Analysis SuperCoach Scoring Explained, Observations & Complaints On Scoring

[pizza safety]

Lots of chat about Gawn, Oliver, Lloyd etc. some of it whinging, some of it constructive.

In terms of CD scoring, the stats are all pretty clear for everyone to see: the only thing open to interpretation is effective vs. ineffective vs. clanger.

Except... there are other hidden variables that affect a SC score. Game time multipier can be much a bigger influence than people give credit for - now that it is dynamically adjusted, you see comments like: "Gawn just got 2 pts for that mark and kick in the last quarter, Heeney got 11 for one handball all quarter!".

The phenomena needs a name, but what I imagine is happening is that the more SC points that are scored in the last when the game was dead, the more they are scaled down and the more the first and second quarters scale up. So ironically, the more points Gawn and Oliver et. al. generated in dead time, the more Heeney's score went up (probably Lloyd too)

That’s fair enough Leroy and I usually am fine with CD’s scoring, I understand how they score and I see that’s it’s fairly consistent. Where Lloyd gets his kicks on the ground and the types of kicks he does are clearly liked by CD and that’s been apparent for a while, so no problem. However, usually the player rating reflects this and he’s top 6-8 on the ground but last night he was 6th last on the ground for player rating so CD didn’t rate his game at all themselves. Gawn on the other hand was 5th for player rating and what I don’t understand is if the raw stats have Gawn that far ahead and CD think he’s had 5 times the impact, why does he only have 4 points more? Usually there’s much more alignment here and I don’t think this question is just born out of not not understanding the intricacies of the scoring beyond the raw stats, this specifically looks like an aberration/mistake.

The system is pretty good and I trust them usually and see the types of things they rate. It can’t be 100% consistent though because impact and X factor is always somewhat subjective but it’s still a very good system. There will also be bias at times although that’s not at all in their interest, because it’s impossible to prevent that with this system and some bias will just be accumulative luck. Very few players have actual bias over time and when they do it’s probably very very mild and it’s not a real issue.

You can still like the system and think it’s not perfect and take issue with a game whose scoring really doesn’t seem to fit in with how you understand the system. Raw stats + their player ratings + what they score highly + who jumped off my screen usually gets close to the final scores, last night it did not.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1116312535425150976

 

[pizza safety]

Own Olivier

Would rather Oli in a real AFL side

Re SC,

kick to handball favoured Lloyd
Efficiency helped him
Couple of extra marks

Lots of 2’s where as Olivier doing the hard work but then getting zero return for a kick and lower return for a handball.

Olivier rated higher on ranking points I expect based on how he got the ball more than how he disposed of it.

I don’t think the better disposal catches up to the 16 extra cp’s I guess is what I’m saying, anyway I don’t even own him so it’s not an issue for me.

Lloyd had 19 effective kicks to Oliver's 7. (+36-48 to Lloyd)
Lloyd had 7 effective handballs to Oliver's 12. (+7.5 to Oliver)
https://www.afl.com.au/stats/stats-pro#/Discover/CD_I295342/Lloyd-Jake
https://www.afl.com.au/stats/stats-pro#/Discover/CD_I996701/Oliver-Clayton

My point is on a raw stats basis Oliver had Lloyd beat, the cp's advantage were accumulatively worth more than Lloyd's disposal advantage. The other stats have the the pair pretty close but Oliver slightly ahead on a "raw stats basis". Then Oliver was given 3 x the player rating of Lloyd.

I also think Lloyd is overly criticised and people often don't realise that he's a very good half-back who always hit targets out of the back half, but last night he did nothing. I call him a seagull because he also is a seagull, but I've also said that he's damaging over time and a good player.

 

[quite ironic]

I don’t think the better disposal catches up to the 16 extra cp’s I guess is what I’m saying, anyway I don’t even own him so it’s not an issue for me.

Lloyd had 19 effective kicks to Oliver's 7. (+36-48 to Lloyd)
Lloyd had 7 effective handballs to Oliver's 12. (+7.5 to Oliver)
https://www.afl.com.au/stats/stats-pro#/Discover/CD_I295342/Lloyd-Jake
https://www.afl.com.au/stats/stats-pro#/Discover/CD_I996701/Oliver-Clayton

My point is on a raw stats basis Oliver had Lloyd beat, the cp's advantage were accumulatively worth more than Lloyd's disposal advantage. The other stats have the the pair pretty close but Oliver slightly ahead on a "raw stats basis". Then Oliver was given 3 x the player rating of Lloyd.

I also think Lloyd is overly criticised and people often don't realise that he's a very good half-back who always hit targets out of the back half, but last night he did nothing. I call him a seagull because he also is a seagull, but I've also said that he's damaging over time and a good player.

I’m not sure if this is correct or not but I would think contested possession difference for a small defender and midfielder wouldn’t have much impact on the difference in their score potentially.

Someone mentioned disposals being worth more inside the 50 metre arcs and players in the past have still always scored well as defenders who get cheap uncontested possessions as long as they are mainly forward and effective.

It makes sense as you could point to a heap of examples I would think where a midfielder has way more contested possessions than a defender but butchers the ball and scores a fair bit less than the defender who has had most of their touches as effective forward kicks with large metres gained.

Lloyd had 11 more kicks than Oliver and I don’t have Telstra so cant access the stats but I would assume he would’ve had a heap more metres gained than Oliver whilst also having the same amount of score involvements in a losing side playing 70 metres behind Oliver.


I think Lloyd was possibly about 8-9 points overscored 122/100 seems about right and Oliver 108/87 is pretty much spot on. He had absolutely no influence on the game, was butchering it all day and would’ve been probably the worst 30+ disposal game this year in my opinion.

 

[pizza safety]

I’m not sure if this is correct or not but I would think contested possession difference for a small defender and midfielder wouldn’t have much impact on the difference in their score potentially.

Someone mentioned disposals being worth more inside the 50 metre arcs and players in the past have still always scored well as defenders who get cheap uncontested possessions as long as they are mainly forward and effective.

It makes sense as you could point to a heap of examples I would think where a midfielder has way more contested possessions than a defender but butchers the ball and scores a fair bit less than the defender who has had most of their touches as effective forward kicks with large metres gained.

Lloyd had 11 more kicks than Oliver and I don’t have Telstra so cant access the stats but I would assume he would’ve had a heap more metres gained than Oliver whilst also having the same amount of score involvements in a losing side playing 70 metres behind Oliver.


I think Lloyd was possibly about 8-9 points overscored 122/100 seems about right and Oliver 108/87 is pretty much spot on. He had absolutely no influence on the game, was butchering it all day and would’ve been probably the worst 30+ disposal game this year in my opinion.

Like I said I know he butchered the ball, but Lloyd also had clangers and even though their might be examples where the defender catches up with disposals I don’t see this as one of those. Once you include handballs he’s 16 more contested disposals and only 10 less effective kicks. I know this isn’t completely accurate to the scoring but it should be indicative. As bad as Oliver was Lloyd was even worse and champion Data agreed, giving Oliver 9 player ratings points to Lloyd’s 3 (39th/44 on the ground).

 

[Claps]

I don't think there is bias in my opinion and as a non-owner of both, they were both over scored.

Lloyd is a fantasy jet but I wonder when Longmire will change it up. You could put a lot of AFL players in that role and they will shine fantasy wise. Hibberd comes to mind. It is always my concern with starting these types of players in new seasons.

 

[quite ironic]

Like I said I know he butchered the ball, but Lloyd also had clangers and even though their might be examples where the defender catches up with disposals I don’t see this as one of those. Once you include handballs he’s 16 more contested disposals and only 10 less effective kicks. I know this isn’t completely accurate to the scoring but it should be indicative. As bad as Oliver was Lloyd was even worse and champion Data agreed, giving Oliver 9 player ratings points to Lloyd’s 3 (39th/44 on the ground).

It wasn’t necessarily that Lloyd was worse he just didn’t have a heap of impact in my opinion which is hard for a rebounding defender. In saying that though, Oliver had basically no effect on the game at all. He did get a heap of contested possessions but he just butchered it, 8 clangers was probably a lucky assessment. Lloyd had 5 bad disposals for the game of which all were recorded as clangers, Oliver had about 10-15 bad disposals and another 5 or so nothing hospital handballs.

If you take out Lloyd’s 5 clangers he then had 20 effective kicks, 1 ineffective kick, 6 effective handballs and 2 ineffective handballs which is pretty good. Oliver 9 effective kicks for the match.

Most of Sydney’s scoring chances did start with Lloyd and he would’ve smashed everyone in metres gained on the ground. He had 5 bad kicks which were clangers and everything else was pretty much 100% effective kicks forward outside of 1 ineffective kick and 2 ineffective handballs.

I almost never even look at player ratings as they have some of the weirdest metrics and assessments you’ll ever see.

I don’t know how much less you want Lloyd scored at though, a player getting 34 disposals (26 of those kicks), the most metres gained on the ground, 6 score involvements (as a back pocket), conceeded no goals to opponents, 9 marks, a clearance, 3 inside 50’s, 7 rebound 50’s, 1 free kick, 5 clangers (0 free kicks against) going at 76% DE with 122 fantasy is never going to get less than 100, it just doesn’t happen ever.

Contrastly, Oliver had 33 disposals (only 15 kicks) at 57% DE, had 9 effective kicks, 6 score involvements, 1 goal assist, 7 marks, 2 tackles (extremely low), 7 clearances, 7 inside 50’s, 3 rebound 50’s, 1 free kick, 8 clangers (1 free against) and pretty much no influence on the game from a spectators point of view getting 108/87 is about right.

What you should be complaining about if you’re going to take the contested possessions/clangers etc argument is how did Brayshaw get 89 with just 79 DT. They are like for like players where you can compare them wirh contested possessions etc (comparing to a back pocket will never work).

Brayshaw scored more than Oliver with 19 disposals (12 contested) (10 kicks) at 68% DE, with 1 goal (in junk time), 5 score involvements, 2 marks, 4 tackles, 6 clearances, 3 inside 50’s, 3 free kicks and 1 clanger.

That’s the comparison that you should be making if you think Oliver was scored slightly low then Brayshaw was scored extremely high in comparison.

 

[pizza safety]

It wasn’t necessarily that Lloyd was worse he just didn’t have a heap of impact in my opinion which is hard for a rebounding defender. In saying that though, Oliver had basically no effect on the game at all. He did get a heap of contested possessions but he just butchered it, 8 clangers was probably a lucky assessment. Lloyd had 5 bad disposals for the game of which all were recorded as clangers, Oliver had about 10-15 bad disposals and another 5 or so nothing hospital handballs.

If you take out Lloyd’s 5 clangers he then had 20 effective kicks, 1 ineffective kick, 6 effective handballs and 2 ineffective handballs which is pretty good. Oliver 9 effective kicks for the match.

Most of Sydney’s scoring chances did start with Lloyd and he would’ve smashed everyone in metres gained on the ground. He had 5 bad kicks which were clangers and everything else was pretty much 100% effective kicks forward outside of 1 ineffective kick and 2 ineffective handballs.

I almost never even look at player ratings as they have some of the weirdest metrics and assessments you’ll ever see.

I don’t know how much less you want Lloyd scored at though, a player getting 34 disposals (26 of those kicks), the most metres gained on the ground, 6 score involvements (as a back pocket), conceeded no goals to opponents, 9 marks, a clearance, 3 inside 50’s, 7 rebound 50’s, 1 free kick, 5 clangers (0 free kicks against) going at 76% DE with 122 fantasy is never going to get less than 100, it just doesn’t happen ever.

Contrastly, Oliver had 33 disposals (only 15 kicks) at 57% DE, had 9 effective kicks, 6 score involvements, 1 goal assist, 7 marks, 2 tackles (extremely low), 7 clearances, 7 inside 50’s, 3 rebound 50’s, 1 free kick, 8 clangers (1 free against) and pretty much no influence on the game from a spectators point of view getting 108/87 is about right.

What you should be complaining about if you’re going to take the contested possessions/clangers etc argument is how did Brayshaw get 89 with just 79 DT. They are like for like players where you can compare them wirh contested possessions etc (comparing to a back pocket will never work).

Brayshaw scored more than Oliver with 19 disposals (12 contested) (10 kicks) at 68% DE, with 1 goal (in junk time), 5 score involvements, 2 marks, 4 tackles, 6 clearances, 3 inside 50’s, 3 free kicks and 1 clanger.

That’s the comparison that you should be making if you think Oliver was scored slightly low then Brayshaw was scored extremely high in comparison.

I don’t want Lloyd scored that much less I just thought Oliver should have scored slightly more. Us saying who had more impact is irrelevant because CD themselves said Oliver had 3 times Lloyd’s impact. The scores always vary game to game and don’t make sense in isolation so I’m just wondering why they scaled Oliver down and Lloyd up. You can take where he got his disposals and I still don’t get it, Lloyd was absolutely absent in terms of impact. In regards to Brayshaw I’m just comparing these two players.

Just kicking the ball that many times shouldn’t necessarily get you that many points in any case especially with turnovers thrown in and virtually no other stats to your name besides 9 uncontested marks. He conceded no goals because he wasn’t involved in a one on one all game. Not saying that the score can’t be 109 (it definitely can) but I’m saying I don’t understand why they’ve favoured him and scaled him up compared to Oliver when they rated his impact as 39/44 on the ground.

Usually Lloyd is much more damaging through accumulative impact than he was last night.

 

[Bermi]

I still reckon Champion Data should simplify the SC scoring system to a level that most SuperCoaches can understand why points are scored.

 

[Herbie66]

I still reckon Champion Data should simplify the SC scoring system to a level that most SuperCoaches can understand why points are scored.

I still don't think they have fully disclosed all components of how players can and do score points as well , I know in the past they have fully explained a players score after a game if there has been enough concerns/queries.

 

[Erich1036]

I still reckon Champion Data should simplify the SC scoring system to a level that most SuperCoaches can understand why points are scored.

Champion Data didn't make the scoring system for us though, it's for the AFL clubs. SuperCoach merely adopted it.

 

[pizza safety]

Champion Data didn't make the scoring system for us though, it's for the AFL clubs. SuperCoach merely adopted it.

No doubt and that’s why they have no business being intentionally biased. However, just because the scoring system is fair doesn’t mean they are 100% consistent because it’s a subjective scoring system to a large extent. They can also have games where they do a worse job with the scoring and those games are rare, I just think last night was one of those games. You can like the system and believe in the system and still call it out from time to time, I just know that if players are incorrectly scored over time that will balance out. Just because their unbiased doesn’t make the system perfect

 

[pizza safety]

I still reckon Champion Data should simplify the SC scoring system to a level that most SuperCoaches can understand why points are scored.

I don’t reckon, it’s fine 95% of the time and I like the mystery.

 

[Hasnoshoes]

It wasn’t necessarily that Lloyd was worse he just didn’t have a heap of impact in my opinion which is hard for a rebounding defender. In saying that though, Oliver had basically no effect on the game at all. He did get a heap of contested possessions but he just butchered it, 8 clangers was probably a lucky assessment. Lloyd had 5 bad disposals for the game of which all were recorded as clangers, Oliver had about 10-15 bad disposals and another 5 or so nothing hospital handballs.

If you take out Lloyd’s 5 clangers he then had 20 effective kicks, 1 ineffective kick, 6 effective handballs and 2 ineffective handballs which is pretty good. Oliver 9 effective kicks for the match.

Most of Sydney’s scoring chances did start with Lloyd and he would’ve smashed everyone in metres gained on the ground. He had 5 bad kicks which were clangers and everything else was pretty much 100% effective kicks forward outside of 1 ineffective kick and 2 ineffective handballs.

I almost never even look at player ratings as they have some of the weirdest metrics and assessments you’ll ever see.

I don’t know how much less you want Lloyd scored at though, a player getting 34 disposals (26 of those kicks), the most metres gained on the ground, 6 score involvements (as a back pocket), conceeded no goals to opponents, 9 marks, a clearance, 3 inside 50’s, 7 rebound 50’s, 1 free kick, 5 clangers (0 free kicks against) going at 76% DE with 122 fantasy is never going to get less than 100, it just doesn’t happen ever.

Contrastly, Oliver had 33 disposals (only 15 kicks) at 57% DE, had 9 effective kicks, 6 score involvements, 1 goal assist, 7 marks, 2 tackles (extremely low), 7 clearances, 7 inside 50’s, 3 rebound 50’s, 1 free kick, 8 clangers (1 free against) and pretty much no influence on the game from a spectators point of view getting 108/87 is about right.

What you should be complaining about if you’re going to take the contested possessions/clangers etc argument is how did Brayshaw get 89 with just 79 DT. They are like for like players where you can compare them wirh contested possessions etc (comparing to a back pocket will never work).

Brayshaw scored more than Oliver with 19 disposals (12 contested) (10 kicks) at 68% DE, with 1 goal (in junk time), 5 score involvements, 2 marks, 4 tackles, 6 clearances, 3 inside 50’s, 3 free kicks and 1 clanger.

That’s the comparison that you should be making if you think Oliver was scored slightly low then Brayshaw was scored extremely high in comparison.

I didn't even read this but gave you a "like" because it looked like it took you a lot of time and effort.

 

[Bermi]

Champion Data didn't make the scoring system for us though, it's for the AFL clubs. SuperCoach merely adopted it.

I don’t reckon, it’s fine 95% of the time and I like the mystery.

Thanks Erich, I never knew that, it make sense. Maybe not financial for herald/Sun to have their own modified scoring system?
And Pizza Safety, I can see the mystery side of it being exciting, it's just that personally I rather see things in black and white (BTW, that's not why I barrack for Collingwood ). Some people like shades of gray .

 

[Bermi]

I didn't even read this but gave you a "like" because it looked like it took you a lot of time and effort.

I liked the efforts all put in. It made a lot of sense, but it hasn't cleared up much for me though.

 

[quite ironic]

I don’t want Lloyd scored that much less I just thought Oliver should have scored slightly more. Us saying who had more impact is irrelevant because CD themselves said Oliver had 3 times Lloyd’s impact. The scores always vary game to game and don’t make sense in isolation so I’m just wondering why they scaled Oliver down and Lloyd up. You can take where he got his disposals and I still don’t get it, Lloyd was absolutely absent in terms of impact. In regards to Brayshaw I’m just comparing these two players.

Just kicking the ball that many times shouldn’t necessarily get you that many points in any case especially with turnovers thrown in and virtually no other stats to your name besides 9 uncontested marks. He conceded no goals because he wasn’t involved in a one on one all game. Not saying that the score can’t be 109 (it definitely can) but I’m saying I don’t understand why they’ve favoured him and scaled him up compared to Oliver when they rated his impact as 39/44 on the ground.

Usually Lloyd is much more damaging through accumulative impact than he was last night.

I wouldn't read into Player Ratings too much, they are some of the most flawed statistics accessible.

Lloyd last week had the same rating as he had this week and he had 32 touches (28 effective), 1 clanger, 9 uncontested marks, 6 score involvements, 1 goal assist, 8 rebound 50's and a 120/130 rating so I don't think the player ratings have any correlation to sc scores.

 

[pizza safety]

I wouldn't read into Player Ratings too much, they are some of the most flawed statistics accessible.

Lloyd last week had the same rating as he had this week and he had 32 touches (28 effective), 1 clanger, 9 uncontested marks, 6 score involvements, 1 goal assist, 8 rebound 50's and a 120/130 rating so I don't think the player ratings have any correlation to sc scores.

I think they’re reasonanly accurate but by no means perfect and have obvious problems (rate X factor too much ahead of consistency, don’t isolate the player properly and don’t take into account value that well as it relates to forwards/defenders/taggers). I thought a lot of Lloyd’s metres gained disposals did nothing to bail them out of defence, they were down the wing and safe and he usually got the kick it in a situation where there was no immediate danger. They usually are reasonably linked to SC score even if they weren’t with Lloyd

Anyway we can have this convo all day and I do get that whatever Lloyd does they love in sc scoring and I will try to get him in asap

 

[Leroy]

That’s fair enough Leroy and I usually am fine with CD’s scoring, I understand how they score and I see that’s it’s fairly consistent. Where Lloyd gets his kicks on the ground and the types of kicks he does are clearly liked by CD and that’s been apparent for a while, so no problem. However, usually the player rating reflects this and he’s top 6-8 on the ground but last night he was 6th last on the ground for player rating so CD didn’t rate his game at all themselves. Gawn on the other hand was 5th for player rating and what I don’t understand is if the raw stats have Gawn that far ahead and CD think he’s had 5 times the impact, why does he only have 4 points more? Usually there’s much more alignment here and I don’t think this question is just born out of not not understanding the intricacies of the scoring beyond the raw stats, this specifically looks like an aberration/mistake.

The system is pretty good and I trust them usually and see the types of things they rate. It can’t be 100% consistent though because impact and X factor is always somewhat subjective but it’s still a very good system. There will also be bias at times although that’s not at all in their interest, because it’s impossible to prevent that with this system and some bias will just be accumulative luck. Very few players have actual bias over time and when they do it’s probably very very mild and it’s not a real issue.

You can still like the system and think it’s not perfect and take issue with a game whose scoring really doesn’t seem to fit in with how you understand the system. Raw stats + their player ratings + what they score highly + who jumped off my screen usually gets close to the final scores, last night it did not.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1116312535425150976

I actually agree with your assessment: from watching it it felt like Gawn was "underscored" (whatever that means). I think the problem comes from the fact that the for the most part, the SC scoring is discrete (x pts for this, y points for that) and usually round numbers, with some modifiers that apply to everyone. There are just some combinations of stats that are rewarded more by the system than others - think of Heath Shaw and Joel Bowden's 200+ games based on lots of loose kick/mark plays in the back half.

I imagine the CD ratings look at things like metres gained and other non-discrete stats that don't translate easily into a fantasy game without making it too complicated for your average punter.

 

[Zimmer]

I don’t reckon, it’s fine 95% of the time and I like the mystery.

Less mystery than ambiguity- but as I've said before it's analogous to the way the game is umpired. It's not consistent, it's not always explicable or even defendable - but it's part of the game's humanity. That said, as with everything human and flawed activity, it doesn't preclude debate, joy, frustration.

 

[Bermi]

Thought it might be interesting

heraldsun.com.au ›
Champion Data explains the meaning of 12 AFL stats
June 16, 2017

STATS were easy when kicks, marks and handballs were all that was recorded in the paper the next day.
When inside-50s and clearances were added we were still pretty sure what was going on.

Then we started hearing about score involvements, turnovers, giveaway turnovers, forced turnovers ... and it felt like you needed a degree to know what was happening on the footy field.

Luckily, the AFL’s stats gurus at Champion Data are here to help.
They have spent years finetuning the stats that record what really matters in games, which is why they are used by all the AFL clubs and form the unique SuperCoach scoring system.

To answer one common question from the start, possessions and disposals are not the same thing, although the terms are often used interchangeably. A possession is how a player wins the ball and a disposal is how he gets rid of it. So it is possible for a player to win a possession — for example, by marking just before the siren, but not record a disposal.

Here are 12 more misunderstood stats and what they mean.

METRES GAINED
Net distance gained with the ball by a player during a match by running with the footy, kicking or handballing. Backwards kicks and handballs take away from the total of metres gained towards goal to give a final total.

PRESSURE ACT
Each disposal has pressure assigned to it, ranging from no pressure for a set position to closing, corralling, chasing or physical pressure. A pressure act is when a player has applied either closing, corralling, chasing or physical pressure.

PRESSURE POINTS
Weighted sum of pressure acts. Under the Champion Data pressure point scoring system physical pressure acts are worth 3.75 points, closing pressure acts are worth 2.25 points, chasing pressure acts are worth 1.50 points, and corralling pressure acts which are worth 1.20 points.

KICK RATING
The difference between a player’s expected hit rate (number of times he hits an intended target) and actual hit rate. A negative kick rating indicates a player is not executing the kicks as well as the competition average and a positive kick rating shows a player is hitting the target more often than the competition average. Note that a kick that goes to a teammate counts as effective even if it doesn’t travel the 15m required for a mark.

INTERCEPT POSSESSION
Any possession that is won that breaks an opposition chain.

TACKLE EFFICIENCY
Percentage of physical pressure acts that lead to an effective tackle (that results in no disposal or an ineffective or clanger disposal).

SCORE INVOLVEMENT
Any scoring chain a player was involved in with either a disposal, hitout-to-advantage, kick-in or knock-on. If a player has more than one disposal in the same chain, he is only credited with one score involvement. A score assist is the disposal, hitout-to-advantage or knock-on that directly preceeds a score. (A hitout-to-advantage is a hitout that leads to a teammate gaining direct possession of the ball with the opportunity to dispose of it).

SCOREBOARD IMPACT
A score assigned by Champion Data by combining points scored from goals and behinds plus score assists. Goal and goal assists are worth six points each, and behinds and behind assists are worth one point each.

TURNOVER
Losing possession to the opposition in general play. General play excludes events that happen between a stoppage and the clearance.

GIVEAWAY TURNOVER
A turnover that directly hands possession to the opposition, usually via a clanger disposal. Giveaway turnovers can be forced or unforced.

FORCED TURNOVER
A turnover committed under significant pressure, which directly results in an opposition possession. For example, when a player is tackled as he kicks the ball and it is marked by an opponent.

UNFORCED TURNOVER
A turnover committed under little or no pressure, which directly results in an opposition possession.