The easy fix to the AFL's scoring woes

I am not at all convinced, firstly that this year is really statistically different from previous years, secondly, that if there is any real difference that it is caused by the 6,6,6 rule rather than the other rule changes such as no runners during play or event the new kick in rules. What has happened with the new rules is the games are more open and better to watch with more one on one battles.

I agree the holding the ball interpretations this year are way off. Even when I am not watching my team, I still find myself throwing my hands up, yelling "Ball!!!" and then "Why is that not a free?" The number of times I have seen players tackled, turned a full circle, and still not get whistled, is too many to count. I am not sure that returning to the old faster whistle would help increase scoring, but it would certainly take away some of my frustrations around what is and is not a free kick.

If you think thats a rant well read it again without projecting your emotions onto it. But now I understand where the "spare me " comes from. And if you also believe that the umpires calling every technical free they see is going to open up the game well your a long way off the mark. Every umpire sees the game differently and the rules are open to interpretation. The umpires need to express themselves in the ebb and flow of the contest. They have to judge a players intentions and players are always going to bluff. So tiggy touchwood technical calling won't do what you believe it will. The best bluffers will get even more frees. I know it's frustrating when you see a kick that's not paid but you just have to back the umpires in. I do encourage your further ideas on this of course as there is truth in what you say. No ... it's the coaches trying to eke out a win and who can blame them. It's not uncommon among coaches to echo the sentiment that we want to keep them to 5 goals or they pride themselves on how low the other teams score is. Yet in the annuls of history we don't celebrate these achievements. The cats 37 goals or whatever it is not that hard to bring to mind but what is the lowest score of all time. Why not give disincentive points and Maybe the Brownlow should go ta a tagger. Put Ryan Crowly on the posters. That's getting a bit ranty can you spot the difference? Anyway cheers to you Richie My sounding board. I just don't rate winning that highly when the game is what is important. Your ideas of Incentive points are along the lines and at least address the issue. I do notice other codes experimenting with them Netball and Rugby among them. I just find them a bit peacemeal. (sic) But they may be the political compromise in a world of differing opinions. I'm a revolutionary in this case and a dreamer. I see sport as a contest for sure but to bring out the best in yourself not just to beat the other guy. Where's the joy in that? But I do say Laurels to the winners so there is that. The exhibition match theory could work though. There's kind of the seeds of it there with the thematic rounds the AFL does so well. You see if the teams were aligned to charities in the communities they represent then everyone would win. You know they say you can tell the relationship between two countries by where their games are at. cheers

I understood your Eastern philosophy rant but I stand by the “spare me” comment, because I find the patronising “this is how they do in the East as opposed to us silly Westerners” kind of old too. Sorry if you don’t like me cutting down your proposal but I think it has absolutely no merit and my point about showing me a real life example, is because there is none. I even offered an alternative points system (the exact number of points you could play with) which does offer something other than winner takes all. It is not that original in that it is similar to other sports with bonus points (thinking one day or T20 cricket and I think Rugby League might have or have had something similar based on the number of tries) – my point is these are real examples that seem to have worked to achieve the type of outcome you desire for footy, i.e. more scoring. In other threads (back to last year when rule changes were discussed) I have in fact tried to address what I think is the real cause of the problem people see in footy. This is the non-applying of rules, leading to continued ball ups and conjestion when a free is warranted. I even mentioned getting rid of prior opportunity in the same manner IAP discusses below, which could have a greater impact than the 6-6-6 rule introduced this year. So there are some alternatives for you. Not bad for a Westerner hey?

Hardly rocket science, go back to the rules the AFL had before they began changing them. Ditto the length of the quarters...return to only two interchange and you can bring on one emergency if a guy is genuinely injured... in that case he cannot play the following week.

Lucky for me this conversation is not just taking place in your imagination, let alone those other imaginations you speak of. The Eastern philosophy business was to show you why you are helping me present my idea by directly opposing it, cos that's the western way. Kapish? Anyways.... I work hard on these so I find the "spare me" routine kind of old. So... the point of all this is to make the game a better spectacle which doesn't seem to bother you but I hear it first hand and broadcast far and wide on Melbournes top brekky show. It's a thing...boring football. John Burns (3AW)first thing Monday morning this week he says "I saw three games of footy and they were all boring" He's talking about the brand of game that is supposed to be the top one in the country. He should be lauding high marks and spectacular goals but no it's kind of samy samy and low scoring. And that's this year with a more free flowing style than the last few years infestation of rolling mauls. The AFL is implementing rule changes not because they want to. It's because of the way the game is looking and the low scoring. All I have done is located the cause of the negative tactics which is in the way the results are tabled. Yes it cuts to the core of what sport is all about and how we need some kind of loser to make us feel like winners. You say people won't be satisfied unless its winner takes it all. It's fine to say that but you are not confronting the situation. Cos at the moment a lot of people aren't going home satisfied either way.

Well you're right, it would definitely increase scoring. It would also mean no reward whatsoever for good defence across the season, thus totally annulling one avenue of integrity in our great game. An idea that would actually destroy the game, not fix it

Maybe in your eyes it stands up but it doesn't in mine and I can't image it would in just about anyone elses. Spare me the Eastern philosophy business unless you have a real life example of a sporting competition that works like that. Your idea of winning money for charity is great for an exhibition match but that is about it. The need for points - I think I have explained it pretty well with the one example - a team winning by 1 point has next to no advantage over a team losing by a point. The fans of the winning team need to go home satisfied, but most weeks it would be closer the current feeling after a draw. Not much more I can say on this.

Yeh no idea really, how is it adjudicated now? I remember people bagging Melbourne and Collingwood last year for their records against top 8 teams. I agree that the current situation is fine though.

You help by seeing if the idea stands up in the face of opposition which it has so far. I am not attached to it and if something better comes along then hooray for them. In the WESTERN culture we do have a rather primitive combative way of advancing ideas. We try to destroy it and then if it still stands we accept it as just normal. In the Eastern philosophy they just look at an idea or object and see if it's any use to them. We have one group of politicians running our country and another trying to destroy the ones trying to run it. It's par for the course for an idea to be ridiculed and dismissed out of hand and opposed and exhausted or ignored. It has to stand up to all that and those who present it are the worst kind of person for a time...idiot, buffoon, glory seeker, whatever can be thought of to try to see if they can be put off. Maybe it is but I havent heard anything that's a deal breaker for me. I understand the win loss thing and I do wrestle with the idea that maybe having winners is more important than having a spectacular game but so far all I see is more and more frustrated crowds bought on by lack of goals. Maybe Your point system is an improvement as it does acknowledge the winner while rewarding high scores so it has those things going for it. I don't see that defense needs any recognition ladder wise as the test of that is the other teams score which is already recorded so no necessity to double down on that. I did have an idea that maybe the winner of each game might win something other than ladder points while the goals go on the ladder. maybe a charity or sponsor or something for kids or juniors or whatever. something to be proud of but at the same time let the scoring be the reward on the ladder. I just don't see the need for the points. Where is the necessity I say?

Is that top 8 when they played them or have to wait til the end of the year?

Not sure how I have helped, I don’t see many responses of people agreeing with you. The 4 point system is not primitve. Most sporting competitions are the world that I am aware of have something similar, with percentage or goal difference separating teams on similar points. Try coming up with something a bit credible. Off the top of my head (not that I would bother with it), 3 points for a win, 0.5 points for over 20 goals, 0.5 point for keeping your opposition under 20 goals. Up to 4.5 points up for grabs (4 for the winner, 0.5 for the loser.) You have to have an incentive to defend, hence the bonus for keeping your opposition score lower. There is still a risk of something dodgy at the end of the season, but not as bad as your proposal. It is also unfair on a team playing at the MCG in a wet winter vs. a team playing indoors down the road, not to mention weather variations across the country. But we have a compromised draw anyway, so the best teams should be thereabouts in September anyway. If you use my proposal and it gets up I will hate you for it, but you are welcome anyway.

What alternatives?

Okay thanks Richie I won't get personal with you.' I appreciate your comments and in a funny way helping me present my case. It may be a lame idea but it only has to service the game better than the four point system which is responsible for negative coaching. Crowds are becoming more frustrated, as the scores drop and the game kind of repeats itself more than before. Earlier you spoke of unintended consequences which is a popular phrase this year. Well dig this little pearl... We are living with the unintended consequences of the games founders and their primitive four point system. Win/Loss is simple, everyone gets it and it works up to a point. It just doesn't cater for spectacle. Gettin more dour by the hour.

Just because I have called out your lame idea for what it is, there is no need to get personal. Why don't you put your original proposal to not count wins, only tally up the number of goals scored at the end of the home away season to the AFL to decide on the final 8 and see what response you get.

I am not sure it would help. I think it would just be more kicking to a pack, then either a mark or congestion and ball up.

Maybe the ladder ties should be decided by number of top 8 scalps?

WOuldn't make enough difference. They need to drop to at least 16 in a trial year and if necessary 14-15 and extend the interchange bench to 6.

"In terms of cheapening the win, it does if the end game is finals because a 1 point win makes no difference to the end game than a 1 point loss. That is the problem. " You do have problems Richie (or at least you go out of your way to find them) and it would be better for everyone if you admitted it.

Yeah I agree the footy is always good, well mostly... I like goals and I think the way the results are tabled encourages negating skills. I know a lot of the crowds are frustrated with the brand. It's negligence to ignore that. Recording the ultimate achievements in the game (goals) directly onto the ladder solves the defensive mindsets. Two men enter one man leave is a primitive concept. Winner take all is not a necessity. Acknowledge the game itself and let it speak. The numbers 16 - 14 (or whatever) is not a crime against humanity. It's an extremely creative and timely suggestion.