16 a side

[Doggies_13]

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.

Yeah it's like Fifa taking out goal keepers

 

[jenny61_99]

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?

I just gave you examples of rule changes for other sports. ALL sports evolve. If they don't, they die. If you want me to look deeper to see how many rules etc. I will, but I'm pretty sure I made my point. Please understand, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the suggested changes, just that we need to not have knee-jerk reactions to the AFL's knee-jerk reactions.

 

[Scotland]

B: 3
HB: 3
C: 3
HF: 3
F: 3
Foll: 4
IC: 4

The way teams actually line up it's 2 or 3 inside 50 at each end, 4 in the centre square, 1 on each side of the square and the rest at the front and back of the square. Unless there's a clean, quick clearance you usually end up with a dozen or so from each team all rushing into the centre square.

For a 16 a side game I'd like to see:

4 in the centre square as normal (ruck, ruck rover, rover, centreman - these positions used to be a thing)
5 inside forward 50
5 inside defensive 50
2 other (wingmen essentially)

 

[Altum Volantes]

Ponytails, Sports Bras and Vaginas for all!

 

[catters05]

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.

But why do the AFL bother talking about it in the first week of the finals. We should be celebrating the product we have, and being pumped up for a great final series. Not talking the game down and talking what changes may potentially need to be made.

IMO its just dumb.

 

[jenny61_99]

But why do the AFL bother talking about it in the first week of the finals. We should be celebrating the product we have, and being pumped up for a great final series. Not talking the game down and talking what changes may potentially need to be made.

IMO its just dumb.

Because they are dicks.

 

[catters05]

Because they are dicks.

And this is why I wish they would just leave the game alone.

 

[astro1212]

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.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

Couldnt 14 a side do what you just said but better....


lets drop it to 14 a side...how bout 12...10....

Nah, lets go all out... I say 5 a side football on a soccer style pitch so more people around the world can get involved.

 

[MortlockWatcher]

The VFA did well with 16-a-side ... I really enjoyed watching it when I was younger, with more open and fast-moving play.
Shit, some AFL teams might even learn to score more and not kick sideways or backwards with 16-a-side.

 

[Doggies_13]

I just gave you examples of rule changes for other sports. ALL sports evolve. If they don't, they die. If you want me to look deeper to see how many rules etc. I will, but I'm pretty sure I made my point. Please understand, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the suggested changes, just that we need to not have knee-jerk reactions to the AFL's knee-jerk reactions.

Sports may make subtle changes from time to time but they give their changes a chance.

Afl make change after change after change every year and then 12 months later change a rule to fix the rule they put in place to start with.

This idea of 16 a side changes the entire structure of the game that's why there is so much reaction to it.

There are other ways to stop congestion and less intrusive ways to the structure of the game

 

[BlueWaterHawk]

If we're going to bring in 16 a side shouldn't we bring in zones and bibs too?

That's ridiculous. It's literally the reverse of what you're implying, they're avoiding that situation in this suggestion.

I'm neither for or against, but I'd be willing to watch it through a few pre-seasons and see how things went.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Cookie]

The VFA did well with 16-a-side ... I really enjoyed watching it when I was younger, with more open and fast-moving play.
Shit, some AFL teams might even learn to score more and not kick sideways or backwards with 16-a-side.

Bingo!
Five pages of pure crap to get an educated reply.

 

[catters05]

The VFA did well with 16-a-side ... I really enjoyed watching it when I was younger, with more open and fast-moving play.
Shit, some AFL teams might even learn to score more and not kick sideways or backwards with 16-a-side.

Good teams know how to score.

 

[bungwahl]

That's ridiculous. It's literally the reverse of what you're implying, they're avoiding that situation in this suggestion.

I'm neither for or against, but I'd be willing to watch it through a few pre-seasons and see how things went.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Think you may have taken it a little too literally...

 

[master bate]

I'm all for giving it a try.

Players are far fitter and faster. Grounds are bigger and surfaces far better. There's no way you'd invent AFL in current conditions with 18 a side.

The hope with 16 a side would be that there's too much space to cover with 16 men marching up and down the field and therefore more positional play would occur. The high half forward/5th on baller would disappear, or maybe the defensive forward who doesn't impact with the ball. Same at the other end of the ground where all defenders would be forced to defend. Versatility would still be important but keeping 4 on the bench and more positional play would probably counter the desire to stack the team with mids. If you're getting more one on ones deep at either end you're going to want forwards and backs who can score/stop scores.

The other big benefit that would occur is by moving to 20 players per team (16+4) it would spread the talent as fringe players moved for more opportunity. That would hopefully even the comp up. Less players on the field would probably make the star players stand out more and so rebuilds might be faster and less often. If you have 5 of 16 very good players on the field for most of the game it's easier to keep adding to the team to find depth than if they are 5 of 18. Richmond right now are a good example of a team without depth who could bounce back harder if there were less players on the field.

 

[L_W_P]

I'm all for giving it a try.

Players are far fitter and faster. Grounds are bigger and surfaces far better. There's no way you'd invent AFL in current conditions with 18 a side.

The hope with 16 a side would be that there's too much space to cover with 16 men marching up and down the field and therefore more positional play would occur. The high half forward/5th on baller would disappear, or maybe the defensive forward who doesn't impact with the ball. Same at the other end of the ground where all defenders would be forced to defend. Versatility would still be important but keeping 4 on the bench and more positional play would probably counter the desire to stack the team with mids. If you're getting more one on ones deep at either end you're going to want forwards and backs who can score/stop scores.

The other big benefit that would occur is by moving to 20 players per team (16+4) it would spread the talent as fringe players moved for more opportunity. That would hopefully even the comp up. Less players on the field would probably make the star players stand out more and so rebuilds might be faster and less often. If you have 5 of 16 very good players on the field for most of the game it's easier to keep adding to the team to find depth than if they are 5 of 18. Richmond right now are a good example of a team without depth who could bounce back harder if there were less players on the field.

I think if they go 16 a side it'll be 16 on the field and 6 on the bench.

BP - FB - BP
HB - CHB - HB
R - C - Ro - RR
HF - CHF - HF
FP - FF - FP
B - B - B
B - B - B

 

[HPKS]

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.

I get what your saying and I agree a comprehensive trial is what's needed with a good analysis at the end of the trial. And by a trial I mean trialling it in state leagues, local leagues, AFL (Pre-season) etc over 2 years. It's an idea that could be great or could be a flop. It's why the rules of the game committee should be seperate from the AFL like how there used to be the ANFC. I agree it's not a subtle change but neither was the change from a 15 metre to 50 metre penalty. Everyone complained it would ruin the game but it never did.

 

[HPKS]

The VFA did well with 16-a-side ... I really enjoyed watching it when I was younger, with more open and fast-moving play.
Shit, some AFL teams might even learn to score more and not kick sideways or backwards with 16-a-side.

Thank you for adding this as this is what I wanted to know. Someone with first hand experience

 

[Tiger2709]

Playing 16 a side football = netball. Good one.

Not really, the old VFA played that way for years from 1959 to the late 90's it was actually not that noticeable.

Then again I am not in favour at all, this generation of AFL bosses need to leave the game alone, I hate the new rules that come in every year then dissapear as quickly, as Mum used to say when you were picking at a scab, leave the damn thing alone.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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

Haha yep got my Coventry's mixed up

 

[BlueWaterHawk]

Think you may have taken it a little too literally...

Ah... I see. big footy confuses my brain.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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.

There will still be contested footy but it will be brought back to more 1-on-1 contests rather than a rolling maul of 16-20 players around the footy trying to win the "scrum". I don't know how you can say that this kind of play is unique to Australian Football when 1) it isn't, it's the nature of the rugby codes and 2) it has only been the last 15-20 years where it has really got to that stage.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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.

Positions on the field have already ceased to exist with the exception of the ruckman and followers.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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?

Baseball and Soccer are a bit different due to the nature of their sport. Would probably be more inclined to look at American Football and perhaps basketball as examples.

 

[GCNavyBlue]

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

And for those of us supporting teams with more than 2 spuds????