16 a side

[kreglze]

16 with 4 and dropping 2 numbers on the playing list would be great at raising the quality of the game as with that you eliminate 36 players off lists that probably aren't good enough.

 

[Keays2myBeamas]

16 with 4 and dropping 2 numbers on the playing list would be great at raising the quality of the game as with that you eliminate 36 players off lists that probably aren't good enough.

Preach.

Would exactly revoke the disastrous affect adding GWS + Gold Coast has had on the quality of AFL lists.
Reduces congestion, turns it back into the game it's meant to be.
Players have gotten bigger and fitter but fields are the same size.
It is an absolute no brainer and would be the best decision the AFL ever made.

But all the traditionalists want to leave it at 18. It's just dumb, go watch a game from 10 years ago it was just an infinitely better sport because the skills were higher and the field more open. I'm traditionalist too and I want to see the sport I grew up watching, 16 a side is actually better for the traditionalists because it will produce the footy we miss!

 

[Dennis Trumpet]

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

Just turn the game into a ****ing marathon. 1 v 1 with the field 5km long. It would be awesome, we would see only the best athletes in the world dominating and playing our game

 

[WCE_phil]

It won't reduce congestion. All it will mean is 1 less key defender and sides looking to have a ruck who can play all game rather than a secondary guy who rests down forward / on the bench.

 

[Keays2myBeamas]

16 or 15 a side literally solves every problem in the game, the increase in quality of the game would be so drastic, it would propel the sport immensely in NSW + QLD, would make the sport marketable internationally, it would help raise the AFL into one of the premier sporting competitions in the world, it is the perfect idea. It has no drawbacks whatsoever. Oh except all the traditionalist idiots would be grumpy. Ahh well better keep it at 18 then

 

[calyam]

The AFLPA would never agree to it given it reduces player numbers and salaries.

We really don't know what the ideal number of players on a football field is. Perhaps more importantly this theoretical ideal number has likely changed considerably over time due to changes in fitness and strategy. So 16 players a field could make for a vastly better spectacle (or not) and I don't see any problem with a trial during, say, the NAB Cup. But as long as the rule change is detrimental to the playing group then it has very little chance of going ahead.

 

[Kabana]

Give it a year or two and I probably wont follow AFL anymore

Couldn't agree more, the AFL is making it harder and harder to tune it to the footy. Your comment is really not that far fetched.

Last summer was the first time since I was a kid that I didn't watch a single ball bowled in the Cricket. This 16 a side, playing on a soccer pitch (HS today) is the equivalent of 20/20 which has ruined cricket (it's gutted the one dayers).

This playing footy on a soccer field, which will apparently "make AFL a year round sport", and help with the AFL's "future international expansion plans" is complete nonsense.

There really needs to be a top down review of the AFL to examine where all the money is being spent. They seem to be dropping a lot of fool's gold on pipe dreams like matches in China, trying to establish a beach head in NZ and having recruiting offices in places like South Africa.

Meanwhile closer to home, clubs like the Pies and Hawks get 'fined' for having too many massage tables with the money supposedly funnelled to the Dogs. Oh and scandals like an entire team doping are swept under the rug while football administrators preach social justice at us.

Unfortunately, while Gil and his cronies are in charge that won't happen.

 

[estibador]

Lol at all the people with overreactions like 'I'll never watch the game again'.

If you put a 16 v 16 game in front of them without telling them they probably wouldn't notice the slightest difference except thinking what an open and free-flowing match it was.

 

[kickazz]

The calls saying this is the worst idea ever are baffling. It is not the most outrageous idea out there. Indeed, it has been used before, the VFA in the 1980s I believe was 16 a side.

The more considered criticisms here have merit. Personally, I'm a fan of the idea. Of all the changes that have been tried to improve the game this may well be the most effective.

It will definitely be the easiest to umpire.

 

[Kerleys Ghost]

Also looking at a shorter season and 15 minute quarters...

Ugh.

 

[twosheds]

Just wait until he wants to bring in the last kick/handball out of bounds = a free kick to the other side. Being used in SANFL this year and its a joke.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Lol at all the people with overreactions like 'I'll never watch the game again'.

If you put a 16 v 16 game in front of them without telling them they probably wouldn't notice the slightest difference except thinking what an open and free-flowing match it was.

And seeing a few less fringe players. You'd be pretty pissed off if you just made the 22 then got dropped because the number of players reduced.

 

[catters05]

16 with 4 and dropping 2 numbers on the playing list would be great at raising the quality of the game as with that you eliminate 36 players off lists that probably aren't good enough.

IMO, that is probably the only positive i see.

 

[catters05]

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

Why does it have to be 6 on the bench, max of 4 or maybe back down to 3.

 

[cyril4brownlow]

Someone suggests an idea for discussions and all the unintelligent sheep come out and try and retort by saying "leave the game alone". Why do you even bother registering an account on a discussion form if you can't put together more than one coherent sentence.

I think it is a good idea to discuss for the moment. If congestion gets worse it could be implemented or trialed but for now the game is in a pretty good state with the higher scoring and free flowing teams the more successful.

 

[D-N-R]

Great idea that I have suggested on these boards before.

I'd be happy with 15 a side. If you were to invent the game today, with the fitness levels and skill players have now, there is no way you would have 18 a side.

What advantages could this bring? Less congestion for one. Fewer players on the field means that they have either run further to get to the contest or reduce the amount of players at each contest. Zoning becomes more difficult and the ability to move the ball away from congestion becomes a bit easier.

Umpiring. Less congestion means that umpires have a better view of what is going on. I don't think it is a coincidence that as the game has become more congested that the umpires have missed more free-kicks.

Another change I would make would be to separate the interchanges to opposite sides of the field. The original purpose of the bench as a convenient place for trainers and substitutes to hang out until they are needed has been surpassed. Because the interchange is an important tactical device in the game, teams tend to play the game down the wing on which it is situated.

Putting the interchanges on opposite sides of the ground would spread the play (a great benefit for spectators who happen to be on the 'dead' side of the ground) and allow teams to make sudden tactical changes to create mismatches without the opposition being able to respond in kind.

Also, with 15 a side, you increase the quality of team immediately. It also opens up the possibility of rotating players through the squad and even extending the season beyond 22 games.

 

[bjwilliams]

Why do people insist this will reduce congestion?

With less players out on the field it's more likely they will be getting tired quicker and it would probably encourage rolling mauls of midfielders driving the ball forward instead of free flowing kicks with players running forward all the time.

Ridiculous.

 

[bjwilliams]

And another thing. Why 16? If reducing congestion is what we're after, why not 14? Or even better 12... you'd have plenty of 1v1's going on around the ground then ...

 

[Jcpdragonx]

Higher quality football. Don't see a problem with trialing it then asking the players and coaches.

 

[L_W_P]

Why does it have to be 6 on the bench, max of 4 or maybe back down to 3.

Players Association wont cop 36 less players getting paid every week. 22 per game is a lock.

 

[Dazzler9]

Why do people insist this will reduce congestion?

With less players out on the field it's more likely they will be getting tired quicker and it would probably encourage rolling mauls of midfielders driving the ball forward instead of free flowing kicks with players running forward all the time.

Ridiculous.

Simple maths. The field size remains the same, but you have less players within it. Therefore more space. Equals less congestion.

Yes, the players get tired quicker. Therefore they can't get from contest to contest as quickly. Again, less congestion.

 

[crowded house]

Working in congestion is part of the game. It's a huge skill to work well in close and dish out effective possessions. Football isn't just about long kicks into space and free running. If that's the game you want then change all the rules. But I actually value the skills and tactics of stoppage work.

 

[Rotayjay]

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

And in comparison to our game it's still ******* boring.

 

[Natho]

Nah man.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

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?

I dunno, I can see the argument some have but to me the number of players per side doesn't change the fundamental nature of the game. When the VFA had 16 a side it was still Australian Football. You're still competing to win the footy on the same sized field, with the same size/shaped ball, the scoring remains the same, all the rules regarding contact, marking, possession, tackling etc remain the same. You're still playing the same game just that each team has 2 less players on the ground.

I just think that when you look at it objectively and think these modern players run 15-25km a game but are still playing on the same sized ovals with the same amount of players per side as amateurs 100 years ago who barely even trained let alone compare to professional athletes, it just makes logistical sense that you would reduce the number of players to allow the game to breath and get it back to its fundamental nature which is two teams competing through 1-on-1 battles all over the ground. Maybe this change wouldn't achieve that and the game can never go back to what it was in the 70's-90's. But I think it's the only hope of ever achieving it short of zoning off the ground which I don't think anybody wants to see and would realistically be unworkable in our game.