What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

A thought on scoring

Azkatro

First Grade
Messages
6,905
At the moment most of the scores generally hover between the 80-100 mark. Which is fine, but after the Tri-Nations match where we had 6 on 7 I started to ponder what the possibility really is of the team with 6 somehow pulling off a victory.

My conclusion was sadly that it will be impossible, and here's why.

Currenly the trend seems to be an average article scoring low 80's, mid to high 80's being a reasonable to good article and then into the 90's representing excellent to sublime efforts. This is all good and well, but my question is why are we scoring 0-100 when pretty much nobody goes below 80? I respect that we don't want to scare budding authors away with a 40-something mark for a less than savoury effort, but my concern at the moment lies in the situation where a team - with a player down - simply cannot win. But we're writing about a sport in which it is entirely possible for a great performance from a team with a man down can still beat a full complement if they aren't up to speed. Shouldn't we try to emulate the spirit of rugby league in that regard?

Now in a typical F7's match, where we have 5 take on 4, I understand that it would be a bit rough if the team that got all their posts in were done by a team that only had 4 by comparison. But on the other side of the coin, how would you feel if you were part of a team of 4 who all scored 95's - which would be by definition the greatest performance in the history of F7's - being beaten by a team who averaged 80's? 80 x 5 = 400, while 95 x 4 = 380.

I just think in this kind of situation it would be fair for a team of 4 putting a special performance to get the win if they are significantly the better "team" on the day. It would also prevent the tendency for teams to pull articles and turn it into a non-event when they know their whole team isn't going to show up.

There are a couple of ways I think this can be catered for. Firstly is to loosen up the scoring system. Advise the refs to change the scoring from say 80-100 to at least 50-100. Give it a bit of range and scope. That would also give us posters more feedback on how our article shaped up. It would be a bit tougher on the refs, but the more the competition grows the more inevitable that becomes anyway.

The second option is to introduce a weighting scheme when one side doesn't have a full complement of posters. For example if we had a 5 on 4 situation, put a weighting on the 5 post team's scores of 85%. That way if the full team averaged say 83 (normal total 415, adjusted 352.75) and the team with 4 averaged 89 (total 356) they would get an upset victory. Now I realise that possibility is not completely impossible, but let's face it - if 4 posters averaged 89, it would be a spectacular effort. And if the 5 posters by comparison averaged 83, it would be fair to call that a pretty average effort and that they didn't do enough to win against brilliant opposition.

Anyway, all hypothetical. It was a thought I had driving to work today and I figured I would air it to all involved in F7's. I personally think it would add a little bit of competitiveness and spark to teams vying for a premiership, to make sure they don't get beaten by a team of 4 which would suddenly be a possibility if they weren't up to speed!
 

half

Coach
Messages
16,735
don't like the weighting scheme at all, but i think encouraging refs to increase their range of scores is a real positive tbh
 
Messages
4,675
half said:
don't like the weighting scheme at all, but i think encouraging refs to increase their range of scores is a real positive tbh

Totally agree. Don't like the weighting system, but opening the up the range of scores would be a good idea, imo.
 

Mzilikazi

Juniors
Messages
686
Perhaps it would be an idea to identify 5 categories that the articles are assessed on, and give a score out of 20 for each category. I think this would see more lower scores as it i harder to give 16-19/20 across the baord unless there is clear excellence.
 

Manu Vatuvei

Coach
Messages
17,224
Disagree with that Mzi. I think they used to do that back in 2002 at rleague. It didn't work. I don't think it is a good thing for a piece of writing to have to tick off all the boxes, so to speak. You should be able to get good marks without having to squeeze all of the supposed elements of "good writing" into 750 words.
 

Misanthrope

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
47,627
I can see your point. In the games I reffed last year I did go lower than eighty on a few occasions, but even then I felt obliged to stick with the general trend and not go below 75 or so.
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
110,184
A few more scores in the 50s would be interesting. Only downside is there are egos out there which would be unaccepting of such a score. We've had people spit the dummy over getting scores in the 70s.
 

Raider_69

Post Whore
Messages
61,174
Just on scoring, ive had a thought that in big matches, say Finals and rep games, maybe we could look into having 2 markers with an average of the combined scores being presented... i bring this up as we all know every ref has their particular likes and dislikes in styles and range of articles, thats unavoidable, its human nature, some like Emotive peices, others might like a humorous article and thats sweet but in big games i find myself trying to match an article to a refs style rather then just writing...

The arguement can be made that this gives the comp a sort of tactical edge to it but the idea behind this being that it would create less reliance on matching your articles to the referee's style, and hopefully creating a undisputable and more consistant score across the board. It wouldnt require much more from referees individually besides a few simple average calculations

Whatta recon?
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
110,184
Two markers with an average score has been raised a number of times, since 2002.
The problem is we don't have enough refs. Plus there's a few logistical hassles - it would effectively double the workload for the referee coordinator. And there's no guarantee that it would change things all that much.
However, it would be good to trial the idea when we have the personnel.
 
Messages
4,675
Willow said:
Two markers with an average score has been raised a number of times, since 2002.
The problem is we don't have enough refs. Plus there's a few logistical hassles - it would effectively double the workload for the referee coordinator. And there's no guarantee that it would change things all that much.
However, it would be good to trial the idea when we have the personnel.

Just a suggestion - what about for finals you get a few well respected and non-biased players who aren't in the finals, to mark? Likewise for rep matches, use those who aren't competing? I know that could be a bit of a hazard for a few obvious reasons, but for example if I knew my season was over but I could help out by reffing for a bit, I would.
 

Raider_69

Post Whore
Messages
61,174
Willow said:
Two markers with an average score has been raised a number of times, since 2002.
The problem is we don't have enough refs. Plus there's a few logistical hassles - it would effectively double the workload for the referee coordinator. And there's no guarantee that it would change things all that much.
However, it would be good to trial the idea when we have the personnel.

Yea its certainly a decent enough idea
weather is fessible is another matter, IBG's suggestion of non involved respectable players is a pretty good idea... Even this year there were some pretty handy guys and gals on the sidelines that would fit the bill.
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
110,184
They are guest referees and we have them throughout the year to help out.
Again, it has been neccessary since 2002.

There's no hazard but again it doesnt get away from the logistics of coordinating the referees and doubling the workload.

But that's just the view I have based on being a ref myself and watching the F7s evolve over the last 4 years.

At this point I think antonius should get involved because he runs the refereeing side of things.
 

Mzilikazi

Juniors
Messages
686
That idea of having two refs, particularly for the finals, is a sound one. Especially as there are a maximum of two games in any finals round.

As a rookie it took most of the season to understand the particular foibles of some of the referees. Some of my lower scoring articles would have probably received a different result had the ref been different. ;)
 

Willow

Assistant Moderator
Messages
110,184
Perhaps (this being one suggestion) we could trial two referees for the PVP Shield and PVP Plate finals.
 

Raider_69

Post Whore
Messages
61,174
Yep i thinks thats probably the best idea
see how it works and what added work load it will put on referee's, tghen compare it to the difference it makes in the scoring... from there we will have a more sound understanding on logistics behind it and if its worth pursuing
 

LeagueNut

First Grade
Messages
6,980
While we're on scoring, I'd like to table a suggestion. This may also make the possibility of lower scores in the future easier to swallow.

Instead of posting referees scores, how about handing out 'grades' instead?

How about:
D - score between 50 & 59
C - score between 60 & 69
B - score between 70 & 79
A - score between 80 & 89
A+ - score of 90+

Full team scores would still be posted, but individuals would only receive a grade.

The main reason for this idea was that we could then copy the Dally M awards and take the Backpacker Player of the Year awards "undercover" for the last three or four rounds, with the eventual winners to be unmasked only on the F7's annual awards night.

It also fits in nicely with the possibility of reviewing the overall scoring system used by the referees, I'd imagine people would rather recieve a D or a C than a 51 or a 64. (Obviously we'd all rather receive an A+ all the time though!!)
 

TooheysNew

Coach
Messages
1,131
I'd prefer a number myself. I like to judge myself against my previous performances, and if my last performance was a B I don't know if it was a 70 or a 79, which would make it much harder to self-evaluate.
 

Raider_69

Post Whore
Messages
61,174
Dilmah said:
I'd prefer a number myself. I like to judge myself against my previous performances, and if my last performance was a B I don't know if it was a 70 or a 79, which would make it much harder to self-evaluate.

agreed
i think the numbers is still a goer, it makes it easier to judge ones performance on numbers
 

The Piper

Juniors
Messages
1,372
Willow said:
A few more scores in the 50s would be interesting. Only downside is there are egos out there which would be unaccepting of such a score.

The real downside to that is that people, especially people who may be new to the game, who take time and effort into creating an article that they are proud of, get dishearted when they get a score 35 points lower than everyone else and it seeming looks like they lose the game for their team. They think, "Why bother with this?"
Then the F7s lose players who were keen to play.

half said:
don't like the weighting scheme at all, but i think encouraging refs to increase their range of scores is a real positive tbh

Getting refs to increase their scores would build self esteem and self confidence to players, who would keep up their good work and keep on playing F7s.
 

Manu Vatuvei

Coach
Messages
17,224
Wal said:
The real downside to that is that people, especially people who may be new to the game, who take time and effort into creating an article that they are proud of, get dishearted when they get a score 35 points lower than everyone else and it seeming looks like they lose the game for their team. They think, "Why bother with this?"
Then the F7s lose players who were keen to play.



Getting refs to increase their scores would build self esteem and self confidence to players, who would keep up their good work and keep on playing F7s.

As your average NZ talkback radio host might say, that's a bit of a tree-hugging, sandal-wearing attitude. Not that that's a bad thing.
 

Latest posts

Top