It’s that time of year again.
Tinker time.
“The game is too slow.” “The game is too fast.” “There are too many players on the field.” “Reduce the interchange.” “No backwards kicks.” “Bring in the 6-6-6, oh wait, we already did that one.”
The AFL will explore all options, none are likely to make the game significantly less defensive and all could potentially have unintended consequences. One suggested change has been to rule play on for any mark from a kick backwards, encouraging more attacking football.
However, players may tread more carefully before attempting to switch the play, resulting in more long kicks down the boundary to a contest, and consequently more stoppages.
Economists praise incentives as a powerful tool for influencing behaviour. For example, they have long called for a carbon price to encourage divestment from fossil fuels, while governments dabble in other ineffective strategies.
Incentives are efficient because they change behaviour without changing the fundamentals of the situation, such as the rules of the game.
How could the AFL incentivise scoring? The answer is simple. What do coaches care about more than anything? Premiership points. Average over 60 for the season, you get one premiership point. Average over 70, two points, etc.
The result is that a team that finishes on 15 wins with an average of 100 points could slip into the top four ahead of a team that finishes on 15 wins with an average of 95 points. Coaches would be silly not open up the game and create higher-scoring affairs. We may even see a natural return to more conventional six-player forward lines.
Why even consider finicky rules like the current ten-metre interference lottery or an adjudicated 6-6-6 at every single stoppage when there is a simpler option? The most effective way to encourage scoring is to do exactly that – encouraging more scoring.
Lukey Miller
Guest
Keep it simple. Reduce interchanges to 20 per game. Require that at least 4 players from a team are in each of the 50 metre arcs when play is recomenced after any stoppage - except a centre bounce (666 rule).
Cracka
Roar Rookie
I like the idea the issue for me is the different weather conditions we play in and the sizes of the grounds we play on, if all game where played on fields exactly the same size and indoors, then I think it would work.
DingoGray
Roar Guru
I don’t mind this idea. It’s been used in other sports in some form like Super Rugby (bonus points for certain amount of tries scored win or lose ) & Cricket as well. It would have to come in Round to Round. Kick so many goals get a bonus point.
Simon G
Roar Rookie
As the great Austin Powers once said, “oh no I’ve gone cross eyed”... Way too complicated!!!!
Lucas Lewit-Mendes
Roar Pro
These are certainly very valid arguments against a bonus system. However, it could be mitigated by adjusting each team's average based on historical levels of scoring at grounds they play at. This may complicate things and make them less transparent, so this would have to be weighed against the benefits of a higher scoring season.
Brendon the 1st
Roar Rookie
I straight up dislike bonus points in any comp, it's convoluted and gives teams advantages as mentioned above. This will sort itself out when normal quarters return but I still think an interchange reduction is a good idea in the long run.
RT
Roar Rookie
No. A team with less wins has to finish below a team with more wins. For teams on the same wins, we already have percentage to separate them and this won't make any difference to home they play.
Simon G
Roar Rookie
The problem with that is you have 5 Melbourne teams that play their home games indoors in perfect conditions that could produce high scores while you have teams that have to continuously play at night/raining where scoring is harder to come by. Could you imagine winning more games than a certain team but missing the finals because you happened to play a few wet weather games during the year that lowered your scoring average?
SimplySimon
Guest
No more tinkering please. Haven't we had enough of that already this year ? If we must continue with this abomination of a season then lets at least stick with what we have already got instead of making it up as we go along.
WiseManOnceSaid
Guest
The idea is okay, if it’s a level playing field. However, you might be playing in the driving rain, and only manage 8 goals for the game. When, on the same night, another game is going, in a different part of the country, under a roof, and they manage 20 goals. That could cost you a top 4.