What sort of mickey mouse sport would reduce players on the ground to increase scoring? Maybe soccer should get on board this genius strategy and cut to nine on the ground. Goalie can only use one hand.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Reducing the mumber of players from 18-a-side to 15-a-side would be one of the most radical rule changes in the history of the game.the simplest change to reduce congestion and one that doesn't require any change to the rules to be adjudicated by the umpires is fewer players on the ground. 5-5-5 15 aside and watch the game clean up and speed up. Everyone will be gobsmacked!
Kind of right direction but do not think we need to change anything drastic to game that never been done before.Two interchange, four reserves. Reducing the players on the ground seems a little drastic.
It's an idiotic idea. The best thing about it is they'd increase interchange to six and you'd have just as much congestion.Reducing the mumber of players from 18-a-side to 15-a-side would be one of the most radical rule changes in the history of the game.
Yeah, it might work... But don't act like it's nothing much.
That's a solid block of text that I'm too drunk to read. I think I get the gist though and I agree.Kind of right direction but do not think we need to change anything drastic to game that never been done before.
The game was played with no interchange before I started following it. It then had interchange for two players up into mid 90's. Since the four interchanges started being used in a way it was never meant for we seen the eventual decline in spectacle, to such a point, that I did not even bother watching tonight. Turned on Kayo for one minute to see it was three quarter time and 50 to 23 and knew another game of rotations allowing teams to all be running up one end and back again because we continue to allow this rotation era to ruin it as a spectacle. I think we can remove the rotation era without needing to adjust the reason for bench introduction to not be abused anymore. Simply make it any player in the game can come off once for a non-compulsory interchange (non-concussion or forced blood rule type) and we get back the interchange bench to what it primarily intended for and used for most of the 80's and 90's. Simple interchanges and not mass rotations.
What in effect it would do is mean interchanges that non-forced interchanges would be brought back to numbers it was before rotations became a thing.
22 players with one interchange each is 22 interchanges to start with. Any player that comes off a second time, not for concussion or blood rule reasons is off for good. Therefore in reality the interchanges a coach can use for tactics is no more than 26 during playing time. Obviously they can still switch side around at end of quarters and half time without them counted as interchanges. But what this does is bring it right back to before rotation era and use the interchange bench for what it is ended for. Coaches were not rotating the bench players when it first went to four there. It was probably under 30 before rotations became a thing. Four on bench is perfectly fine for the type of injuries the game has in course of four quarters and also does not mean any team is disadvantaged of the rotation era where if other team rotates their 22 able and fit players , if you got anyone out of game early you are down in rotations. Just remove rotations from the game and we have our game back to what it was designed to be about. The 18 v 18 battle on field. Not the 22 v 22 rotation battle of coaching box control.
Don't worry. First draft was typed quick and needed editing to fix up...lol.. Readable in morning when sober.That's a solid block of text that I'm too drunk to read. I think I get the gist though and I agree.
Kind of right direction but do not think we need to change anything drastic to game that never been done before.
The game was played with no interchange before I started following it. It then had interchange for two players up into mid 90's. Since the four interchanges started being used in a way it was never meant for we seen the eventual decline in spectacle, to such a point, that I did not even bother watching tonight. Turned on Kayo for one minute to see it was three quarter time and 50 to 23 and knew another game of rotations allowing teams to all be running up one end and back again because we continue to allow this rotation era to ruin it as a spectacle. I think we can remove the rotation era without needing to adjust the reason for bench introduction to not be abused anymore. Simply make it any player in the game can come off once for a non-compulsory interchange (non-concussion or forced blood rule type) and we get back the interchange bench to what it primarily intended for and used for most of the 80's and 90's. Simple interchanges and not mass rotations.
What in effect it would do is mean interchanges that non-forced interchanges would be brought back to numbers it was before rotations became a thing.
22 players with one interchange each is 22 interchanges to start with. Any player that comes off a second time, not for concussion or blood rule reasons is off for good. Therefore in reality the interchanges a coach can use for tactics is no more than 26 during playing time. Obviously they can still switch side around at end of quarters and half time without them counted as interchanges. But what this does is bring it right back to before rotation era and use the interchange bench for what it is intended for. Coaches were not rotating the bench players when it first went to four there. It was probably under 30 before rotations became a thing. Four on bench is perfectly fine for the type of injuries the game has in course of four quarters and also does not mean any team is disadvantaged of the rotation era where if other team rotates their 22 able and fit players , if you got anyone out of game early you are down in rotations. Just remove rotations from the game and we have our game back to what it was designed to be about. The 18 v 18 battle on field. Not the 22 v 22 rotation battle of coaching box control.
So far this round the umpires have paid only a couple of extra holding the ball free kicks. Mainly because players have been quicker to dispose of it rather tha sit on it and wait for a ball up.
The threat of more frees was enough to get coaches looking to move the ball more.
Thursday night was a great game. We saw kicks to packs and kicks to one on ones with players backing their team to mark it or gather the spoils and move.
Last night didnt look too bad once Essendon woke up and started playing, even in the wet.
Hopefully this continues.
All the talk of drastic changes needed is looking just silly.
Just make umpires accountable. It's easy. The absolute howlers should not be ignored.
This is what needs to happen, all the other options are kind of just band aids.It may just be easier to lower the amount of players on the field to 16, 15 or even 14 though, as that would immediately open up the play very easily.
And if BT, Wayne Carey or any other moron complains that they're "over umpiring" then take their microphone away.
Late in the final quarter of tonight's game, Collingwood kicked the ball deep in attack. They had a couple of players almost take possession with Essendon defenders putting heaps of pressure on them. It was one of those ugly pack situations in the making with a dozen or more players converging on the ball from all angles and nobody able to get a clean possession. A Collingwood player grabbed the ball and as he was tackled, he didn't really try to dispose of it properly, he was happy just to let it go in front of him.
It was gonna be one of those rolling maul situations: 30 seconds of scrappy sh*t with Brucey screaming hysterically, followed by a ball up...
But unlike last week... the umpire blew his whistle and penalised the Collingwood dude for incorrect disposal. The game stopped. The Essendon defender went back, scanned the field and then hit a 25m sideways pass. The Bombers then kicked the ball around the southern wing and hit 5 or 6 passes in quick succession and went deep inside their Forward 50. It was... GOOD!
The game suddenly looked recognizable as OUR GREAT GAME instead of ugly fumbleball
See, it's not rocket science. We don't need silly rule changes.
Clarkson is right: We already have rules. Pay the free kicks and the game will open up.
Umpires should never be instructed to ignore free kicks and "let it flow". That sounds good, but it actually wrecks the game.
Pay the free kicks if they're there (particurly HTB/incorrect disposal) and the standard of footy will be good.
And if BT, Wayne Carey or any other moron complains that they're "over umpiring" then take their microphone away.
It was one of those ugly pack situations in the making with a dozen or more players converging on the ball from all angles and nobody able to get a clean possession. A Collingwood player grabbed the ball and as he was tackled, he didn't really try to dispose of it properly, he was happy just to let it go in front of him.
It's not as radical as you obviously think.Reducing the mumber of players from 18-a-side to 15-a-side would be one of the most radical rule changes in the history of the game.
Yeah, it might work... But don't act like it's nothing much.
The AFL, and some of the second level leagues play 18 aside, but currently MANY local leagues , juniors and the womens leagues including AFLW play either 16 aside or 15 aside competitions.
That statement has no logic to it!The best thing about it is they'd increase interchange to six and you'd have just as much congestion.
I think you don't quite understand the concept of the terms "leagues" and "competitions".The under 10s don't keep score and everybody allegedly gets more out of the game as a result.
No reason to not give that a go too.
We're discussing the Australian Football League and its "competition" and I'm suggesting a way to improve the state of play in the AFL competition
No.So we aspire to a game where only an idiot would try to win the ball in traffic.
That's going to play out well.
Do we go back to 18-a-side when we realise that 15-a-side doesn't actually solve the problem of players crowding the contest and creating ugly rolling mauls?This is what needs to happen, all the other options are kind of just band aids.
It wont open up.Do we go back to 18-a-side when we realise that 15-a-side doesn't actually solve the problem of players crowding the contest and creating ugly rolling mauls?
Or do we double down and remove another 3 players and play 12-a-side?
Or option C: none of the above, don't change the rules, but enforce the current laws, pay all the free kicks and watch the game open up that way.