for and against???

[nibbs]

if a tie breaker is needed on the points table, would points for or for and against be used to seperate the two sides? i mean the lions have put together a for and against of +433, which the haven't exactly earned. they just got lucky that their opponents opted to put on a no show. if it were too be the difference between a team making the playoffs, wouldn't it make sense for the team who got the most posts in for the entire season or the team with the most points for to be used as a tie breaker?

just a thought, but yeh. it makes perfect sense to me, i was just wondering how the wider f7s community feels about this issue

 

[madunit]

no point having for and against if its not going to be used.

you wouldn't be saying boo if it were the pirates with a differential of +433

leave it as it is.

 

[Willow]

The for-and-against always counts on the ladder. It has been the case since the beginning.

This illustrates the importance of getting all five posts in every match. Even if you look like winnng before full time, its pretty mad to hold back posts. I have always advised against teams 'saving' posts.

The Lions have earned their differential because they have all shown up each round to play. Its not their fault that other sides haven't had a full team.

And besides that, tie breakers (ie extra games) are not a practical alternative.

 

[roosterboy60]

if a tie breaker is needed on the points table, would points for or for and against be used to seperate the two sides? i mean the lions have put together a for and against of +433, which the haven't exactly earned. they just got lucky that their opponents opted to put on a no show. if it were too be the difference between a team making the playoffs, wouldn't it make sense for the team who got the most posts in for the entire season or the team with the most points for to be used as a tie breaker?

just a thought, but yeh. it makes perfect sense to me, i was just wondering how the wider f7s community feels about this issue

We have never failed to get five posts in Nibbs, and it is not our fault that other teams don't have all five players. We get that For And Against because we always get 5 in.

 

[half]

obviously nothing can be changed for the current season, but i have an interesting proposal for next season

given the statistics reveal post scores are very consistent from ref to ref, instead of having a for and against system, we could have a total posts in and for system. this would reward teams who get all their posts in every round, and give us something else purely based on the performance of the teams in question as another tiebreaker

imo

 

[Raider_69]

by getting 5 in every week they have earnt that for and against

 

[half]

actually, they only earned their for. no team earns their against

 

[Willow]

It would be better if it was 5 v 5 every round. Surely this is a better option to aim for than fiddling about with the rules.

 

[madunit]

obviously nothing can be changed for the current season, but i have an interesting proposal for next season

given the statistics reveal post scores are very consistent from ref to ref, instead of having a for and against system, we could have a total posts in and for system. this would reward teams who get all their posts in every round, and give us something else purely based on the performance of the teams in question as another tiebreaker

imo

by getting all 5 articles in teams are rewarded with a higher score than if they were to submit only 4 articles.

I can't see how abandoning for and against and taking any other option is going to make a difference at all.

 

[Paul-The-Cowboy]

Another proposal. In a lot of major soccer tournaments when a team is level on points with another, they take into account past meetings before points differential.

Just thought I'd put this proposal across.

Although I personally like the current for and against system. It's like in real life - one team can play an injury/suspension hit team or a team down to 12 men and put 50 on them. Then another team may face this team at full strength and win by 2 points. The 1st team would have a bigger points difference partly due to good timing/luck/etc, but also because all 13 have been committed to winning and winning comfortably.

Plus it encourages teams that play other teams in the comp to put out 5 posters, even if they have a feeling the other team won't manage it.

 

[half]

I can't see how abandoning for and against and taking any other option is going to make a difference at all.

it makes a difference by rewarding the positives of the teams that need to be split and not the negatives of other teams. that's certainly a major difference and a fruitful one imo. equity maate

willow, i agree that getting 5 posts in each round should be the primary aim for each team. with our current system, a team that only turns up with 4 posters against 1 is rewarded more than a team that turns up with 5 against 5. my proposed system somewhat amends that issue

the essential difference between league and sevens is that in sevens, teams can only control their for. a good against is not the sign of a good defense or anything like that

 

[madunit]

half, the teams that don't get 5 articles in end up with less for and a huge against. A team that turns up with 4 gets punished by having their differential blow out (sharks for example)

 

[nibbs]

The for-and-against always counts on the ladder. It has been the case since the beginning.

This illustrates the importance of getting all five posts in every match. Even if you look like winnng before full time, its pretty mad to hold back posts. I have always advised against teams 'saving' posts.

The Lions have earned their differential because they have all shown up each round to play. Its not their fault that other sides haven't had a full team.

And besides that, tie breakers (ie extra games) are not a practical alternative.

Willow, i'm just saying that the against part comes down to luck. i mean willow, after 11 rounds the teams placed 5th, 6th, 7th, could be tied on 12 points, or whatever. lets say all 5 have submitted 55 posts (100%) over the 11 rounds, but the team that comes in 5th only had 45 posts aginst, 6th 50 against, and 7th 55 against. willow, of course 7th will have the worst for and against. they might have scored 100 points more over the 11 rounds than 5th, but they don't stand a chance.

based on this, i'm pretty sure there is no way you can honestly say the Lions have earned that +433. i'm not singling them out, i'm just trying to say, that the way teams on seperated on the points ladder isn't exactly fair. you can see this... right?

 

[anastabation]

Teams shouldn't have what the other team does count against them. Its not like real rugby league where you can actually stop the opposition from scoring points through a tackle... what the other team producers is purely out of a teams control.

It should definitely be emphasis on how many points YOUR team scores, not what the opposition comes up with.

It'd be very cruel to see the Blue Bags win a hard for game in the final round, producing a series of brilliant posts, only to see themselves miss out because the team currently below them on for/against played a 5 against 2 match, simply because the opposition ddidn't want to turn up as thier side is out of contention. (just to use an example)

 

[bartman]

It's a fair point in the original post, but I'd say you have to run the season under the rules that it started with, so for and against should definitely count.

But in thinking about the structure etc for next year, you raise a valid point. Hopefully in considering the offers to be made for next year, there might be a way where admin can ensure this is less of a problem, and we get closer to the goals of 5v5 each fixture?

I find it strange that two teams who haven't managed 5 posts every week are in the top five (ahead of some of the six teams that have), but that's the way the cookie crumbles?

Hopefully through some means next year it will be 5v5 each match and this discussion won't even be happening.

 

[Willow]

I really can't see a practical solution other than doing our best to ensure that we have 5 v 5 each round. IMO, the only positive way is to do what we have been doing. That is, to attract new players to ensure that all teams have a full player roster.
After that, its simply up to the captains and vice captains to manage their squads.

One alternative is to put in place some sort of penalty for teams who fail to get all five posts in, say .5 of a competition point. Another alternative is to could have a bonus of .5 of a competition point for the team which gets all five points in.
I only suggest this for discussion... and I don't really like the idea. Personally I'd rather we have a more positive approach in promoting the F7s.
But this may offer some incentive to get all posts in.

Next year, I expect that a lot of teams will be more settled and there'll be another increase in player numbers. We may even have a change or two with the teams competing.

We'll know more about the make-up of the 2006 competition later in the year. We'll crunch the numbers then and we'll certainly put the 'for-and-against' question to the think-tank in the off-season.

 

[The Nulla #2]

i dont think it really matters, for and against is an amzing fact of life.

 

[Willow]

I made this post in another thread and it seemed to be met with some agreement:


I do think a team with more posts has some merit. A team should get rewarded with a higher position on the ladder.
For example, if Raiders had 44 posts in and Pirates had 45, and both were on 16 points, then the Pirates should be in front regardless of the F/A (for and against).

In the event of both teams having the same amount of posts in, then the F/A should be next 'tie-break' decider.

The 'Points For' should not be ahead of this for the reasons outlined by TH and myself.

So in summary, when trying to establish a team's position on the ladder, the order of advantage (or 'tie-breaker') should be as follows:

1. Most wins.
2. Most posts.
3. Best F/A.
4. Most Points For.

This is a bit of a compromise and open to scrutiny. But I think it's a positive system which is custom-made for F7s conditions.

IMO, it has the advantage of rewarding the team with the most wins (as any ladder should) while promoting the incentive to get all five posts in.

 

[half]

totally down with that

 

[c_eagle]

How can any team be punished for the other team's quality of posting? It's not like bad defense leaked points, it's totally out of their hands. It should be points for imho.