Agree, we want footballers not 400mtr runners, lets not get away from our game.
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Would 15 or 16 a side work and would you want it?
- Thread starter RUNVS
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The problem is congestion. Therefor the most obvious solution is to remove some players. For that reason I'm all for expanding trials.
2 less defenders has to be a chance to open up room in the corridor which is really the biggest detriment to scoring right now. If you keep a team down one side of the ground then forwards can only lead one way and defending becomes far easier. Not to mention goal kicking is much harder from the pocket too.
The worry is we'll see something similar to what occurred a bit with the stand rule and also has become popular with Richmond in particular mastering the deep drop back defender with Rance/Grimes, Geelong keeping their backline at home a lot and then Melbourne this year playing a deep sliding back zone.
Teams will allow midfield transition and then try to beat you when you kick it back to them. And instead of what we often see now with 6 defenders on 5 attackers it will be 5 defenders on 4 attackers. 5 attackers have a decent chance against 6. 4 on 5 is harder. This has been a common problem in AFLW, the ball movement has got better, but zoning defenders have crushed bad teams who can't get numbers forward as they attack because with one less forward the extra number is harder to man up.
More trials, see what happens in the trade off between:
1.Extra room to create play through the corridor
v
2. The zoning back defender having a greater numbers advantage.
2 less defenders has to be a chance to open up room in the corridor which is really the biggest detriment to scoring right now. If you keep a team down one side of the ground then forwards can only lead one way and defending becomes far easier. Not to mention goal kicking is much harder from the pocket too.
The worry is we'll see something similar to what occurred a bit with the stand rule and also has become popular with Richmond in particular mastering the deep drop back defender with Rance/Grimes, Geelong keeping their backline at home a lot and then Melbourne this year playing a deep sliding back zone.
Teams will allow midfield transition and then try to beat you when you kick it back to them. And instead of what we often see now with 6 defenders on 5 attackers it will be 5 defenders on 4 attackers. 5 attackers have a decent chance against 6. 4 on 5 is harder. This has been a common problem in AFLW, the ball movement has got better, but zoning defenders have crushed bad teams who can't get numbers forward as they attack because with one less forward the extra number is harder to man up.
More trials, see what happens in the trade off between:
1.Extra room to create play through the corridor
v
2. The zoning back defender having a greater numbers advantage.
Do we want fat forks who can’t run?
Maybe, the skills might improve if their isn’t 1000s around or behind the ball?
- Thread starter
- #29
Yes I don't think anyone is suggesting we implement it for the 2022 season but I think bringing it in for the 2022 VFL season is a good idea as it will allow a proper trial. Could even use it for one round of the 2022 AFL preseason and see how it goes there, just for a bit extra data.
I think we should begin trialing it next year as the sooner the trials begin the sooner it can be implemented if the trials prove successful.
- Thread starter
- #30
Honestly the game would be better if every player was required to be above a certain level in the skin folds tests, so every player was a bit unfit, but that is not a realistic idea.
I understand that, but i just think there would be a lot of good footballers missing out on the draft. The 1000s around the ball is a coaching problem, so fix that and we may get back to what the game was.
So teams are setting up for a deeper intercept then otherwise, meaning that when they do force the turnover they are further from goal, allowing their opponent time to set up defensively. The ball spends more time close to the middle of the ground, where neither team can score easily, therefore neither team feels particularly threatening, which reduces excitement.
In the most polite sentiment possible around this I can muster, I can only sum this idea as GTFO
There no need for it. We saw 16 a side in VFA as a kid and there were no wingers.
It is like saying, lets reduce cricket to 9 a side. There really is no reason for it.
and yes, also for tradition reason you screwing up the whole fabric of the game that been more than ok for well over 100 years.
As we saw in the grand final, 18 on field is not issue when coaches not allowed to congest a part of a ground
Football is played on a big ground. 18 spread across it is perfectly fine for entertaining Aussie Rules sport when it not reduced to every player in one small part of the field. The problem we have is when ball gets locked at either end in 50 metre arc. Whether there is 32 or 36 in one half, it virtually the same problem.
What we need to do is the obvious , when there a stoppage in either 50 metre arc you must have a few forwards down the other 50 metre arc. Whether it is 3 or 4 players from each side in opposite arc it just makes sense. You do not need to reduce players on the field, just need to spread the teams out, like it was meant to be played. The idea is to have a forward line. A centre bounce they already spread out. It is why you can see beautiful football where Melbourne just beat the Dogs to the ball from centre and simply outplayed them with skill to kick goals. The people in charge of the game saw the damage congestion was doing in the game in the late 60's and early 70's and brought in the centre square to spread players out. But now the game has been damaged by congestion in each forward 50 metre arc if ball gets stuck down either end. All they need to do is follow the same concept they brought in well before our time when centre square and now do a rule around stoppages within 50 metre arcs to spread the players out. It not that hard. The lines are already on the ground for 50 metre arc.
Blackas87
Brownlow Medallist
No, high scoring is for casuals
I think we should change to 5 v 5
One back, one ruck, 2 mids, one forward.
Allow the game to be won based on individual matchups
decrease the field size too so the game is more intense. maybe to a 30 foot long rectangle
change the goal to be more proportionate, maybe like a hoop 10 feet high, something like that
so its easier to control we should allow players to use a round ball and be able to throw it around
to give it more international appeal we should change the name slightly. maybe remove "aussie rules foot" and replace with "basket"
yeah five on five throwing the ball into a hoop! nice
One back, one ruck, 2 mids, one forward.
Allow the game to be won based on individual matchups
decrease the field size too so the game is more intense. maybe to a 30 foot long rectangle
change the goal to be more proportionate, maybe like a hoop 10 feet high, something like that
so its easier to control we should allow players to use a round ball and be able to throw it around
to give it more international appeal we should change the name slightly. maybe remove "aussie rules foot" and replace with "basket"
yeah five on five throwing the ball into a hoop! nice
basket case ideas. league
- Jun 14, 2017
- 3,498
- 5,588
- AFL Club
- Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, AC Milan, North Adelaide
Leave the game alone. I cant think of any other sport in the world that changes its rules and mandates as often as AFL.
- Thread starter
- #42
because the AFL keep trying to make small rule changes to fix the much larger problem, and because the rule changes are small they don't end up working so the AFL make more and more small changes in the hopes those changes are finally going to work. Much better to make one large rule change that will actually fix the issue.
I don’t think simply reducing the number of players on the ground will necessarily result in a certainty of increased scoring. With such a drastic change to the game, I would want it to be trialled for at least a number of years at the state level first.
This fundamentally changes our game and should not be a rule brought in on a wim in the hope it increases scoring. Their needs to be clear evidence over time which suggest a strong correlation between less players on the ground and higher scoring and greater enjoyment from the fans.
I don’t think it will make a huge difference. I’d say the positions which go would likely be the wings. This opens space in the corridor however the coaches will adapt and protect the defence as they do now. Teams may be able to move the ball through the centre cleaner however it would still result in a blockage fest within the arcs and limited space for forwards and defenders to move.
The increase in coaching and tactics is the cause of decreasing scoring and that’s what needs to change instead of the fundamentals of our game.
I think offering incentives for coaches to implement more attacking game styles will have a greater effect on scoring than significant rule changes if this is the path the AFL want to go down. Whether that’s a bonus point for scores over 100 or something I’m not sure but perhaps for teams which are equal on points, instead of using percentage to determine ladder position, bonus points could be used to seperate teams position on the ladder and then percentage if there is still a tie.
All in all, I don’t think increased scoring necessarily makes a game better. I think we would see improvement if the current rules were implemented correctly more often. Defenders are able to get away with murder some days compared to touchy frees given in the midfield. Pay these frees up forward and problem solved without recreating the wheel. I wouldn’t be against having 2 extra umpires on the field with 1 each only staying within the 50m arcs or even watching from the boundary so they aren’t taking up space. Their sole purpose is to watch for those holds and sh*t that the umpires down field miss as a forward tries to lead and create space.
This fundamentally changes our game and should not be a rule brought in on a wim in the hope it increases scoring. Their needs to be clear evidence over time which suggest a strong correlation between less players on the ground and higher scoring and greater enjoyment from the fans.
I don’t think it will make a huge difference. I’d say the positions which go would likely be the wings. This opens space in the corridor however the coaches will adapt and protect the defence as they do now. Teams may be able to move the ball through the centre cleaner however it would still result in a blockage fest within the arcs and limited space for forwards and defenders to move.
The increase in coaching and tactics is the cause of decreasing scoring and that’s what needs to change instead of the fundamentals of our game.
I think offering incentives for coaches to implement more attacking game styles will have a greater effect on scoring than significant rule changes if this is the path the AFL want to go down. Whether that’s a bonus point for scores over 100 or something I’m not sure but perhaps for teams which are equal on points, instead of using percentage to determine ladder position, bonus points could be used to seperate teams position on the ladder and then percentage if there is still a tie.
All in all, I don’t think increased scoring necessarily makes a game better. I think we would see improvement if the current rules were implemented correctly more often. Defenders are able to get away with murder some days compared to touchy frees given in the midfield. Pay these frees up forward and problem solved without recreating the wheel. I wouldn’t be against having 2 extra umpires on the field with 1 each only staying within the 50m arcs or even watching from the boundary so they aren’t taking up space. Their sole purpose is to watch for those holds and sh*t that the umpires down field miss as a forward tries to lead and create space.
- Jul 28, 2012
- 11,077
- 10,428
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- QPR, Buffalo Bills
They only play Aussie Rules in name only in 2021 and they stopped playing footy at the turn of the century, it staggered on until about 2021. 16 a side, it wouldn't surprise me and with more sanitary rule changes to come, they'll be playing Tag next and calling it football!
Blackas87
Brownlow Medallist
the biggest problem is people thinking there is a problem with the game.
Fix that one problem and we won’t need a major change or minor changes every year to the game.
spudmaster
Brownlow Medallist
Remember how s**t AFLX was.
I disagree that it will focus more on athleticism, the 'cross country basketball' tag for footy in the 60s did not see the elimination of skilled players, where one on one contests were a feature of the game.
We have changed the game by moving from 18 + 2 (no interchange) to 22 +1, with interchange, so we have changed the game whilst kidding ourselves its about player welfare.
Think you missed the comical sentiment that other poster and I were playing with.
Similar threads
