Clever idea to increase scoring

[kickazz]

High scoring games doesn't always equal good football. I don't know why so many people believe this.

They don't, but on average highest scoring games are better to watch.

 

[kickazz]

There OP's suggestion might be a bit out there, but what about his postulation that a behind has become too much of an overall bad thing for the team who scored it?

Who agrees offer disagrees?

I have started to agree, especially in the context of rushed behinds. Rather than pay frees for doing it, why not make the kick in not so much of an advantage?

 

[billyboutsis]

All that will do is open up blowouts late as both teams chase the extra point.
Teams won’t sacrifice a win for 1 point.

Disagree because over the course of a year if the coach is known to employ overly defensive tactics they could be giving up 1-2 games worth of points straight off the bat. Especially if there are 2 points up for grab for the highee scoee. If the game was to open up for arguments sake 20-25% would you not be content with the product?

 

[PowerForGood]

We could take the spirit of the left's infatuation with participation awards and say that regardless of whether you score or miss you get 6 points.

In fact we could go extreme clueless-about-sport-mum and say that scoring should result in less than 6 points because it's making the other kids feel bad.

Or we could just allow Dream Team to dictate scoring and just aim for kicks and handballs.

Why keep count at all? We're all winners then.

 

[HTT]

Disagree because over the course of a year if the coach is known to employ overly defensive tactics they could be giving up 1-2 games worth of points straight off the bat. Especially if there are 2 points up for grab for the highee scoee. If the game was to open up for arguments sake 20-25% would you not be content with the product?

If that strategy costs a team 3 games, is it worth it?

 

[LordLucifer]

Essendon vs GWS looks like being goalless in a season of record low scoring

The problem is teams are so terrified of taking a shot on goal, because when they miss the opposition can get away easily from the kick in. So they mess around with the ball in their forward line, handpassing and kicking everywhere but fowards, looking for "the perfecft shot" and eventually it gets turned over and the opposition takes it up the other end to do the same.

It has become such a team game that individuals are terrified of having a shot at goal because it's not the team thing to do

So lets make it, when you kick a behind, instead of the opposition getting the ball, there is a bounce down on the attacking teams 50 metre line. This will make players less scared to have a shot.

Or even better, imagine this, the attacking team actually gets to do the kick in after a behind. Rules they can only kick away from goal (obviously), they must kick it at least 25 metres, and it is automatic play on even if someone marks the kick in. We need to force players to "have a shot" rather than being team obsessed robots

I like the fact that you have offered a couple of lateral ideas but ..........................

 

[LordLucifer]

Longer, 25 minutes. I think junk time is when the most goals are scored because everyone is tired. Hence why scores are proportionally lower than 20% because defence holding up better.

I never fully understood the rationale behind reducing the quarter from 25mins down to 20mins. Yes, there was an anomaly with the clock still running when the ball went out of bounds but that was no reason to shorten the quarters, just have time-off so it isn't a waste of playing time.

I'm with you Purple, give us more bang for our buck and go back to 25min quarters.

 

[LordLucifer]

Each team can play a joker for one quarter. Scores count for double in that quarter so it would promote a gameplan promoting scoring.

This was very effective in "It's a Knockout" back in the 80s.

To tailor it to AFL needs, the team indicates that it is playing its joker by having key forward starting in goal square wearing a jester hat in club colours during that quarter.

For what it's worth, if you watch a full episode of It's a knockout you will see may innovations and production values that would translate well to the AFL.

I nearly took you seriously until you referenced "It's A Knockout" as the basis of your idea.

 

[LordLucifer]

Good point. How about 2 40 minute halves like rugby and soccer?

4 XX 40min quarters ??

 

[BigPond101]

Maybe 40 minute halves with no interchange is a solution

Anything to stop the game being 22 midfielders vs 22 midfielders with everybody jammed into one half

 

[Unique Name]

What the hell are you guys on about. We already know the solution.

Zooper Goals!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Hojuman]

What about making goals 10 points ?.Low scoring game problem solved.

It’s not fancy, but it’s CHEAP !.

I always thought making a " point " worth 3 say. Or a goal 5, point 2.

 

[Doggy Dan]

Don’t allow teams to flood the defensive 50. sure, it’s like netball rules but would be effective at opening the game up - something like minimum 5 players in your forward half if the ball is in your defensive 50.

Anyone who’s been to a game live will know there’s almost always every player inside defensive half, and 15 of them are inside defensive 50. It’s like watching the under 10s.

More goals = enjoying each of those less. Scarcity creates demand. Soccer fans regularly go weeks without seeing their team score......but when they do look at them celebrate!