16 a side

[Demonic Ascent]

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

That would be another option but how is reducing the numbers of players on the ground "fundamentally changing the sport". The actual rules of play would remain.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

Why not 1 vs 22

Dangerfield vs the rest

Sadly, you just might see this on Friday night.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Why cant we play on a rectangular field?

 

[TigerBlood87]

The end goal should be that players stay in their respective positions resulting in more 1 on 1's not 2 less players on the ground all chasing the footy in a rolling maul...

I think a way of keeping players in their positions is that any directly sideward-backward kicks are instantly called to play on. Would draw more players to stay on their men closer to goal instead of grouping together up the ground or playing zone defences as it incentivises attackers to take risks as a turnover almost guarantees you a goal/scoring shot.

 

[Doggies_13]

So last year the afl decided on an interchange cap to slow the game down to prevent injuries, meaning players stay on the ground longer and now the afl are surprised that we have congestion.

I understand the need to evolve but the afl try to reinvent the game every year and half the time it is due to over reactions and they introduce a rule and they give it zero chance to see how it goes as they change more things 12 months later never giving the game a chance to settle. You don't see world wide sports changing rules and structures season after season.

The push in the back rule became the hand in the back rule meaning guys can't even hold their ground now.

Growing up I was always taught to turn my body and protect myself when gathering the ball the afl have brought in the front on contact rule that was to prevent front on contact but now players don't protect themselves anymore they look for high contact making the risk of injury higher.

The sub rule was a total fail that no one wanted in the game to start with as it did not help the keep teams with injuries in a game.

The contact below the knees was an over reaction to one incident and now the player attempting to win the ball is penalised.

At the end of the day the coaches are coaching for congestion and changing the rule won't stop it as coaches will find another way around it.

 

[Ocha905]

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 4x4x4x2. 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 4 players on the 3rd line able to get back to the contest to help out the 2 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!

Poty. Great analysis.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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.

It does seem it's in a good place at the moment so it may turn out there is not much of a need for it (reducing congestion) anymore. However if you want to move from zone defense to man-on-man it is one option to force the coaching in that direction.

 

[HPKS]

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 4x4x4x2. 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 4 players on the 3rd line able to get back to the contest to help out the 2 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!

This could happen but without any comprehensive trial no1 knows. That's why I found it bizarre that a lot of people's first reactions were "no, no, no". you can't study anything that hasn't happened. If it worked out like you say I'm pretty sure most people would be "best change ever", "love it", "shoulda happened earlier".

 

[jenny61_99]

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

If you don't evolve, you die. AFL very mindful of that fact. Interesting to see the massive over-reaction to this. Some people just cannot accept change in any way, shape or form. Take a while to assess the implications of dropping to 16 a side. Would it improve the game? Remove, or at least, lessen the congestion? Maybe it's worth a trial run in the NAB pre-season games? Don't just dismiss things because you hate change - look at it first, then dismiss it if you still disagree.

 

[Father Jack]

I think we should go back to that period of time when the rules of the game were frozen and never changed. Oh wait, that time never existed, so maybe removing two men per team is worth looking at as well.

 

[Doggies_13]

If you don't evolve, you die. AFL very mindful of that fact. Interesting to see the massive over-reaction to this. Some people just cannot accept change in any way, shape or form. Take a while to assess the implications of dropping to 16 a side. Would it improve the game? Remove, or at least, lessen the congestion? Maybe it's worth a trial run in the NAB pre-season games? Don't just dismiss things because you hate change - look at it first, then dismiss it if you still disagree.

So are soccer Baseball Basketball dying? They don't create new rules, interpretations and structures every year and they survive.

Soccer the most popular sport in the world doesn't constantly change.

 

[who_let_the_dogs_out]

No other major sporting league comes up with these sorts of ideas and kneejerk changes. Amateur hour.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

I think we should go back to that period of time when the rules of the game were frozen and never changed. Oh wait, that time never existed, so maybe removing two men per team is worth looking at as well.

It's interesting reading the book Time and Space by James Coventry reveals a lot about the evolution of our game. For instance a lot of people know the out on the full rule only came in in the late 60's (I think it was) that resulted in higher scoring games, particularly through the 70's. However not many people know for about 15-20 years in the 20's-30's there was a "last touch" rule that eliminated boundary throw-ins altogether. The AFL seems to be heading back that way with the stricter deliberate interpretation and will probably go back to the last touch rule at some point. People will complain when the change happens being ignorant to the fact (as I was) that it was a rule almost 100 years ago! From memory the only reason it was removed (and opposed initially) was because one or a number of clubs were vehemently against it as it impacted their game plans of slowing the game down. From memory it was mainly the Victorians who were against it.

BTW I can't recommend this book enough for those interested in understanding what is going on on the field and the evolution of the sport.

 

[HPKS]

So last year the afl decided on an interchange cap to slow the game down to prevent injuries, meaning players stay on the ground longer and now the afl are surprised that we have congestion.

I understand the need to evolve but the afl try to reinvent the game every year and half the time it is due to over reactions and they introduce a rule and they give it zero chance to see how it goes as they change more things 12 months later never giving the game a chance to settle. You don't see world wide sports changing rules and structures season after season.

The push in the back rule became the hand in the back rule meaning guys can't even hold their ground now.

Growing up I was always taught to turn my body and protect myself when gathering the ball the afl have brought in the front on contact rule that was to prevent front on contact but now players don't protect themselves anymore they look for high contact making the risk of injury higher.

The sub rule was a total fail that no one wanted in the game to start with as it did not help the keep teams with injuries in a game.

The contact below the knees was an over reaction to one incident and now the player attempting to win the ball is penalised.

At the end of the day the coaches are coaching for congestion and changing the rule won't stop it as coaches will find another way around it.

And that is why you don't listen to the coaches. Some will love it as the players they have may be perfect for the change or some may hate it as they do not have a list that could change to suit it. They coach their side to win premierships not to improve the game. It may be a shit change or may not be but a trial in pre-season would not destroy the fabric of the game.

 

[SSSSSS]

Didn't work too well for the VFA.

 

[Blue1980]

To reduce congestion I would reduce interchange until it was capped at 40, so basically back to where we were in 2006

 

[Father Jack]

It's interesting reading the book Time and Space by Gordon Coventry reveals a lot about the evolution of our game. For instance a lot of people know the out on the full rule only came in in the late 60's (I think it was) that resulted in higher scoring games, particularly through the 70's. However not many people know for about 15-20 years in the 20's-30's there was a "last touch" rule that eliminated boundary throw-ins altogether. The AFL seems to be heading back that way with the stricter deliberate interpretation and will probably go back to the last touch rule at some point. People will complain when the change happens being ignorant to the fact (as I was) that it was a rule almost 100 years ago! From memory the only reason it was removed (and opposed initially) was because one or a number of clubs were vehemently against it as it impacted their game plans of slowing the game down. From memory it was mainly the Victorians who were against it.

BTW I can't recommend this book enough for those interested in understanding what is going on on the field and the evolution of the sport.

Yep, there's a lot to be learnt from that book, not least that the rules have been in a constant state of flux from pretty much the minute they were first put to paper. Oh, and it was James, not Gordon

 

[jenny61_99]

So are soccer Baseball Basketball dying? They don't create new rules, interpretations and structures every year and they survive.

Soccer the most popular sport in the world doesn't constantly change.

Baseball:
MLB's competitive committee agreed to drastic changes to the strike zone and intentional walks at the quarterly owners' meetings in New York this week. The changes could go into effect as soon as next season.

In a nutshell, the committee has agreed to raise the bottom of the strike zone slightly and eliminate the need for pitchers to actually throw pitches during an intentional walk.
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/r...-zone-intentional-walk-may-be-coming-in-2017/

Soccer:

The International Football Association Board (IFAB) has launched a new set of rules that will become official from Euro 2016 - although football will see them for the first time when England play Turkey and Australia in friendlies this month.

But the evolution of football’s rules might not end with this batch of tweaks, with the ‘penalty goal’ rule the most audacious proposal.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/footbal...6/news-story/8dfead5ba8da52dc776b54a4ecbd068e

 

[HPKS]

Didn't work too well for the VFA.

So how was it to watch? More congestive? Less? More one on one? Less? Did it appear to not change much going from 18 to 16? What playing positions disappeared?

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

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?

the thing that makes australian footy unique to any other sport in the world is the idea of winning the ball at the contest. every other sport you score, the opponent gets possession back and forth etc etc. our sport requires you to be able to consistently win ball in a contested situation to be any good. coaches realize this and have committed more players to the contest. this has been a natural progression of coaching thinking.

i like an open game as much as anyone but the essence of this sport is the contest. taking numbers away from the contest is kind of like reducing the number of fielders in a cricket game to try and get more runs. and i really don't think there's anything wrong with the game as a spectacle now. in fact numbers at the stoppage has opened the game up because once someone wins it from the stoppage there's space everywhere like the crows this year. the bulldogs are known for bringing numbers to the stoppage and no one has a bad thing to say about how they play.

watch the finals series this weekend. if people still think there's a problem with contested footy after that then i'll come back and sign the 16 player petition.

 

[Doggies_13]

And that is why you don't listen to the coaches. Some will love it as the players they have may be perfect for the change or some may hate it as they do not have a list that could change to suit it. They coach their side to win premierships

The problem is the afl don't let changes run their course they implement a rule or change then 12 months later they counteract it with another change.

I think you will find so many people are dead against this as its not a subtle little change to a rule it's a complete change to our game trial or no trial. Positions on the field cease to exist by dropping numbers. There are easier ways to clear congestion than changing the structure of the entire game.

 

[catters05]

If you don't evolve, you die. AFL very mindful of that fact. Interesting to see the massive over-reaction to this. Some people just cannot accept change in any way, shape or form. Take a while to assess the implications of dropping to 16 a side. Would it improve the game? Remove, or at least, lessen the congestion? Maybe it's worth a trial run in the NAB pre-season games? Don't just dismiss things because you hate change - look at it first, then dismiss it if you still disagree.

The issue I have with the AFL, it is they never allow anything just to evolve naturally. They never give the game enough time. They always need to try make a "quick fix" to rush through the change they require, and then IMO it creates new issues, if you look at many of the changes that have been made.

If the change will go to 16 a side, I believe Interchange should stay at 4 or drop to 3, not go up to 6. We start creating an NFL style game, where you have almost a special teams on the bench, some may like this new direction.

Me, i like Australian Rules Football. I understand it needs to evolve, but sometimes you have to sit back, appreciate and enjoy the product you have and let it grow naturally on its own or like plastic surgery you keep making these changes and get addicted to making changes, and then what do you have at the end, a big horrible mess.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

Baseball:
MLB's competitive committee agreed to drastic changes to the strike zone and intentional walks at the quarterly owners' meetings in New York this week. The changes could go into effect as soon as next season.

In a nutshell, the committee has agreed to raise the bottom of the strike zone slightly and eliminate the need for pitchers to actually throw pitches during an intentional walk.
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/r...-zone-intentional-walk-may-be-coming-in-2017/

Soccer:

The International Football Association Board (IFAB) has launched a new set of rules that will become official from Euro 2016 - although football will see them for the first time when England play Turkey and Australia in friendlies this month.

But the evolution of football’s rules might not end with this batch of tweaks, with the ‘penalty goal’ rule the most audacious proposal.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/footbal...6/news-story/8dfead5ba8da52dc776b54a4ecbd068e

rules are tweaked and changed over time, there's nothing wrong with that.

but the day FIFA introduces a rule to reduce the field to 10 v 10 to increase scoring is the day i'll say you have a point.

 

[Doggies_13]

Baseball:
MLB's competitive committee agreed to drastic changes to the strike zone and intentional walks at the quarterly owners' meetings in New York this week. The changes could go into effect as soon as next season.

In a nutshell, the committee has agreed to raise the bottom of the strike zone slightly and eliminate the need for pitchers to actually throw pitches during an intentional walk.
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/r...-zone-intentional-walk-may-be-coming-in-2017/

Soccer:

The International Football Association Board (IFAB) has launched a new set of rules that will become official from Euro 2016 - although football will see them for the first time when England play Turkey and Australia in friendlies this month.

But the evolution of football’s rules might not end with this batch of tweaks, with the ‘penalty goal’ rule the most audacious proposal.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/footbal...6/news-story/8dfead5ba8da52dc776b54a4ecbd068e

2 rule changes?

Where's the list of 3 changes or more every year for 10 years?

Where's baseball and soccer looking to cut the number of players a team fields?

 

[jenny61_99]

The issue I have with the AFL, it is they never allow anything just to evolve naturally. They never give the game enough time. They always need to try make a "quick fix" to rush through the change they require, and then IMO it creates new issues, if you look at many of the changes that have been made.

If the change will go to 16 a side, I believe Interchange should stay at 4 or drop to 3, not go up to 6. We start creating an NFL style game, where you have almost a special teams on the bench, some may like this new direction.

Me, i like Australian Rules Football. I understand it needs to evolve, but sometimes you have to sit back, appreciate and enjoy the product you have and let it grow naturally on its own or like plastic surgery you keep making these changes and get addicted to making changes, and then what do you have at the end, a big horrible mess.

Oh I absolutely agree. But people automatically put up the "DON'T CHANGE THE GAME" blinkers without actually considering the proposed changes. Like I said, you might still disagree once you've assessed all the info, but you might surprise yourself.