16 a side

[Power Raid]

Perhaps we should trial a round ball and nets behind the goals.........hang on said the drunk Irishman

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

It would need a very long trial, maybe in pre-season (when expanded benches are often used due to heat) for many years.

VFA did it for a long time, and it was still recognisable as football.

It would be a huge change to the game, and should not be rushed. But I'm not totally against it if is trialled and stacks up. What is worrying is that it looks like another measure to beat a trend that might die out naturally anyway.

 

[JackFlash]

Mark Evans must be removed immediately from anything at all to do with football.

 

[eastfreo75]

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

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.

But some teams do struggle for numbers. Remember playing 16 a side in high school, didn't seem to change the game.

 

[shaqsuns]

You're kidding yourself if think congestion is good for the game it has made the neutral football fan disinterested in our game. The proof is in the tv ratings and crowd numbers Of coarse the die hard fan will never admit this though . Something needs to change I think the AFL should keep reducing the interchange to a very small number like 20 per game. The bench wasn't really used for 150 years and all of the sudden as soon as teams started having large interchange numbers congestion started to play havoc in our game. Quick question to any watches of the SANFL how was the state of play with the interchange being reduced to 50??


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

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

You want to re-evalute that time frame?

16 a side, no wingers, was one of the good things in the VFA pre current VFL days.

 

[mianfei]

widening the goal posts would increase scoring

More likely widening the goalposts would not increase scoring but encourage teams to play wider and shorter as they would have more ability to kick goals from wider angles.

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.

One reason I have just thought of that football might have been obliged to change so much is the consistently shifting audience due to immigration means it is very hard for people to become familiar with the sport.

Given that in the 1950s and 1960s the VFL and VFA failed totally to engage new Mediterranean immigrants, which eroded the support bases of most VFA clubs and had the same effect on South Melbourne and Fitzroy, one can understand their reluctance to stick with the same format today (if the AFL commissioners know their history which one is unsure of).

Another issue is that with better public transport and more accessibility to grounds, soccer and baseball remain attendance-based sports to a much greater extent than football can be with the power of Australia’s road lobbies blockading decades-overdue investments. The focus on roads since the 1970s forbids the attendances Australia’s land surfeit permits. Greater dependence on television rather than attendances, and the attendant changes to make football more suitable for TV, no doubt mean more scrutiny. If you look at gridiron – which Marshall McLuhan noted fifity years ago as a quintessential television sport in America – one sees far more changes than in football.

 

[M Malice]

Absurd idea. There would be just as many around the stoppage and less on the outside.

Just cut the bloody interchange down to 25-30, fatigue will open the game up and get rid of the ridiculous nominating a ruck rule, throw the ball up ASAP.

 

[Pie eyed]

Mark Evans..... What can we say. On the AFL website this morning he wants to look at trialling 16 or even 15 a side for the AFL. What are peoples thoughts? How would it change the game? How would people respond?

I know how i would respond and it's very simple. If it were to happen the last game of footy i ever go to watch would be the last 18 a side game. This guy is an affliction on the game. A virus that needs extermination before anymore of his absolute bullshit theories, opinions and ideas take root.

The only change the AFL needs is to get rid of the flogs who constantly want change.

See ya Gillan....GEAD

 

[HTT]

You're kidding yourself if think congestion is good for the game it has made the neutral football fan disinterested in our game. The proof is in the tv ratings and crowd numbers Of coarse the die hard fan will never admit this though . Something needs to change I think the AFL should keep reducing the interchange to a very small number like 20 per game. The bench wasn't really used for 150 years and all of the sudden as soon as teams started having large interchange numbers congestion started to play havoc in our game. Quick question to any watches of the SANFL how was the state of play with the interchange being reduced to 50??


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

"The proof is in the TV Ratings"
Yet the TV rights deal only gets more lucrative

"And crowd numbers"
Yet 2018 is at the moment the 5th highest average attendance season ever.

Also everyone says decrease the bench, but fail to see the clear evidence it won't fix their problems - the whinging has only gotten louder since it was cut.

 

[Snake_Baker]

16 a side

22 a side, and no interchanges.