being played?
- skeptic
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 7:10pm
- Has thanked: 3626 times
- Been thanked: 2897 times
Re: 22 to 17
No and I’m not arguing to that end.Secret Kiel wrote: ↑Sun 22 Mar 2020 12:52pmSurely most footy fans have already accepted as round 1 has progressed that the season is hours/days are away from being cancelled.skeptic wrote: ↑Sun 22 Mar 2020 11:57amWhy so combative spinner?Spinner wrote: ↑Sun 22 Mar 2020 1:49amskeptic wrote: ↑Fri 20 Mar 2020 11:30am HeyAre you being intentionally daft?
If it’s going to spread in games the 5 game difference btw 17 to 22 isn’t going to be the difference in containing the spread
Anyway, the question has been rationally answered above... reads it as you clearly don’t get it
And try to contribute something other than trolling or just don’t post
You’re welcome.
So in case it still isn’t clear though, less games allows the season to be more easily managed , and increases chance of a completed season.
Not trolling at all.. just answering dumb questions with the same tone as they deserve.
Your tone these days on all posts is so hostile and your so on the front foot that you’re actually missing what people mean as clearly evidenced here and playing the old words in mouth game.
So explain then... what challenges will they experience in 22 games that they won’t in 17 assuming 17 goes smoothly.
Quite literally the answer seems to be that 17 is the number where everybody plays each other once and it’s the least amount of games.
What’s the point though... it’s either safe to play or it’s not. After a 153 games cutting the next 45 makes things significant easier, logical and safer?
That absurd
As a health worker can you mount a case for sport to continue being played?
I see a rationale argument for cancellation
I see a rationale argument for postponing
I see a rationale argument for continuation... if and only if medical science says it’s 100% safe which does not appear to be the case
I don’t see a rationale argument to play 150 games and miss 40
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Thu 10 Oct 2019 12:19pm
- Has thanked: 258 times
- Been thanked: 211 times
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1789
- Joined: Thu 10 Oct 2019 12:19pm
- Has thanked: 258 times
- Been thanked: 211 times
Re: 22 to 17
And I hope the players haven't been forced to sign legal documents accepting all risk like the Dons players did with injections.