Because there is more ad breaks and more ad breaks is more exciting to AFL executives.Can someone please explain to me how a high scoring game is a better game? Its taken as an article of faith by so many, but the only winners I can see are boradcasters geting more ad breaks.
Personally I don't think it is.Can someone please explain to me how a high scoring game is a better game? Its taken as an article of faith by so many, but the only winners I can see are boradcasters geting more ad breaks.
My question is what are the AFL doing,???Personally I don't think it is.
But a game where teams are attempting to score heavily, as opposed to clogging up the game and doing everything they can to stifle free flowing play is, in my opinion, a good thing.
Players taking risks, backing themselves, instead of being safe - is a good thing.
The scoring shouldn't be manufactured, however.
Would be nice to see a forward kick 100 goals again.Can someone please explain to me how a high scoring game is a better game? Its taken as an article of faith by so many, but the only winners I can see are boradcasters geting more ad breaks.
100% this.I don't agree with the proposal as it's impacted by weather too much. But I will say this, people who obsess over the rules and their implementation, non-implementation, changing etc. are focusing on the wrong issue. The problem is, as the OP said, the coaches. Coaches have made the game congested and clogged because they choose where players go. You really think it's the umpiring which leads to flooding and a swarm around the footy? No, it's coaches. You really think it's the rules which encourage players to play the chip mark chip mark possession game? No, it's the coaches. We could have the same game with the same rules and the same players but with different coaching philosophies and have games where scoring is much higher.
Ultimately you could tweak the rules or how teams are ranked or whatever but the fundamental issue is that coaches focus more on not losing than winning and that coaches are obsessed with control, control of the ball, control of their opponent and control of their own players. I've seen games played in the pristine conditions of Docklands which are utterly boring defensive snoozefests. You can't tell me that's just the rules.
I see a few problems with that...Not the best suggestion OP, for reasons mentioned in this thread. Ground differences, conditions, winning margins ignored, etc.
Percentage is actually something that works reasonably well in our game over the course of a season as a differentiator. IMO there's no real need to change that to encourage higher scores.
Being able to defend and defend well is a perfectly legitimate fundamental of the game. You cant punish defensive teams on the ladder because you don't like the style.
If I wanted to encourage high scoring, I'd drop a player from the field to open things up and reduce interchanges a bit more.
The problem with all this is that team defence is what wins games. That’s why everyone does it.I see a few problems with that...
As per the premise of the OP, it doesn't matter what you implement on-field - coaches will counter it. They will always be working to reduce scoring as their priority, to reduce the flow of play, to restrict the creativity of players, and to eliminate 1 on 1s. Basically, all the good stuff.
On-field changes do fu** all ultimately, other than rip at the fabric of the sport.
It's treating the symptom, not the cause.
Secondly, the OP isn't about punishing defensive teams as such - it's about encouraging coaches to put more emphasis on attacking. You still need to defend to win the game.
However you wouldn't hear the phrase 'gee they can't afford a blowout here as it could really hurt their percentage' any more.
Good defensive teams are what has f’ed the game. Good defensive players however, have always been and still are fantastic to watch.
Watching a good defensive player ply their craft should not be 'punished' or artificially negated with sh*t on-field changes. This is tantamount to choreography.
It's the team defence that has made the game so sh*t to watch. Watching 18 guys stand in zones, forcing stoppage after stoppage, and 10 on 10 marking contests is just rubbish. That's what team defence is.
Forcing the coaches to adjust their priority away from the 'defence first' mentality is the key IMO.
Think about the logic of the AFL saying they want more 'Dusty moments', and in the meantime they are providing the tools, resources and incentive to 18 Professional coaches and their coaching departments to spend every waking moment doing every thing they can to stop 'Dusty moments' from occurring!! And they are doing NOTHING to address the real issue which is that there is zero incentive for coaches to NOT try to snuff 'Dusty moments' from the game.
Can warm you up on a cold day so long as it's your team scoring all the goals
I don't necessarily think it's stupid - however it is totally counter productive to what the AFL is actually trying to achieve.They are getting rid of other long standing traditions in the game so this should go too. Its the only sport in the world that uses % on a ladder. Just stupid backwards tradition
1st most important is wins and the best way to get those currently is playing team defence.I don't necessarily think it's stupid - however it is totally counter productive to what the AFL is actually trying to achieve.
% is literally the 2nd most important metric in the H&A season. After Wins, it determines your spot on the ladder.