Opinion Bonus points

[Topkent]

aside from the obvious issues with the weather, am I the only person who thinks a high scoring blowout (as a neutral fan) is much more boring than a low scoring slog?

There's absolutely no context to that statement.

Is the blowout 150-100, where the scores only separated in the last quarter?
Is the close game 32-50, where the side infront always had them 5 goals infront and the loser kicks a couple late to make it look close?

At the end of the day attacking tough footy is better than defensive footy. Who wants to see a whole quarter of defending with 1 goal? There's no more hangers, no more fights, no more bumps, no more one on one contests no more big forwards kicking bags.

We may aswell try and get one of those back and using the worst case scenario as argument is ignoring how great the 120-118 games are with different momentum swings and changing leads.

No one is buying a ticket to go and see blokes lay 10 tackles and zone really well, you wanna see high marks and goals.

 

[Do the Dew]

The other issue is the 100 or 120 barrier is completely arbitrary. Imagine if a team finished on 99 points and missed out on finals because they didn't get a bonus point or something. It would be farcical.

Others here have pointed out the unintended consequences of rule changes. This is something that the AFL has completely ballsed up recently and shows that they have no idea what the true cause and effect of rule changes are and how coaches/teams exploit them. A couple of examples:

1. Ruck nomination - AFL thought would be that it would allow rucks to grab the ball and clear packs, also reduces injury from no 3rd man up. However now you get a lot of ruck taps dropping at the feet and not clearing congestion. There's also been examples of teams deliberately pausing or arguing about who is nominated so that more players can get to the contest.

2. 666 - AFL thought there would be more space for forwards = higher scores. However the loose defender is now being taken away so rebounding from a poor I50 from a center square clearance is a lot harder because you can't link up play with a loose player.

 

[iluvparis]

If people are arguing that weather is the determining factor for them being against having bonus points, than the same applies for statistics. A few seasons ago the Sydney swans played half their games in wet weather footy, which diminished their overall efficiency effectiveness stats, but their tackle count and pressure rating went through the roof!
Do we than abolish fantasy footy and pressure ratings because it is a flawed system?
If we agree that both are flawed, than I advocate for every stadium to have a roof, which eliminates the doubt. But that won't be happening anytime soon!

Ridiculous argument that totally misses the point - are fantasy points used in any way to rank teams on the ladder?

 

[HTT]

Wouldn't even work. Teams don't even really chase percentage until its certain they need it (the last few rounds).
They aren't going to sacrifice a win for a possible extra point, so they would only chase it when the result is out of doubt. Great. A few extra goals at the end of a blowout.

 

[coldlunch]

There's absolutely no context to that statement.

Is the blowout 150-100, where the scores only separated in the last quarter?
Is the close game 32-50, where the side infront always had them 5 goals infront and the loser kicks a couple late to make it look close?

At the end of the day attacking tough footy is better than defensive footy. Who wants to see a whole quarter of defending with 1 goal? There's no more hangers, no more fights, no more bumps, no more one on one contests no more big forwards kicking bags.

We may aswell try and get one of those back and using the worst case scenario as argument is ignoring how great the 120-118 games are with different momentum swings and changing leads.

No one is buying a ticket to go and see blokes lay 10 tackles and zone really well, you wanna see high marks and goals.

pretty weird reply, but i'll try answer it. out of the two equally unlikely scenarios you've given, yes, i would rather watch the second one, but I'm not sure why you're making me pick one when neither are typical of what I was talking about?

what bearing you think one-sided goal fests have on bumps, high marks and fights, I have no idea, but as for ticket sales, we're talking about neutral fans who generally only watch on tv, and as a neutral fan, I'm much more likely to turn a game off if the result is set in the third quarter than sit through more set shots and ad breaks just to watch someone maybe kick a bag. it sounds like you're different, and that's cool, my post wasn't saying people aren't or can't be into that. there's a lot of different things to enjoy in footy, and I happen to quite like the strategy of zoning, skills under pressure, outmanned sides finding ways to stay competitive and the theatre of watching a close game that can turn right to the siren. I suspect a lot of people calling for footy to be more how it was a generation ago are either just remembering the highlights or a time when their team was beating up on bad sides.