We’re used to percentage - and it would be a change.
Same size ball, same size goals. Kick the one through the other and you get the same score.
I’m not sure what’s actually less fair about it? It tilts the balance much more towards scoring, end of story.
FWIW it’d only really change a couple of spots on current ladder:
I did find a link to the AFL website but it brought up the ‘out of bounds’ page that you get when articles predate the website update.
This is the nearest I’ve got…
I recall following DT stats late in games and watching live and noticed that any tackle was being counted. Then the next year they stopped counting when the ball went to a player of the same team and stated the clarification.
It looks like it was before that time period anyway. Probably when Ross Lyon went all forward press on everyone. But I do distinctly remember it happening. Just can’t find record of it.
Yeah me either. Which seems odd, and I’d really expect to see it reflected in the numbers.
I wonder if we’re both kinda half right/half wrong, and it was a change of “interpretations”, but not actually a change of rules per se?
Definitely wasn’t rules as such.
It came directly from champion data.
I think they just got annoyed of counting crappy tackles as a +4 in DT.
It was interesting that in the BF link they mentioned they still count an attempted tackle as a pressure act.
The percentage is the least of the issues. The unfairness of the draw/grounds is much more important. Getting to play a crap side twice is much more powerful when it’s not just a percent of two boost.
P.S. the biggest change to the 2019 ladder would be us, down from 8th to 13th 
Since 2000, average points scored at grounds with at least 98 games (to get Perth Stadium in):
Docklands 96
Gabba 96
MCG 91
Subiaco 90
Football Park 90
GWS 89
SCG 88
Kardinia 87
Stadium “Australia” 87
Carrara 86
Adelaide 86
York 84
Perth 82
That’s actually more even than I thought it would be, but no surprise with the ground on top.
The highest team average at the MCG is 99. Five teams, including us, beat that at Docklands.
Geelong have a 19 point lead over the next best team at Kardinia. Gold Coast lead only Freo at Carrara.
For a test which largely removes home advantages and which teams have been good over that 20 years: the only teams who score more at the MCG than Docklands are Freo and Fark Carlton.
(Ha! Freo have played the same number of MCG matches as Norf.)
That to me says there’s really not much difference.
Particularly given nearly half the games at Perth stadium would’ve been Ross Lyon coached Freo sides.
No, you’ve misunderstood my suggestion- only changing percentage to points scored.
Wins/losses is still the aim of the game, still the first column. No change there.
Points for after that.
I guess if two teams are tied for w/l & points scored, percentage is next.
NB going back through recent ladders, it wouldn’t really make much difference - a few swaps here and there, but normally top 4 are clear on wins and losses.
I just think swapping PF & percentage is the easiest/cleanest/least disruptive way to dis-incentivise the focus on defence.
Whatever you do, ground and weather conditions add a level of luck to the equation.
That hasn’t gotten any worse - ground conditions are (on average) much better than they ever have been.
Rule change that doesn’t do anything?
Sign me up!
Well, yeah. On past results.
The aim would be that coaches would start to emphasise kicking big scores, once we actually make it worth their while.
Have a panel of judges score teams out of ten on how they played
I agree with the bonus point system and that coaches need incentive to play a less defensive and more attacking style. The only issue i see is that teams will still opt for going defensive and just getting the four points if there is no de-incentive to score below a certain number.
I think a system of bonus point for scores over 100 = +1
Scores under say 70 = -1
between 70 and 100 = standard 4 points for a win, 0 for a loss
The the ladder would work
Essendon 4 wins, 1 loss, +2 bonus points = Total points 18
St Kilda 4 wins, 1 loss, -2 bonus points = Total points 14
Percentage only comes in if teams end on the excact same total points which will be rare.
It means for example that back in the day the sydney swans grind out a win:
59 - 35 (3 points for the win coz they bored us to death)
West Coast win 105 to 89 (5 points for the win because they played an attacking and risky style which was enjoyable to watch)
Reward for playing an attacking game style instead of clogging it up, kicking down the line as a defensive kick all the time etc. Weather would be the only issue, but they could come use 80 and 50 for those games with a pre-determined set figure for certain amount of rain during match time.
The spot betting and finals-determining opportunities would be fantastic.
The 2020 AFL fixture is a mess. Actually it is a mess every year but this year is now verging on ridiculous. It has zero integrity and is demeaning the competition.
For the rest of 2020 they need to look at two conferences, Vic teams all in one, and WC, Freo, PA, Adel, GC, Bris, GWS and Syd in the other. Covid aint going away any time soon.
What if it rains for half the game? Or a quarter?
What about heat? Queensland can be tough to play in huh humidity.
The incentives for ladder position won’t be fair due to different weather to certain states and teams. Regardless of what you do.
What if the ball bounces one way or the other? There are so many variables in footy that you’re always going to have issues like that. However as an incentive to get teams scoring more I think bonus points are a great idea.
Well as i said in the last paragraph, they go through the data of previous years and settle on a set minimum and maximum. With regards to the rain if a certain amount of rain during match time (however many ml’s fell) then the wet weather rule is enacted which bring the points system to 50 and 80 points or whatever for that game. Its not rocket science, if you have a set measurable that everybody runs by prior to the system being introduced.
What you don;t want is leaving it up to the head honchos at AFL house to decide if they think it was wet enough or not on that day, it needs to be a set trigger point for the entire year to reach that classification.
With regards to the betting on set margins, it already happens with < 39 points, < 20 points etc. A team is always going to attempt to achieve no loss of a bonus point so why would a club intentionally try fall under a certain score when negative ramifications to their end ladder position can occur.
I suppose only the coaches know but is it possible teams are not willing to play an attacking style of footy at the moment because if you do and find yourself five or six goals down there may not be enough time to claw it back? Grinding out a defensive game gives you a better chance of winning in a shortened game.
Talk about terrible Ideas, No Idea.
Wow, … that was some carnival ride of posts… 
