Time to Scrap %. Points For Only.

[juss]

It's not the perfect way to determine each team's position on the ladder.

That's not the point.

The point is that the AFL have been very, very clear that they want more 120-119 results every week. That would be the perfect product for them.

So the question becomes - how badly do they have to fu** the game on-field with rubbish rule changes in order to achieve it?

And even if they did, how quickly before coaches counter it anyway and bring the game back to dull, defensive, low risk, clogged up games anyway? Plus you're stuck with all the useless rule changes too.

So personnally, if we could get more games with high risk footy without ******* the game up on-field with rubbish rule changes, I'd absolutely take it - even if it means there's some minor irregularities like the scenario you brought up.

It's not about 'fixing' the percentage system - it's about sacrificing it rather than the heart and soul of the game itself - to achieve the AFL's goal.

You make some fair points, the problem is there's no real way to trial it and see how it goes unless you rolled it out in a season and just took the consequences. It obviously only works in season games played for points because it's not an on field rule, it only effects the ladder.

I'm also not yet convinced that higher scores = better footy, that's an assumption that's being made here which isn't always the case. I've seen great games as low scoring affairs all the way through to great high scoring games. In some situations, less is more.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

You make some fair points, the problem is there's no real way to trial it and see how it goes unless you rolled it out in a season and just took the consequences. It obviously only works in season games played for points because it's not an on field rule, it only effects the ladder.

I'm also not yet convinced that higher scores = better footy, that's an assumption that's being made here which isn't always the case. I've seen great games as low scoring affairs all the way through to great high scoring games. In some situations, less is more.

FWIW, I agree about high scoring. My opinion is that high risk footy where teams are attempting to score is 'attractive', but the score itself is largely inconsequential in terms of whether I find the game entertaining or not.

 

[juss]

FWIW, I agree about high scoring. My opinion is that high risk footy where teams are attempting to score is 'attractive', but the score itself is largely inconsequential in terms of whether I find the game entertaining or not.

I agree with that.
Coaches want control though, and so even with this suggested change I still feel like they will want to control the game and its easier to limit scoring than create it with current skills etc.