Opinion 16 a side - why not?

[Jimmae]

Not liking the golden generation argument being thrown in here, as I suspect that most modern footballers would look incredibly skillful if the game became 10% slower overnight.

 

[HBF]

Sitting on the fence at the moment.
Talk is they are going to trial it in next years pre-season competition.
Would like to see how it looks before I jump one way or another.

 

[Blue__Balls]

I think it could work, but I'm not sure by itself it would reduce congestion all that much. There are a couple of possibilities I've been mulling over for the best part of a year.

- Minimum 3 players in your own forward 50 at all times.

This would generally result in three defenders as well, sometimes four. It instantly takes 12 players out of range of any midfield stoppages, and 6 out of stoppages at either end of the ground. Teams could of course play a defender higher up the ground to get an extra number in the middle, but it would guarantee they were leaving an opposition forward open.

- Increase minimum kick=mark distance from 15m to 20m.

Dinky little chips around the ground, we all hate them. Increasing the distance you have to kick to be awarded a mark presumably spreads the field a little more. Also encourages shots on goal as there's less space defenders have to guard if a player marks 45m out, thereby making it harder for players to effect a short kick within the 50m arc.

 

[1981]

All jokes aside I am all for it, certainly at a rsch level initially, I mean why not ?

I have long felt the game could be better with less players on the ground. The game has got slightly less congested BUT it is still too congested for my liking so anything to alleviate that and bring back the beautiful free flowing footy of yesteryear is a good thing IMO
Not sure about zones though, that could make for more over-officiating, we don't want more stops due to free kicks !

 

[Soapy V]

Congestion battle: 16-a-side footy might be trialled next pre-season

I've always wanted this. Someone tell me why it's a bad idea.

I've been a huge advocate of this as well. Used to love it in the old VFA. I reckon it's a no brainer but a lot of people disagree.
Would open up the game and you need less players (cost).

I'd like to see it trialled.

 

[Soapy V]

I reckon the recent trend towards prioritising footy IQ, skill and speed over taller athletes will clear that up.

Failing that, they can have the zone caps like in the U18 Champs.

Sometimes we really over complicate things. 16 a side is a simple solution and I reckon it would work well

I certainly don't want zones or off side

 

[Carl]

No wings? Where will all the soft midfielders play?

 

[thylacine60]

16 a side has been common place in secondary lower level competitions. It would make the game less about zoning and team defence and more open and one on one that's for sure. There would be a lot of traditionalists who wouldn't like seeing the wing position scrapped. Have always said this is the one true way to open the game up.

The other thing is, does it need to be opened up? The game has been congested and defence orientated and used zones for the last 17 or so years now. This is what it is and what all the young fans have grown up on. A lot of sports around the world are like this, soccer for example. Would opening it up make it appear a bit too "easy" to play and take the difficulty away from it or would the extra action non-stop action and pace be better. I know I've really grown to appreciate players who perform under immense pressure and teams who defend really well. The game can be open and quick enough when the teams are good enough and move the ball really well. I guess some people like T20 cricket and some people like Tests, each to their own.

It would open the game up and make it very quick. Might make the slower players redundant and make the game very pace orientated.

I thought last year, the game as a spectacle had improved and was in a really good place. I liked teams using a third man up, thought that opened things up at stoppages a lot more but the AFL have put a stop to that.

With the women's game it's ideal because the ball handling under pressure isn't as great as the mens and it relieves the pressure. It just helps with skill execution. It's spot on for that level of football.

Mens AFL football with a 6 man bench, no rotation cap and no wings. It would be insanely fast. Weren't the AFL trying to slow the game down?

The only way to find out how it would work would be to trial it. Give it a go, see what happens and what people think.

I think congestion was only an issue with the lesser sides, plenty of exciting and quality football coming out of the top sides. People bang on about the 90s etc but there were just as many god awful games played back then but you just don't remember those ones.

Never expected this sort of post quality in this thread. Just a stunner.

 

[thylacine60]

Sitting on the fence at the moment.
Talk is they are going to trial it in next years pre-season competition.
Would like to see how it looks before I jump one way or another.

Jump, ffs. Pretty sure there's no hidden rocks.

 

[LordLucifer]

I want room to move. The congestion is killing me and the game imo.

The game is being homogenised & sanitised way too much with rule change after rule change and usually for some innocuous reason..

The powers that be need to peel back some of the rules they have layered on over the years and let the coaching trends dictate how things go.

For a start, get rid of the interchange completely, go back to 18 on the field with 2 reserves, then watch what happens. Players will have to pace themselves to get through the game which will lead to fatigue and the game will open up & be free flowing naturally.

If this was implemented, we'd once again see a non-midfielder win a Brownlow again too !!

 

[thylacine60]

No wings? Where will all the soft midfielders play?

I'd stfu if I were you, Blaine.

 

[Soapy V]

Not liking the golden generation argument being thrown in here, as I suspect that most modern footballers would look incredibly skillful if the game became 10% slower overnight.

Best is always the Best no matter what the overall level

 

[Blue Pulse]

The game is being homogenised & sanitised way too much with rule change after rule change and usually for some innocuous reason..

The powers that be need to peel back some of the rules they have layered on over the years and let the coaching trends dictate how things go.

For a start, get rid of the interchange completely, go back to 18 on the field with 2 reserves, then watch what happens. Players will have to pace themselves to get through the game which will lead to fatigue and the game will open up & be free flowing naturally.

If this was implemented, we'd once again see a non-midfielder win a Brownlow again too !!

Strongly agree with the bolded, as the new rules are just exploited by the coaches to their advantage.

Don't agree with the 18 and 2 reserves as the pace of the game is too great, players will cramp, blow up or have soft tissue injuries.

 

[Soapy V]

Don't agree with the 18 and 2 reserves as the pace of the game is too great, players will cramp, blow up or have soft tissue injuries.

I'm actually the opposite. They will learn to pace themselves and reduction in short bursts will actually help reduce injuries

 

[LordLucifer]

Strongly agree with the bolded, as the new rules are just exploited by the coaches to their advantage.

Don't agree with the 18 and 2 reserves as the pace of the game is too great, players will cramp, blow up or have soft tissue injuries.

The pace of the game will not stay at that level with 18 & 2, coaches & players will have to adjust their tempo's to get through the game.

This 'need for speed' is a recent phenomenon but at the same time, has ruined the game overall IMO. A slower paced free-flowing match is way more entertaining to watch than what we have right now.

 

[Soapy V]

The pace of the game will not stay at that level with 18 & 2, coaches & players will have to adjust their tempo's to get through the game.

This 'need for speed' is a recent phenomenon but at the same time, has ruined the game overall IMO. A slower paced free-flowing match is way more entertaining to watch than what we have right now.

Might reduce tagging as well which I hate!!!

 

[I bleed Blue]

KB was spot on today about this issue. Cant and shouldn't be changed to 16.

The AFL charter was created for a reason. To keep the key elements to Aussie rules footy, so that different administrations down the track can't change those!

Oval ball. Oval ground. 6 points for a goal. 1 point for a behind. 18 players per side on the ground.

Start changing one of the key aspects to what the game was built on and what next? Super goals? Play on a soccer shaped rectangle ground?

Can't believe I am agreeing with KB, but if you want to get congestion down cap the interchange to 6 changes for the game.

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Might reduce tagging as well which I hate!!!

The only one on one contest (though heavily weighted) still left in the game.

 

[I bleed Blue]

I don't think of this idea as a rule change so much. Just taking two players off the park and onto the bench? Would it be enough to take the coaching focus from closing down space, to creating space? Make it a less controlled game again.

Sure it's not a RULE change. But it is changing the entire make up of the game!

We can make the ball round? That's not changing the rules!

Why not take 2 players off each side in basket ball? That's not changing the rules.

The game of Aussie rules is 18 per side on the ground.

 

[Blue Pulse]

I watched the girls first scratch match v Melbourne, 16 a side and the first half was terrible due to congestion around the ball, the congestion is governed by the way coaches want their teams to play. It was made worse due to the fact that the women didn't have the penetration in their kicks to clear the congestion. Apart from Brianna Davey.

IMO I would say no, I would prefer the AFL to simplify the umpiring and go back to basics for the umpires. NO ******* INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES, just black and white rules. A push in the back is a push in the back. The interpretation of the rules is the killer, once upon a time 90% of the decisions made on the field where seen by the crowd, now I reckon around 50% of the decisions are seen by the crowd and commentators. Reward the tackles to get the ball moving, players will soon adapt to get rid of the ball. Every 6 weeks the game is umpired differently due to the rule of the month directive from the AFL

After playing and watching football for nearly 50 years, when my son asks me, "What was that kick for Dad?" I would like to give him a better answer than, "No idea son."

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Not averse to 16 on-field, 6 on the bench.

By crikey it would be quick out in the middle.

 

[Soapy V]

The only one on one contest (though heavily weighted) still left in the game.

16 a side may well get rid of zones and make it more one on one

 

[Robbo's my hero]

Let's face it Australian rules football disappeared a long time ago. The one given is winning the game. Who gives a stuff about how you do it? Rolling mauls (I hope I've spelled that right) make me cry for the good old days. The stoppages (or is that the breakdown?) result in play where the ball goes nowhere because that's what one team is trying to do to the other to win the game. The umpires have allowed the rugby pass to become part of the game to keep the game flowing. At least you don't get penalised for a forward pass. It's ironic that this hybrid of rugby is becoming more like rugby with each passing season. I suggest those pining for the good old days get out and watch footy in the burbs or the bush. You're more likely to see a game of Australian rules than this hybrid game of AFL. First day of retirement. I'm fired up.

 

[LordLucifer]

I think it could work, but I'm not sure by itself it would reduce congestion all that much. There are a couple of possibilities I've been mulling over for the best part of a year.

- Minimum 3 players in your own forward 50 at all times.

This would generally result in three defenders as well, sometimes four. It instantly takes 12 players out of range of any midfield stoppages, and 6 out of stoppages at either end of the ground. Teams could of course play a defender higher up the ground to get an extra number in the middle, but it would guarantee they were leaving an opposition forward open.

- Increase minimum kick=mark distance from 15m to 20m.

Dinky little chips around the ground, we all hate them. Increasing the distance you have to kick to be awarded a mark presumably spreads the field a little more. Also encourages shots on goal as there's less space defenders have to guard if a player marks 45m out, thereby making it harder for players to effect a short kick within the 50m arc.

Go and watch the netball if you want that sort of crap !!!

 

[thylacine60]

The pace of the game will not stay at that level with 18 & 2, coaches & players will have to adjust their tempo's to get through the game.

This 'need for speed' is a recent phenomenon but at the same time, has ruined the game overall IMO. A slower paced free-flowing match is way more entertaining to watch than what we have right now.

someone here suggested a slower game would make every player a gun..........