Autopsy 16-minute quarters: which teams are winners and losers from this?

[deanc]

Look at their national sports - American football and baseball. Two of the slowest paced games in the world that are ridiculously commercialized. Just because it's popular over here (I'm an Aussie expat), doesn't mean it's any good. Watching those two sports live is the most mind-numbingly boring s**t I've ever experienced.

Yep, the commercialism of their sport is staggering, as well as the blind acceptance from the fans who also I quickly discovered come up with some strange reasons to defend it.
I lived in Pennsylvania for a few years back in the early 2000's, sort of got into the NFL, NY Jets, and still follow them but the baseball, well I tried but I guess you really have to grow up with it...
I stupidly bought an annual subscription to the 'NFL channel' one year thinking I could watch some live games. Pre and post game analysis shows and replays no problem, but bizarrely they didn't have the rights to show any live games!

I also had an opportunity to attend a Superbowl one year in Florida (and regret I probably should of done) but at $1100 a ticket, airfares/hotel and other costs etc. to watch just 12 minutes of actual play, I passed. I recall one of my work colleagues at the time encouraging me to go mentioning Paul McCartney was performing at the half time show like it was a major selling point..?

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Sounds pretty emphatic that there will not be shorter quarters beyond this season...

 

[Blackhawk42]

16 minute quarters for pre-season.

18 during the regular season.

20 minutes for finals.

Same as UFC model of extra rounds for championship fights.

*note: Not a serious proposal.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Maybe Foxtel would want it but i doubt Channel 7 would want shorter games as they only get 3 or 4 games a week.

And it is in those prime time slots. Channel 7 definitely want it, they've been pushing for it for a while. That's where the whole thing was being driven from in the first place.

 

[Thetrader15]

Sounds pretty emphatic that there will not be shorter quarters beyond this season...

View attachment 883358

"It's not something that we're contemplating for next year...at the moment"

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

"It's not something that we're contemplating for next year...at the moment"

Did he actually say “at the moment”? I never heard the interview and that Age article didn’t mention it.

 

[Coops93]

16 minute quarters for pre-season.

18 during the regular season.

20 minutes for finals.

Same as UFC model of extra rounds for championship fights.

*note: Not a serious proposal.

16 minutes for 3 thirds/periods in pre-season

20 mins for 4 qtrs in the real games.

 

[parsons nose]

You argument about less injuries is ridiculous. Of course there will be less injuries if there is less game time. If I drive my car less I am less likely to have an accident.

That doesn't make the game a better spectacle, nor does it provide the fans value for their money. One of the great things about this sport is that it relies on endurance. Shortening the game takes an important weapon away from a great many players, their running power.

I can't be buggered paying over $2K a year in membership and match day add-ons to watch a little over an hour of football. And I am pretty certain that I won't be the only one. Food and drink vendors at the stadium won't exactly be pleased either. Not only because the less time a patron spends in the stadium, the less they spend but this will be amplified by fewer people being prepared to wait in a beer or food queue during a break as they are going to sacrifice watching too much of the game in pursuit of a pie or a beer.

But it will please the networks, the advertisers and people with limited attention spans like Gerard Whately and yourself. The AFL is hell bent on turning what used to be a great sport into T-20 Football for the suckers who can't take their eyes off their mobile phone screens for minutes at a time.

Alright mate, it seems the notion of polite discourse is beyond your grasp.

 

[parsons nose]

It's not for that. The slow play just allows a team more control over the game. Generally it's used when a team doesn't necessarily want to score themselves but rather wants to make sure the opponent does not. When the leading team does it to ice a game, it obviously wrecks the game, but when a team does it to stop an opposition run on, it prevents the game from becoming a blowout and turns what would've been a boring finish into something worth watching.

Fair point. Many here are confusing quality with quantity. In boxing parlance, the Hearns/Hagler fight in the 1980’s went for 3 rounds- I doubt anyone who witnessed the fight would have demanded a refund that night. Why? Because they were sufficiently entertained. If you were starting the game from scratch you may just as easily choose 16 minute quarters as 20 minute minute quarters. Because we’ve been bred on the latter many feel we are being short changed by the former without examining the quality of the product. And in my humble opinion the quality of the product diminishes the longer the players are out there.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

the clue has always been in the comments of the administration of the day. they try and convince the public that the game is too long, then propose changes that only shave a couple of minutes off the game time. those 2 minutes are afl broadcast deal gold and don't serve any other purpose. they aren't the difference between someone sitting down to watch a game from bounce to final siren and i'm surprised and disappointed to learn from media pundits that attention spans could even be thought of as an excuse. taking that sliver of time off won't solve any of the afl's problems other than money problems.

I tell you what, my attention span was tested during that sentence.



No offence mate, just having a laugh.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

And teams started killing the clock by causing repeat boundary throw-ins and ball-ups which is why they went to 20 minutes with time-on included for stoppages

Yep, good call DA. I’d prefer it as it is to the old approach too. And I’d have no issues if they went to 16 minute quarters if they stopped the clock for marks and free kicks. Especially the 30-second shots at goal.

In fact, about 10-12 years ago (more?) I started a thread addressing this very issue. I’ll try to locate it at some stage. Something along the lines of “calibrating the game” IIRC

 

[hamohawk1]

Watching the NRL, appears to be 40 min half continuous, besides for when a try is scored. Quite like it tbh, and think the AFL should do 20 min quarters, that only stop for a goal. If the ball goes out, or a ball up, the clock continues.

 

[hawkman]

Watching the NRL, appears to be 40 min half continuous, besides for when a try is scored. Quite like it tbh, and think the AFL should do 20 min quarters, that only stop for a goal. If the ball goes out, or a ball up, the clock continues.

Always been like that. What they have done though is reducing stoppages. Bit harder to do that in AFL but throw the ball and in immediately instead of waiting for the ruckmen. Score reviews done immediately and none of this waiting to see it on the scoreboard.

Do this and you can save a minute or 2 a quarter

 

[Blue1980]

Neither is the night grand final.....until they bring it up at the start of every season again.

Night grand final doesn’t fundamentally change the actual game itself.

Apart from a few whinging players, people with ADHD and isolated clickbait merchants in the media 98% of people don’t want shorter quarters.

 

[Blue1980]

I don't think so, TV broadcasters are one of the main ones who have been pushing for shorter quarters for years. They want games to fit in 2hr TV slots so they can have back to back games and night games finishing earlier. This will allow them to schedule more games on Thurs/Mon nights and wouldn't surprise me if they pushed for Sunday nights as well. They would also look to have double-header Friday night games.

Doesn’t really make sense, shorter games mean less ads and viewing time. It’s not like a shorter version of cricket which could bring in a new audience, 16 minute quarters wouldn’t do any thing to attract anyone new to the game.

I mean would people suddenly watch soccer if it was 75-80 mins instead of 90 if the didn’t like it before? Or rugby if it was 65-70 minutes as opposed to 80?

American football games have a duration of 30-40 minutes longer than a regular AFL game and they seem to be going fine.

It’s seriously the most brain dead idea to reduce the length of quarters since I’ve begun following football.

FWIW, I know they reduced from 25 to 20 minutes in 94, but they stop for throw ins, ball ups etc now so it roughly works out similar in terms of time in play.

 

[Blue1980]

But Gerard Whateley said "I'd be Staggered if we went back" to 20 minutes quarters, so I thought that meant it was a done deal, given he's the authority on the league now

So much sports media know they need to create talking points by taking deliberately divisive viewpoints.

 

[Blue1980]

Yep, good call DA. I’d prefer it as it is to the old approach too. And I’d have no issues if they went to 16 minute quarters if they stopped the clock for marks and free kicks. Especially the 30-second shots at goal.

In fact, about 10-12 years ago (more?) I started a thread addressing this very issue. I’ll try to locate it at some stage. Something along the lines of “calibrating the game” IIRC

If we got it to the point like basketball that every bit of dead play is clock stopped, sure 16 minute quarters could work. That would mean clock stops as soon as a mark is taken and player stops.

But again don’t really see the point.

 

[Do the Dew]

Yep, the commercialism of their sport is staggering, as well as the blind acceptance from the fans who also I quickly discovered come up with some strange reasons to defend it.
I lived in Pennsylvania for a few years back in the early 2000's, sort of got into the NFL, NY Jets, and still follow them but the baseball, well I tried but I guess you really have to grow up with it...
I stupidly bought an annual subscription to the 'NFL channel' one year thinking I could watch some live games. Pre and post game analysis shows and replays no problem, but bizarrely they didn't have the rights to show any live games!

I also had an opportunity to attend a Superbowl one year in Florida (and regret I probably should of done) but at $1100 a ticket, airfares/hotel and other costs etc. to watch just 12 minutes of actual play, I passed. I recall one of my work colleagues at the time encouraging me to go mentioning Paul McCartney was performing at the half time show like it was a major selling point..?

The only similar sport we have is cricket. US folks can't get their head around it but if you grew up with it you typically love it.

It's frustrating when Gil and Whateley/media go on about how well the Americans do things in terms of fan engagement and entertainment in their sports. What they don't mention is that the organisations here have to do these things really well, because the actual sport (NFL/baseball) are so slow and boring. That's why a lot of these fan engagement gimmicks don't translate well to footy, because it's a much quicker and exciting game.

Even watching Sunday NFL here, there's about 4 games on at once that the broadcaster switches back and forth between so you can actually see the live play instead of the constant breaks. Imagine trying to watch 4 games of footy at once.

 

[dumb]

It went from 20 min time-on to 16 = 20% of game time reduction. That's a whole lot more than "a couple of minutes".

that's before time-on so not really a %20 reduction. but i agree, hence my second paragraph. compared to previous seasons where they've taken away only small amounts from the game this is their time to try and sell much shorter quarters. and for some reason there are media pundits that have jumped on board. maybe because the people who pay their wages have something to gain from it? who knows.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Doesn’t really make sense, shorter games mean less ads and viewing time. It’s not like a shorter version of cricket which could bring in a new audience, 16 minute quarters wouldn’t do any thing to attract anyone new to the game.

I mean would people suddenly watch soccer if it was 75-80 mins instead of 90 if the didn’t like it before? Or rugby if it was 65-70 minutes as opposed to 80?

American football games have a duration of 30-40 minutes longer than a regular AFL game and they seem to be going fine.

It’s seriously the most brain dead idea to reduce the length of quarters since I’ve begun following football.

FWIW, I know they reduced from 25 to 20 minutes in 94, but they stop for throw ins, ball ups etc now so it roughly works out similar in terms of time in play.

Great post

 

[sr36]

I like the concept. But think we should wait to see how it goes. I think the AFL stuffed up with rotation caps designed to slow down and thus declutter the game. Last year there was too much holding pattern footy, where teams seemed to be just conserving energy with the view of going full throttle in small bursts. I want the whole thing to be full throttle.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Sounds pretty emphatic that there will not be shorter quarters beyond this season...

View attachment 883358

"All but" means it can happen.

 

[norway blue]

"All but" means it can happen.

Yep MM. if it’s not the 16 minutes it will be something else. Leave the game alone and take out that stupid exclusion zone thingy.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Wosh]

He's clearly seen the poll results and arrived at the correct conclusion. All thanks to myself and Wooshette for making it happen!

We really should get a shiny badge for saving the AFL

 

[Partridge]

Doesn’t really make sense, shorter games mean less ads and viewing time. It’s not like a shorter version of cricket which could bring in a new audience, 16 minute quarters wouldn’t do any thing to attract anyone new to the game.

I mean would people suddenly watch soccer if it was 75-80 mins instead of 90 if the didn’t like it before? Or rugby if it was 65-70 minutes as opposed to 80?

American football games have a duration of 30-40 minutes longer than a regular AFL game and they seem to be going fine.

It’s seriously the most brain dead idea to reduce the length of quarters since I’ve begun following football.

FWIW, I know they reduced from 25 to 20 minutes in 94, but they stop for throw ins, ball ups etc now so it roughly works out similar in terms of time in play.

Completely agree. In a long long list of idiotic and unneeded rule changes, this is the worst.