Bonus-point the answer to combating dull footy

The state of the Australian Football League has been a hot topic particularly after a weekend of congested low scoring football.

One key suggestion to arise to cope with this perceived negative football is that of zoning and player placement restrictions. Keeping certain players tied to certain parts of the ground is seen as the solution to congested football and also to some the means for forwards to kick bigger bags of goals that fans yearn for.

I would argue however that there is a much more simpler way to entice the exciting football from this competition and in a way, that does not change the essential makeup of the on-field game. The answer is awarding a bonus point on the ladder to teams for scoring over 100 points in game.

Sounds simple and it is. The act of scoring is the fundamental part of our game. One team needs to score higher than the other. It is built into the game and would not require zoning which is foreign the game.

The benefits are numerous.

First scoring brings an entertainment factor to the game. High scoring means more goals and this provides a better spectacle for fans. Rarely has a shootout style game been dull.

If teams have a built-in reward for scoring they will alter their game plans to maximise the points available in a win.

The incentive that any win is a good win would be removed from our game as high scoring wins take precedence. The added bonus of kicking your way closer to that magical ton would also add to the experience for fans.

Forwards too will benefit as the need to score will further heighten their importance in a game. As scoring is rewarded in this new way we are highly likely to see the return of the big bags and the key forwards are central to this.

Their ability to demand the football as well as altered rules that favour them in a contest mean that with an increased urgency to score they will become an even greater focal point in our game.

As the opportunities rise so too will the chances at goal and that will lead to bigger goal hauls. The need for accuracy which has long been the forgotten skill in the game will be brought into greater focus given teams in the modern game are having enough shots to achieve a high score but due to poor skills or lack of practice at training do not reach this mark.

(Photo by Brett Hemmings/AFL Media/Getty Images)

The modern game has seen an almost cat and mouse scenario between coaches and rule makers as the coaches find weaknesses in the rules of the game which in turn causes the rule makers to react.

Both interchange rotations and the third-man up are examples of this. Coaches will naturally look to exploit the ability to gain this bonus point. The end result will mean a greater emphasis and scoring and scoring with ease.

Would they rather employ defensive tactics and win 70-50 when they can win 110-90 and claim the bonus point? On field structures would likely move away from their defensive nature and be based on allowing the ball to move more quickly from one end to the other to maximise scoring opportunities.

A counter to this argument is that the natural conditions of some ovals varies to others. Etihad Stadium provides the pristine playing surface that is conducive to higher scoring. However as demonstrated in recent history it is by no means a guarantee of good football or even high scoring football.

The worry about dew ridden slippery night games is moot given the many examples of teams being able to score despite these conditions. The torrential downpour of Round 1 in Townsville and games of this nature are becoming more and more rare as fixturing and stadiums improve.

The basics hold up: if a team is good enough it will score well regardless of the conditions. This will be brought further to light should the bonus point option be considered.

As the bonus on offer is one point it finds the balance between awarding high scoring play fairly but not outwardly affecting the ladder to too high a degree. While it can be argued that the potential 22 extra points available is excessive it must be remembered that all teams have this opportunity and the by-product of enticing teams to achieve these points is higher scores.

Zoning moves the game away from its roots and brings it into territory that is not unique to the sport. The ability to gain possession at any part of the field from multiple directions is what makes our game vibrant and unique given the size of field involved.

As seen with the interchange free-kicks umpiring zones and player placement would involve counting and positioning that will stop the natural flow of a game and its momentum. Instead of adding this new aspect to the game wouldn’t it be a more natural progression to consider a method that is already part of the game itself?