Want a higher-scoring AFL? Tell the umps to blow the whistle more

By Tim Lane / Expert

When Ron Barassi stared into the void at half-time of the 1970 VFL grand final, he imagined a hazy outline.

In the few frantic minutes available, with Carlton trailing Collingwood by 44 points, the Blues’ coach worked a miracle of management. He persuaded his players to put his desperately formed vision into effect and the game’s most remarkable victory was achieved.

Australian football was about to change.

Not that it was all down to Barassi. The arrival at Hawthorn of the freakish Peter Hudson three years earlier had sparked a re-birth of the hundred-goal-a-year full forward. Scoring goals, rather than stopping them, was back in vogue.

When that was coupled with a more mobile game, lubricated by the handball, things happened fast. The 1970 home-and-away season was the first-ever of 22 rounds. Four teams accrued 2000 points that year. By 1976, ten teams topped the 2K mark and by 1978 every one of the competition’s 12 teams had a two in front of its ‘points for’ entry.

But just as Barassi had shown the way to all-out attack, it was inevitable some smart coach would come along to spoil the party. Mick Malthouse’s West Coast started it in 1991 by conceding just 1532 points. This equalled, precisely, the low-water mark achieved by Allan Jeans’ St Kilda in – you guessed it – 1970.

In 2005, Paul Roos’ Sydney Swans became the first team in the history of the 22-game season to score fewer than 2000 points but win the flag. Last season, the Western Bulldogs became the second.

The newly-appointed AFL football operations boss, Simon Lethlean, last week identified higher scoring as an objective to be pursued in his new role.

“We will work with them (coaches and players) and support them with our rules to try to enhance scoring,” he said.

The modern AFL has become a sporting administration like no other in its tendency to fiddle with the rules – or Laws – of its game. Unfortunately, if the work of his recent predecessors is any guide, Lethlean is likely to infuriatingly tinker at the edges of the problem rather than cut to its heart.

Yet the heart of this issue is simple and it involves a sporting rivalry almost as old as time. For just as there is good versus evil and there is Collingwood versus Carlton, so too there is offence versus defence. In a nutshell, the latter is the battle which determines how high-scoring, or low-scoring, the game is. If, in general, ‘D’ is prevailing over ‘O’, low scoring will be the order of the day.

So what is the most fundamental aspect of defence? Unarguably, it is tackling. And what component of the game requires the most adjudication from umpires? Yes, tackling. So, to a very real extent, the adjudication by umpires determines the success, or otherwise, of defence.

The factor most responsible for the modern ascendancy of defence is the degree to which a blind eye is turned to illegal tackles. There is now much more tackling than ever before, yet there are way fewer free kicks being paid than was once the case.

In last year’s grand final, 193 tackles were recorded and 28 frees paid. Of those, only 11 were specifically tackling-related. That’s one infringement for every 17.5 tackles.

Compare this to the 1991 grand final, when Mick Malthouse’s Eagles had developed their new tackling ethos. In that game, 52 tackles were laid and 42 free kicks paid. If 20 of those were for tackling breaches, that’s one infringement for every 2.5 tackles.

That’s a 700 per cent difference over 26 years. Are we really to believe that, in a game becoming ever faster, tackling techniques and precision have improved so much?

The more likely explanation – palpable to those who have watched football over decades – is that umpires have been encouraged to put the whistle away.

While there are no tackling statistics available from the 1970s, we do know that field umpire Don Jolley – officiating solo – paid 90 free kicks in the 1970 grand final. And this was in an era when tackle was what footballers took on their post-season fishing holiday.

Conventional wisdom says fewer free kicks are good for the game. Yet more serious consideration compels the view that acquiescent umpiring has actually been bad. It encourages defence over offence, making for ‘pack football’, more stoppages, and, ultimately, lower scoring.

The simple fact is, if Simon Lethlean wants higher scoring, he can achieve it by re-setting the bar on permissible tackling. In other words, by telling the umpires that being a whistle-blower isn’t a crime.

The Crowd Says:

2017-03-11T08:18:07+00:00

Bob

Guest


So I take it you didn't enjoy the Dogs- Giants PF?

2017-03-09T19:59:47+00:00

Camo McD

Roar Guru


Dunno if changing the interpretation of the tackling rules is the best way to get more attacking footy. I wouldn't mind seeing teams reaching 100 in a match getting an extra premiership point (regardless win or lose) an 2 for getting 150, 3 for 200 etc.

2017-03-09T11:52:27+00:00

BigAl

Guest


You are right - this comment has made me see the light...

2017-03-09T09:56:40+00:00

prideofsouthaustralia13

Roar Rookie


I have enjoyed the low scoring AFL women's games. The Adelaide v Brisbane game last Saturday night was a great example that a low scoring game can be just as gripping and entertaining as a high scoring shootout.

2017-03-09T09:33:47+00:00

Pope Paul VII

Guest


nah love it, nothing like a shellacking as long as it's not your mob

2017-03-09T08:11:19+00:00

Batman

Guest


Players try to take procession resulting in the ball going underneath him. The tackler then holds the ball in and gets rewarded for stopping the play. If a no one is trying to take procession or knock it out then throw it up.

2017-03-09T07:06:17+00:00

Darren L

Roar Rookie


I do agree on the frees in H&A versus finals - although I think it is only partially relevant to Tim's argument as he has made a couple of references to GFs the main premise seems to be points for throughout the H&A.

2017-03-09T06:50:02+00:00

Craig Delaney

Guest


That particular blowout did a lot for me! :))

2017-03-09T06:46:19+00:00

Craig Delaney

Guest


I agree but it also gives the attacking team time to do something themselves. Comes back to coaches preparing their players and team practices. As a Crows supporter I'm one down on you :)) Of course it's different if the team freed is in possession of the ball. Then the turnover effect is potentially greater.

2017-03-09T06:09:52+00:00

Darren

Guest


Craig a free kick from a tackle would have at minimum a 5 sec delay until the recipient can take the free kick which I think is enough time to reset. Re Blues I was lucky to witness 3GF wins in person so I'm happy to wait as long as they improve

2017-03-09T06:00:02+00:00

BigAl

Guest


Blowouts do NOTHING for the game - not even for the ones that are doing the blowing out ! Crows won their first ever AFL game in a BLOWOUT against the Hawks...

2017-03-09T05:46:35+00:00

mds1970

Roar Guru


The other thing about the Bulldogs' relatively low points for. They were 7th after the home & away season; and their points for was within the range you would expect for a 7th placed team. They came good when it mattered & the stars aligned for them in the finals. But when looking at their points for in the home & away season; they were 7th.

2017-03-09T05:21:08+00:00

Dalgety Carrington

Roar Guru


Got to agree that saying "more scoring = better footy" is a shallow approach. Objectively the action of kicking for a goal is exactly the same as any other kick and more goals can devalue the added excitement around that too. Surely what you want is a good balance around the difficulty of scoring and maximising the reward for a well-executed passage of play.

2017-03-09T04:57:29+00:00

Batman

Guest


Agree. It is so frustrating when umpires ignore frees like incorrect disposal. The umpires job is to ensure everyone plays by the rules NOT to decide if a rule should be applied. Dropping the ball when tackled or allowing the ball to be thrown to keep the game flowing is not the umpires role. If they don't like the rules change them but don't make up your own which causes the confusion, inconsistency and enables the umpires to influence the result.

2017-03-09T04:36:41+00:00

Pope Paul VII

Guest


Put the clock back to 25 mins plus time on for starters. The shut down is way too easy with the 20min quarter. Make it a crime to kick to backwards when not under pressure. Make it a crime to party every goal like it's 1999, this takes too much energy as players marvel at their own awesomeness. None of these above will happen but Growing up when big scored were all the rage I much prefer the goalfest, the shoot out and the blow out. Especially if North are doing it. In the spirit of Long Bombs to Snake and Pagan's Paddock I reckon North can get it in quick to their bigguns and little uns and plunder sides.

2017-03-09T04:24:20+00:00

Craig Delaney

Guest


Can't agree. What is over policing? Finding frees that are not there? Why have rules if you're not going to enforce them? It's the enforcing that keeps, or fails to keep, the level playing field. A sport is tainted when it fails to enforce it's rules. Fairness is crucial.

2017-03-09T03:51:58+00:00

Daniel Jeffrey

Editor


Actually. I do have something. Which is to draw your attention to the Swans' points for in 2016 (2221) in comparison to North Melbourne's (1956).

2017-03-09T03:38:11+00:00

Daniel Jeffrey

Editor


Hey. Hey.......... I got nuthin

2017-03-09T03:21:28+00:00

Josh

Expert


Classic Swans fan line of thought... ;) Welcome to the team, Tim.

2017-03-09T02:04:44+00:00

Scott

Guest


I agree that it's unfair that the GF is not consistent with the season. However I would much prefer the rest of the season to be umpired more like the grand final. The over policing of any sport ultimately ruins the sport

More Comments on The Roar

Read more at The Roar