16 a side

[CharacterFirst]

Its a great idea.

I have thought it should be this way for decades.

Old VFA was 16 a side - no wings.

16 on the ground; 6 on the bench.

Do it!

 

[master bate]

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

I didn't read the article so if that's what they want to do then good luck to them but it makes no sense.

Keeping extra fresh bench players wouldn't reduce congestion or improve the influence of good players. If they move to 16 it has to keep 4 on the bench and not 6 otherwise it just isn't worth it. I guess they'll start any of this with a trial with big numbers on the bench in preseason, but if they want to use women's footy or a lower level for a better test then I hope it's with 16 + 4.

Although I can certainly see how the AFLPA would be upset about dropping teams back to 20 a side.

 

[HPKS]

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

Because it's so congested. Go watch local or state league footy and there is a semblance of positions because players are not fit enough or athletic enough to zone so hard. It's one of the reasons I think why I have enjoyed local footy so much this year. It's why if 16 a side was trialled I wouldn't want to see the interchange changed in any way. Coaches would just increase rotations to allow players to run more and zone. It would defeat the purpose of the change. It's also why I said keep the coaches away from any analysis/change. Hey but I could be wrong.

 

[Farm Boy]

16 a side is here. Great. We are nearly at touch football. This has all arrived quicker than I anticipated. Next up is the tackle - time for you to go to buddy. I am more interested where the AFL is going to go to after we are at touch footy?

 

[Matera92]

Game is fine as is.
Only new rule should be the ****wits at AFL house can only make changes once every five years.

 

[Father Jack]

16 a side is here. Great. We are nearly at touch football. This has all arrived quicker than I anticipated. Next up is the tackle - time for you to go to buddy. I am more interested where the AFL is going to go to after we are at touch footy?

not wanting to get rid of tackling isn't exactly an argument against 16 a side

 

[gavaniacono]

AFL regresses beneath VFL to ye ol' VFA. Genius.

 

[PrideOf]

There are 15 a side in Gaelic football.

We're edging closer.

We should take bets on what the next rule change will be - rectangular field, round ball or bar between the goals.

 

[Sando22]

Absolute garbage

 

[Toump Ass]

I've heard claims that flooding was irrevocably ruining football already; that lasted about half a season before the game evolved (without an intervention from some suit-wearing dickhead who'd never played the game).

Is congestion so bad that we need to fundamentally change the rules to stop it? Really? I watch footy every weekend and I've never once thought: "Jesus, this is shit, I'm going to turn it off because there's too many people around the ball".

The game changes naturally without ****ing the rules every time you get bored, jesus.

 

[Toump Ass]

9 point goals, bye week, the sub rule, 16 a side.

It's like every year the AFL sit down and try to figure out how to piss off as many people as possible.

 

[Pessimistic]

I would have thought as we are, we have two specialist talls each end, and two specialist smalls each end, a couple of rucks and the rest are mids/utilities - ten in the 22
so the usual would be 4 forwards, 4 backs, a ruck and 7 mids/utilities on the field, a ruck and a further five on the bench

 

[Coaster2012]

Call me crazy, but I have a great idea. Why don't the AFL one year, like, leave the game alone and not make any rule changes.

 

[hoianbulldog]

Mark Evans: The games in good shape Gil, not need to change anything.
Gil: Cool, not need for you then.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

If they want to trial it, then forget the preseason games, as these are not 'real' games. Trial it in the second tier comps - VFL, SANFL, WAFL etc. using the same scenarios that would be applied to the AFL teams should it come in there. This would give the AFL some good data. If they did this for one season, they'd get several different leagues worth of information and feedback on list management, gameplans, injuries, fan satisfaction, player & club satisfaction, and effect on the gate takings, memberships, & sponsorships (money is always the bottom line.)

 

[Jim Prideaux]

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.

On 1) not the nature of RL, in RU it is contested but added congestion there can cause more space. On 2) those years coincide with dramatic increases in interchange numbers, I'd like to see the interchange cap lowered further well before we considered 16 a side.

 

[madmug]

When l worked in Melbourne back in the 80's l went to quite a few VFA footy games with some work mates. The grounds were nearly all fairly small, so 16 a side suited them. I liked VFA footy. It was similar in standard & crowds to TFL footy back then.
I have said smaller grounds & 16 a side would be a good thing for the game. Smaller grounds brings you closer to the action.

 

[HighBudget]

Can the AFL just stop this already? I'm starting to lose my love for this league

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

When l worked in Melbourne back in the 80's l went to quite a few VFA footy games with some work mates. The grounds were nearly all fairly small, so 16 a side suited them. I liked VFA footy. It was similar in standard & crowds to TFL footy back then.
I have said smaller grounds & 16 a side would be a good thing for the game. Smaller grounds brings you closer to the action.

I have often thought if a billionaire started an AFL super league, you'd have 16 players (with 2 on the bench) on a smaller ground (Simonds Stadium size).

 

[Jim Prideaux]

If they want to trial it, then forget the preseason games, as these are not 'real' games. Trial it in the second tier comps - VFL, SANFL, WAFL etc. using the same scenarios that would be applied to the AFL teams should it come in there. This would give the AFL some good data. If they did this for one season, they'd get several different leagues worth of information and feedback on list management, gameplans, injuries, fan satisfaction, player & club satisfaction, and effect on the gate takings, memberships, & sponsorships (money is always the bottom line.)

Good call. I was thinking along simillar lines as trialling this in such a Mickey Mouse format would skew the data. NAB games are too short and pointless to trial such a significant structural change. On your suggestion I would think it would take 2 or 3 years of trials to allow coaches and lists to adapt - then we might get a better picture of tactics.

 

[Coops93]

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

When was it 16 a side? And what, at the time, was the reasoning behind increasing it to 18 a side?

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Coaches will exploit the rules, so how about thinking it through before its implemented, otherwise in 2 years time we will require another rule change, then another after that, etc

 

[Father Jack]

and how are coaches going to exploit the rules to congest the field with two less players?

 

[YippeeYiYeo]

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!

agreed.

The people who are pro-trial of 16 a side seem to have put more thought into the effect it will have on the game than the "NO STOP CHANGING THINGS" simple-minded crowd here. The anti-trial of 16 a side brigade would still watch the game. The change makes perfect sense just from the perspective that fitness levels in the past 10 years have meant that we no longer need 36 players on the field to cover the ground adequately.

As for the history books and all-australian teams etc, who cares!! Its a much better trial to run than the super-goal or last person who touches the ball out of bounds has a freekick awarded.

 

[legend166]

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.

I think the amount of players on the field per team is a pretty fundamental rule of the sport. I usually don't like the appeals to other sports because people seem to ignore that almost every sport tinkers with rules and interpretations of rules on a yearly basis, but I can't think of any other team sport that has changed the number of people on the field in a long, long time.

You have to admit it's an extreme option. It's like amputating a leg after stubbing a toe.

Are they still going continue gradually lowering the interchange cap? Why not aim to have it as 4 per quarter in 5 years or something?