18 minute quarters
- Thread starter Whiskers
- Start date
- Tagged users None
queensberryrules
Club Legend
- Aug 16, 2019
- 2,670
- 3,722
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I'm reminded for some reason of the Pratt - Hudson 150 goals comparison. 21 versus 24 games.
Long live the memory of Pratt. 4.3 goals a game for Swans, 6.5 goals per game for Coburg.
Master91
Debutant
- Feb 5, 2020
- 88
- 138
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Scott Pendlebury was on SEN Breakfast yesterday and made some interesting comments about quarter length. Essentially he suggested that play been so stagnant this year because teams have energy to defend the ground for 16 minutes, compared to 20 minute quarters when the game breaks open more in the last 5 minutes because players are fatigued.
If the AFL keep the game at 16 minute quarters or even go with 18 minutes, they need to reduce the interchange cap drastically, I think to 20-30 a game. More fatigue = less defense = more free flowing and open play.
If the AFL keep the game at 16 minute quarters or even go with 18 minutes, they need to reduce the interchange cap drastically, I think to 20-30 a game. More fatigue = less defense = more free flowing and open play.
20 mins for 2021, leave it alone Gill
Bring-Back-Powell
Norm Smith Medallist
20 minute quarters please and none of this hub garbage that was a stain on the 2020 season.
- May 20, 2011
- 12,013
- 10,664
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Can't see 20 minute quarters ever returning, will be 18 from now on.
Yep, shorter quarters with a lot less interchange is the way to go
Just put it back the way it was. Stop stealing from the public Gillon you campaigner.
Either 18 mins for 24 game season
Or 22 mins for 20 game season
or 20 mins for 22 game season
Or 22 mins for 20 game season
or 20 mins for 22 game season
TENACIOUS
Premiership Player
- Aug 16, 2008
- 3,182
- 12,505
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I'd support 18 minute Quarters if we had 34 season games
- Dec 5, 2017
- 2,108
- 4,981
- AFL Club
- Richmond
There was nothing wrong with the game length pre covid. They simply needed to reduce interchange to free up play. Don’t let them fool you into thinking there was.
We are allowing them to mess with the very fabric of the game here. It’s wrong.
We are allowing them to mess with the very fabric of the game here. It’s wrong.
No way. Time on is needed for goals. You cant reduce a qtr for a minute everyime a team kicks a goal. Plus you are encouraging time wasting by punching the ball out of bounds amd holding it up in pile ons to force a ball up.
Regardless of length of game 22 home and away game to only 4 finals weeks is too a high a ratio as it is.
There is zero evidence to base this on. Ive never been at the football with casuals who get bored By the gaem being too long.
That waits are now way to long.
Agree.. Oct-March is a long lay off and the players would no doubt rather play footy than train and play scratch matches.
More games and 18min quarters and 2 more on the bench.
Start season in early march and play the GF mid Oct.
The fans dont want more meaningless games.
ok then, time for a wildcard round. that keeps the season alive for a few more teams in the last quarter of the season...
Of just keep the season at 22 rounds and do 17-5 to make it even and stretch finals out by an extra 5 weeks making Games more meaningful.
The sub rule was good. We should bring it back.
- Banned
- #147
LMAO
As has been said it is pretty obvious the quarter length change has drastically reduced scoring and contributed to hideous football- teams aren't getting tired so the ability to zone and defend in front of the ball persists throughout the game and one on ones never occur.
On top of that, one of the most s**t things about the arbitrary rule change is how it has majorly altered the balance of power, and in some cases jeopardized careers.
Case in point, someone like Tom Hickey. He played 20 games last year as a backup ruckman, because the west coast gameplan revolved around him being a workhorse for 10 min a quarter, wearing down the opposition and ensuring Naitanui was fresh when needed. He's played 3 games this year, of which one was the full length round 1 fixture. Essentially his career has been ended because in shorter quarter games no one can justify playing two ruckmen- how is it fair or reasonable to unilaterally spring that change on a league one week in? Similarly, the elite endurance mids whose gameplan involve running their opponents into the ground and getting free space late in quarters and games are suddenly stuck in congestion the whole game
I honestly can't think of a worse rule change. Its made games slower, uglier, lower scoring,
On top of that, one of the most s**t things about the arbitrary rule change is how it has majorly altered the balance of power, and in some cases jeopardized careers.
Case in point, someone like Tom Hickey. He played 20 games last year as a backup ruckman, because the west coast gameplan revolved around him being a workhorse for 10 min a quarter, wearing down the opposition and ensuring Naitanui was fresh when needed. He's played 3 games this year, of which one was the full length round 1 fixture. Essentially his career has been ended because in shorter quarter games no one can justify playing two ruckmen- how is it fair or reasonable to unilaterally spring that change on a league one week in? Similarly, the elite endurance mids whose gameplan involve running their opponents into the ground and getting free space late in quarters and games are suddenly stuck in congestion the whole game
I honestly can't think of a worse rule change. Its made games slower, uglier, lower scoring,
Yes why have a rule that limits unfairness from an early injury. Why would we want to do that? Pretty much every other professional world Sport has subs but gees our game is special somehow.
Round 1 was 16 minute quarters as well.
‘I’d be staggered if we went back’: Shorter AFL games ‘here to stay’ say footy greats and experts
‘I’d be staggered if we went back’: Shorter AFL games ‘here to stay’
www.foxsports.com.au
Similar threads
