16 a side

[bungwahl]

What a bizarre overreaction this thread is.

It's odd if it's been suggested based on one exhibition game, but it's not like it would make the game worse. It could only improve it.

Making a drastic change could only improve the game? It could well do, but there's a pretty obvious second option in that equation.

 

[OK Computer]

Someone should bite the bullet and assassinate him.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

I'm pretty sure that if they changed the rules to have 16 players i'd rip up my memberships, and never attend or watch another game of AFL again. Just like when they added extra bench players to make it 22, and when they put a circle that limited ruckmans run ups, and when they instituted a sub rule, and when worst of all they started protecting the head and removed shirtfronts.

Oh wait, hopefully they don't do it but i'll still watch and support.

 

[Walsh Bay]

I grew up watching 16 a side. It still feels like the 'proper' form of footy to me.

 

[Unknown Identity]

It would Reduce Congestion and would ensure the Talent isn't as diluted (but no doubt they'll add another team that will counteract this anyway)

It's extremely reactionary which is why everyone is up in arms about it. (Typical AFL)

While yes the Women's game had less congestion but i would have thought this was more due to the fact their fitness levels are no where near AFL athletes and the full field press can't be sustained. They pretty much stuck to their positions and they were still absolutely knackered by 3QT.

So i'm a firm no for 16 v 16.

 

[Lolbert]

Not sure why congestion is such a big issue for people. I quite like the hard-in, contested game. The game has evolved to what it is and will continue to do so without the AFL's intervention. They cannot help themselves. If they were administrating the NBA the 3 point line would have been eradicated by now.

As someone mentioned, sort out the interchange rules first. The rules demand so much athletically from the players forces a congested game to conserve energy. Then the AFL act surprised when teams try to find PED loopholes (i'm not condoning it)

 

[Waspy79]

Would be the best decision the games administrators could make to enhance the game.

The only potential issue [its a big one] is that lower level leagues do not need to reduce congestion as the players are not as fit.

 

[Taylor]

It would reduce the level of congestion that has been a blight on the game for a decade or so. It's not the worst idea going around.

Who cares if it's Mark Evan's idea, play the ball not the man.

16 a side also means you're thinning the herd. The average skill level goes up, with 2 spuds dropping out of each side.

If congestion means your team can defend better and win more games you will see athletes training harder to push out the footballers out so the team can still have 8 men around the ball.

The exhibition game looked so good because the women weren't playing for free kicks, they didn't duck and shrug for a head high contact free, they didn't fall forwards under a tackle to get a push in the back and everyone loved it.

Let us not confuse less than elite program athletes playing with two short as being purely reduced congestion because there were two short, they would just drop an extra forward and maintain all the rest at AFL level.

 

[Toump Ass]

Fantastic idea!

Personally I get bored easily, so I'm a big advocate of changing something for no reason other than just because. I think it "sparks interest".

Just for "a bit of fun" maybe it would be nice if we introduce 9 point goals every three games or so, and have 12 a side during finals so it's just the "creme de la creme" playing off the flag.

Anyway I got plenny of shit ideas, give me a call Mark!

 

[sportsmaniac89]

FFS, leave the ****ing game alone you ****ing idiot.

Considering we have already had rule changes designed to eliminate certain teams style of play....let's **** with it even further.

I am against this but if they want to bring this in, get rid of the interchange cap as compensation...that'll level it out nicely so ALL teams benefit, not just a few.

 

[Struggle]

There's a much simpler way to fix congestion. Step one. Find competent umpires
Step two. Penalise dropping and throwing the ball.

 

[catters05]

AFL never happy with its product, wants to change the game again.........not surprised.

 

[supahoops]

Why not 1 vs 22

Dangerfield vs the rest

Only 2 sleeps to go..

 

[HPKS]

Why does so many say they are against it with no evidence? That's why I asked is there anyone that saw the change from 18 to 16 in the VFA. It's like a child, no I'm not calling any of you children, why won't you eat that certain vegetable "because I don't like it". You ain't tasted it. Maybe 16 a side would revolutionise the game and it would be a million times better or maybe it would be shithouse to play 16 a side and even worse to watch. No1 knows without any concrete evidence.

 

[Pessimistic]

All it will mean is that all teams will look for a ruckman that can play all day and will drop a key defender. There will still be the same amount of congestion through the middle. The AFL and mark evans in particular are the second most incompetent group of people i have ever seen. The worst is the AFL umpiring department. Wait,,, i may be wrong i forgot about the joke that is the match review panel.

I think there would be six on the bench so surely the 22 would change little, just more space on the field

 

[Pessimistic]

There's a much simpler way to fix congestion. Step one. Find competent umpires
Step two. Penalise dropping and throwing the ball.

And do it for these finals ohh the wailling!!!

 

[Pessimistic]

Why not 1 vs 22

Dangerfield vs the rest

Sorry Xtreme, but I think 2016 might be remebered for two things:

1. A bye before the finals

2. One overrated player became so overrated he was called a "once in a generation" player

 

[Crow_Magnon]

If congestion means your team can defend better and win more games you will see athletes training harder to push out the footballers out so the team can still have 8 men around the ball.

The exhibition game looked so good because the women weren't playing for free kicks, they didn't duck and shrug for a head high contact free, they didn't fall forwards under a tackle to get a push in the back and everyone loved it.

Let us not confuse less than elite program athletes playing with two short as being purely reduced congestion because there were two short, they would just drop an extra forward and maintain all the rest at AFL level.

This! And the umps actually seemed to umpire the game properly.

 

[Lithium]

Sorry Xtreme, but I think 2016 might be remebered for two things:

1. A bye before the finals

2. One overrated player became so overrated he was called a "once in a generation" player

Burton is definitely not overrated!

 

[Bleeeeeeeeep]

Probably 10 years to late to be thinking of this sh*t.
Dont mind the thought process behind it, but the horse has bolted.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I'd love it. I've been saying on here for some time that one of the solutions to the congested game and one of the easiest ways to send it back to a 1-on-1 game would be to reduce the amount of players on the field. Anywhere between 12-16 would be ideal (12 probably too few).

The ovals are the same size as they were 100 years ago. The number of players on the field are the same as they were 100 years ago. Players fitness and ability to cover ground have increased exponentially in the last 100 years, especially in the last 15 years with the massive increase in interchange numbers. Having fewer players on the field makes the most sense to reducing congestion around the ball, making it a more 1-on-1 game and opening up play for higher scoring. It is infinitely more favourable to creating zones or having a rule where x players have to be in the 50 metre zones at each stoppage etc.

It would change the game for the better and you wouldn't have to change any of the actual rules of play to do it. Not only that but the quality of the game should increase as well as with fewer players on the field (assuming the interchange remains at 4 or even fewer) the last few players on the list should be getting fewer games. Say it is 20/side (16 + 4 interchange) that is 36 fewer players a week getting a game compared to the current situation.

Oh, and those saying they would stop watching the game forever blah blah blah - you wouldn't even notice the difference! Seriously, how many players actually hold position these days? You're telling me you'll notice that there are 4 fewer players (2 per team) around the contest? Give me a break. People probably said the same thing when the 19th man, centre diamond, out on the full, interchange, rotation cap etc etc etc were introduced.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Look I hate the suits at the AFL trying to keep themselves relevant and justifying their big pay packets as much as the next guy buttt IMO this could be a good move.

I love Aussie Rules, and understand its forever been 18 a side, but dropping 2 players and reducing it to 16 could actually make a big positive difference. More space, less congestion, easier for amateur leagues and overseas comps to field teams etc. It's not the dumbest suggestion I've heard put it that way.

Pretty sure it was originally 20 a side (even 40 a side in the very earliest games).

 

[shintemaster]

I would have thought that just removing interchange and returning to substitutions would be a better idea than fundamentally changing the sport.

Agreed. There are a million steps that could be taken in between these two extreme's (assuming one believes this is an issue that needs urgent changing). Personally I think the balance has been pretty good this year. I'm not a huge fan of uncontested games, just don't particularly love the rolling maul - and I think that has reduced this year.

They could find a middle ground and perhaps have substitutions each quarter - once you go off you can't come back on that quarter. This would retain the limitation on interchange but still allow a full team of 22 players to impact over a game. In essence you'd probably end up with something like the soccer system of interchanges late in the game but this would happen each quarter.

Personally I'm happy to leave it as is at the moment. I don't like the constant tinkering - give the game some time to settle down.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Yep would make the game more skilful and less about zone defence/clogging up stoppages. Great, free flowing games such as Hawthorn v Collingwood, Geelong v St Kilda, Adelaide v Sydney and North Melbourne v Melbourne have become endangered species.

That's correct - another aspect of reducing the amount of players on the ground is it will force defending teams to go 1-on-1 as the oval is too big for them to implement a comprehensive zone. Say player x has the footy at CHB. The defending team uses all 18 players in a zone up field in 5x5x5x3. Any gap in the zone between two defenders is easily covered in the time it takes the ball to get from the players boot to the receiving player unless it is a pinpoint drilled pass. The kick over the zone is also ineffective as the average player can kick about 50-55 metres and by the time the ball travels the zone moves back a line with the 5 players on the 3rd line able to get back to the contest to help out the 3 at the back (or they move back to cover goal side).

Reducing the amount of players makes the zone ineffective as the gap between defenders widens and the ball has that extra second or so to get to the recipient. If the zone is ineffective it will change the way teams are forced to defend and will see more of a focus on 1-on-1 and beating your opponent, the way footy was for 100+ years. It will also open up forward lines more and we may see the tonne kicked again!

 

[Demonic Ascent]

widening the goal posts would increase scoring....this idea is along that same level of thinking. improve the game by all means but certainly don't change the game. if we just keep changing the game every time we want to make it more appealing in 20 years we're gonna end up with blernsball

How does it actually change the game though? If all other rules remain in tact, how does reducing the amount of players by 2, 3 or 4 change the game on a fundamental level?