COMPETITION Committee member Brad Scott is philosophically opposed to Nathan Buckley's suggestion prior opportunity should be abolished in a bid to reduce congestion, saying "the game should always protect the ball player".

And his brother, Geelong coach Chris, has labelled Buckley's proposal "one of the silly ideas".

Collingwood coach Buckley told SEN radio on Wednesday morning he favoured scrapping the prior opportunity rule, arguing that penalising players for holding the ball when they hadn't had an opportunity to dispose of it would force teams not to commit so many numbers around contests.

"Tactics would change because you wouldn't get as much handballs in tight and if you don't get as many handballs in tight then you're less likely to commit your numbers in tight. You're more likely to commit your numbers to other parts of the ground," Buckley said.

North Melbourne coach Scott told reporters on Wednesday he was reluctant to comment on Buckley's proposal because it was an issue that should be addressed by the newly formed Competition Committee, which is due to meet for the first time next Thursday.

He and Brisbane's Chris Fagan are the only coaches on the 12-person panel.

However, Scott strongly suggested it was not a proposal he would endorse.

"What I will say is that football has and always will start in a contest and the player who makes the ball his objective and hunts the ball first should be given protection, in terms of high contact, holding the man, all those sorts of things," Scott said.

"My view pretty simply is that if he's making the ball his objective it's very hard to ping him when he hasn't had opportunity to distribute the ball.

"To me, the game should always protect the ball player."

Scott was strongly supported by his brother, Geelong coach Chris, who said Buckley's suggestion was "silly".

"It'd make it (congestion) much worse in my opinion, I think that's one of the silly ideas," Chris Scott said when addressing the media, also on Wednesday.

"I'd just ask anyone to watch the game through the lens of there being no prior opportunity, there'd be 500 free kicks a game."

Chris Scott said Buckley's suggestion could actually worsen the problem it was intended to solve.

"I actually think the interpretation at the moment is way too hard, we should be giving players an opportunity to get rid of the ball," he said.

"I probably lean the other way, I think we absolutely should reward the players going for the ball.

"The notion that you can just sweat on a player and as soon as he takes possession you can knock the ball out with a tackle and get a free kick is just counter to everything we teach young players."

There has been widespread criticism of the state of the game following a low-scoring start to the season in which congestion, particularly inside defensive 50s, has appeared at an all-time high.

After six rounds, the average score per match has dipped to 169 points, down from 186 last season and 185 in 2016.

Brad Scott did not share the concerns of the "doomsayers who bemoan how good football used to be", saying the game had definitely improved over the past few decades.

"I think the game's in a pretty good state. But can it be better? They're the questions that we've got to ask," he said.

Scott also addressed the two most popular suggestions for reducing congestion: lowering interchange rotations from their current limit of 90; and introducing zones.

The Roos coach was concerned reducing rotations would lead to a rise in injury rates.

"If you make too drastic a change and then we have a spate of injuries, for example, that are attributed to lower interchange then the risk is that we have to change it back," he said.

"I wouldn't like to see the game change drastically from year to year."

Scott supported a trial of zones at junior level or in the state leagues, but not in the AFL.

"A trial would be worthwhile, but to bring it straight into the AFL I think is a bridge too far at the moment," he said.

"As to what we want the final product of football to look like, there is merit to trialling that at junior levels and even in the second tier, but if we bring it straight into the AFL it might have drastic changes to the way the game looks and that could be concerning."