Reduce players on field from 18 to 16.

[walhawk]

The AFL should consider reducing the number of players on the field for each team to 16.
This would reduce congestion & allow a more free flowing game. There would be more kicking, less handball, more high marks, less of the Swans-style crap games.

Also, reducing lists to 36 + rookies would free up more players for new teams (increase team 16>18 & reduce players 18<16 = no dilution of player quality).

They should at least trial it in the NAB Cup, which so far has been a congested, sloppy handall fest.

It goes against tradition but the result would be a game that more closely resembles old fashioned footy that the congestion and lack of individual brilliance that we have now. Players would have more time & space to execute skills.
The VFA did this in the 1980s (remember 'No wings but we fly higher')

 

[DockerNJL]

i have said this so many times, as have others.
LEAVE THE FRICKEN GAME ALONE

 

[gandaal]

i have said this so many times, as have others.
LEAVE THE FRICKEN GAME ALONE

Agreed.

LEAVE THE FRICKEN GAME ALONE

What is wrong with you people?

 

[Corpuscles]

I agree with OP Reduce it to 16!!!

Reckon it would solve excessive flooding

But maybe more on bench and not restrict rotations as game would be faster and more exhausting?

PS But a bit rich a Hawk fan having a go at Swans style.... ClarkoNoahson is a copycat

 

[Bombermania]

No need, I can understand suburbian and Country leagues doing it for their grounds are smaller also many leagues struggle for numbers, but at AFL level the idea is bunk

 

[hawk-boy]

Stupid Idea, The Game Is Perfect As It Is, Why Try Fix Something That Isnt Broken

 

[RUNVS]

Changing the number of players on the field is going to far. Small changes are bad enough but the game i fell in love with is Aussie Rules and i dont want to see some bastardised game calling itself Aussie Rules is 20 years time.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Until a professional, "win-at-all-costs" mentality is applied.

Only 16 men on the field? More territory to cover, athletes become more valuable than footballers.

Can't cover territory defensively? Can't afford turnovers. Short, chip-chip-chip kicking, using the space. Alternatively run-n-handball.

Need more run? Ruckmen go by-by, in come 195cm runners, who can kinda compete in the ruck.

Want space up forward, so move our HFF to the wing, our FP to HF, and play a four man forwardline. Opposition has loose men in defence, scoring much harder.

Eliminates pack marking, reduces reliance on footskills (more space), increasing endurance requirements.

Sorry to shoot you down with the first post (it could be a good idea), but unfortunately 'winning' at the professional level is all about defence and teamwork.

 

[privatopia]

Why Try Fix Something That Isnt Broken

Well I agree with the OP because I think it is broken. The flooding and hand-pass-fests and chipping and intentional breakdown of play annoys the crap out of me about the game. Take out two men and it creates more space.

While I share most of your loathness to change rules, if the game has a massive fault at the very core of it, and I reckon it does, you need to find a way to bring the skills back and this could be worth a trial.

Change is not all doom and gloom

 

[Rockford]

Why stop there? Reduce it to 5 a side, get rid of the goal posts and put up baskets. Stop them kicking the ball as well, that way they'll run more. Tackling slows the game down too much as well, get rid of tackling

 

[Merv]

The AFL should consider reducing the number of players on the field for each team to 16.
This would reduce congestion & allow a more free flowing game. There would be more kicking, less handball, more high marks, less of the Swans-style crap games.

Also, reducing lists to 36 + rookies would free up more players for new teams (increase team 16>18 & reduce players 18<16 = no dilution of player quality).

They should at least trial it in the NAB Cup, which so far has been a congested, sloppy handall fest.

It goes against tradition but the result would be a game that more closely resembles old fashioned footy that the congestion and lack of individual brilliance that we have now. Players would have more time & space to execute skills.
The VFA did this in the 1980s (remember 'No wings but we fly higher')

Excellent idea and i have long been an advocate of this suggestion.

 

[SirJimi05]

Stupid Idea, The Game Is Perfect As It Is, Why Try Fix Something That Isnt Broken

It's called evolving.

If the AFL adopted your mentallity the game would still be a semi-professional suburban competition.

 

[SirJimi05]

The AFL should consider reducing the number of players on the field for each team to 16.
This would reduce congestion & allow a more free flowing game. There would be more kicking, less handball, more high marks, less of the Swans-style crap games.

Also, reducing lists to 36 + rookies would free up more players for new teams (increase team 16>18 & reduce players 18<16 = no dilution of player quality).

They should at least trial it in the NAB Cup, which so far has been a congested, sloppy handall fest.

It goes against tradition but the result would be a game that more closely resembles old fashioned footy that the congestion and lack of individual brilliance that we have now. Players would have more time & space to execute skills.
The VFA did this in the 1980s (remember 'No wings but we fly higher')

I think this is a great idea however i suspect that the AFLPA would not advocate such a move.

 

[The Dice Man]

Ive been saying the same ever since Sydney won the premiership, and was having this very discussion withy flatmates only 2 days ago. I think its a briliant idea and one the code desperatley needs.

 

[The Final Word]

The AFL should consider reducing the number of players on the field for each team to 16.

Agreed.

"It says we should consider 16-a-side games"

"F*ck, that's ridiculous"

"Considered and rejected"

 

[SuperPower]

I have always said since boundries have come in, Ovals being smaller (ie Waverly gone) we should reduce to 17.

No need to have a centre and a rover/ruck rover.

Might help struggling country teams having to find 1 less player even if it is only minimal.

 

[Keys]

I would have preferred to see this trialled in the NAB cup than limiting interchanges.

 

[Heisenberg_]

Like the afl would use common sense.
Hands on the back rule is awsome isn't it Vlad?

 

[Rockford]

I don't understand why those advocating dropping the number of players to 16 think that it'll reduce flooding and the chipping style of game. A team will still be able to push players back and flood. It won't solve anything.

 

[RUNVS]

I don't understand why those advocating dropping the number of players to 16 think that it'll reduce flooding and the chipping style of game. A team will still be able to push players back and flood. It won't solve anything.

Agreed. I dont see why everyone cares about flooding so much. It was a tactic that worked afew years ago but last year Geelong found a way around it so it wont be long til all the teams know how to beat it.

 

[DockerNJL]

Agreed. I dont see why everyone cares about flooding so much. It was a tactic that worked afew years ago but last year Geelong found a way around it so it wont be long til all the teams know how to beat it.

agreed there champ, just because a style of play that comes in thats not liked dosn't mean we have to have a rule brought in straight away.
let the coach's do there job and come up with a counter attack.

 

[acker]

VFA did it for years and it promoted attacking football.

Half the time with 1 or 2 extra players in defensive you only have 4-5 forwards in these open forward lines anyway.

Forward pocket as a stay at home position is already virtualy obsolete.

 

[NeXus_Helen]

The AFL should consider reducing the number of players on the field for each team to 16.
This would reduce congestion & allow a more free flowing game. There would be more kicking, less handball, more high marks, less of the Swans-style crap games.

Also, reducing lists to 36 + rookies would free up more players for new teams (increase team 16>18 & reduce players 18<16 = no dilution of player quality).

They should at least trial it in the NAB Cup, which so far has been a congested, sloppy handall fest.

It goes against tradition but the result would be a game that more closely resembles old fashioned footy that the congestion and lack of individual brilliance that we have now. Players would have more time & space to execute skills.
The VFA did this in the 1980s (remember 'No wings but we fly higher')

That is a brilliant idea walhawk. I first heard about this idea a couple of years ago and thought it should be trialled straight away in the pre-season comp. We could see how it goes there first before it was either brought in or chucked out.

 

[FuManchu]

Excellent idea and i have long been an advocate of this suggestion.

same here, as much as the critics think it wont solve congestion around the ball, it stands to reason that there will be 4 less players involved in that congestion and it also stands to reason that given there is somewhat less congestion, there is the chance to clear the ball into open space more often and therefore those places have to be taken up, probably with more players having to come out of that player huddle.

I'm not sure if we will ever get back to positional play which was quite prevalent even as late as the early 80's, but given the running ability these days, surely less players being forced to cover more space is better than just the roving packs we have today

 

[burto]

ridiculous idea. why is everyone so obsessed with changing everything? and then the same people cry 'dont change the game' when vlad and his monkey anderson bring in a new rule.