Reduce players on field from 18 to 16.

[Corpuscles]

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.

Thats why it should be trialled.

Flooding works by controlling tempo. Kick short ,around boundary or close to it. Force a stoppage, get huge numbers around the ball ,make sure defensive tackling is a priority, then easier to get numbers back by slowing and crowding the game or opposition entry into their 50m arc.

Have a look at the brilliant open exciting passages of play that were even still around in the 90's!!!!

Now it is rare for most teams unless an exceptional dasher Gary jr or Judd or Kerr or Kennelly etc run through traffic!

ALSO these days the skill level of passing 25-30m has improved enormously far less turnovers mean more incentive /reason to flood.

Not so easy to do when there is space and less bodies to fill the space and quick breaks might mean goal to goal line !

 

[AndyLucimitis]

Get rid of Back Pockets. They are always ugly guys with beards like Jeff Dunne and David Ackerly.

 

[FuManchu]

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.

everyone?

I've long been an advocate for play on if kicking backwards in the back 50.

The game needs to evolve to make it more appealing in a competitive market. Having less congestion and curtailing the time wasting possesion that goes on in tight games at the end should be priorities. Any rule that encourages continual goal attack should be encouraged.

 

[jefffff34]

****, there wouldn't be any flooding at Waverley.

 

[CDaniher7]

Stupid idea. No need to change it.

Less players on the field will only lead to players running more. Then they'll complain about injuries. So they'll shorten the quarters... which will lead to more and more changes to the rules as if there aren't enough already!

What's next? Multi-ball for the last five minutes of each quarter?

 

[Corpuscles]

****, there wouldn't be any flooding at Waverley.

BS! every time I went there the carpark was 6inches under water !

Dropped & lost my telescope in the quicksand which I took to watch the game from the concrete outer

How would they make TD or SCG bigger?... just reduce the number of players!

 

[FuManchu]

BS! every time I went there the carpark was 6inches under water !

Dropped & lost my telescope in the quicksand which I took to watch the game from the concrete outer

How would they make TD or SCG bigger?... just reduce the number of players!

Hows this for an idea, no players in the centre square for each bounce and no player can enter it until the ball is cleared.

Think about it

 

[bluesforever]

LEAVE THE GAME ALONE!!! I am over people trying to change it or even contemplating whether it would be good or not, the game is great as it is.

 

[finders]

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.

The VFA had 16 a side from the 1960s to early 1990s and it was a very open style of game,very few packs and plenty of marking one on one The other advantage is if and when there two more AFL clubs it would free up 32 players enough for one of the teams.

 

[budge11]

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

LOL!

 

[Murray]

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')

Err...No. Just leave it alone.

 

[ripitup27]

Don't want to be too cocky about my own team but did anyone see Geelong play at all last year?

If you did you would notice that this flooding, around the boundary, handballing crap is going to disappear soon enough.

Geelong did it once during the year, against the Hawks, and we lost. Coaches are going to wake up that it will no longer win you matches.

We don't need a new rule to get rid of congestion, because that style of play will naturally die out because it doesn't win games.

And to those who say we need to keep changing the game to keep it fresh, like we did in the past, bugger off. Rule changes in the past have been relatively minor compared to changing how many players you have on the field. It's a major part of our game, and is not a problem.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

If they are going to bring back the 16 a side that I grew up watching in the glory days of the VFA, they should also bring back the VFA biffo.

And they should bring back the mighty Dandy Redlegs!!

 

[Murray]

If they are going to bring back the 16 a side that I grew up watching in the glory days of the VFA, they should also bring back the VFA biffo.

And they should bring back the mighty Dandy Redlegs!!

Frosty Miller?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Frosty Miller?

Frosty Miller
Pat Flaherty
The Shinners brothers
Ray Orchard
Terry Reid

 

[walhawk]

Good discussions.

Players are bigger, fitter & faster, thus there is less space on the field, more congestion, less room for individual brilliance.
I think this would be one thing that would be worth trying at NAB Cup level as it does really have the potential to improve the game.

(Off topic, but it's like in soccer - the goals remain the same size but goalkeepers are so much bigger & faster than 100 years ago that it much harder to score. They should increase the size of the goals in Soccer).

Change for change's sake is not good but, not all change is bad. It used to be 20 a side didn't it?

 

[RUNVS]

Don't want to be too cocky about my own team but did anyone see Geelong play at all last year?

If you did you would notice that this flooding, around the boundary, handballing crap is going to disappear soon enough.

Geelong did it once during the year, against the Hawks, and we lost. Coaches are going to wake up that it will no longer win you matches.

We don't need a new rule to get rid of congestion, because that style of play will naturally die out because it doesn't win games.

And to those who say we need to keep changing the game to keep it fresh, like we did in the past, bugger off. Rule changes in the past have been relatively minor compared to changing how many players you have on the field. It's a major part of our game, and is not a problem.

Your not being to cocky (i used Geelong as a example earlier in the thread). Geelong have found a way to beat the flood so it would be too long til other teams manage it as well which will mean in afew years the flood will be gone (or atleast rarely used).

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Change for change's sake is not good but, not all change is bad. It used to be 20 a side didn't it?

It was never 20 a side. It has always been 18 vs 18.

 

[THE EQUALIZER]

It's definitely a concept worth trialling in the pre-season competition. With 16 on the field, it would most likely promote more field kicking and kicking to contests. It would also encourage teams to use the corridor and not go so wide.

To all those that say leave the game alone, when has it ever been left alone?

As players and coaches change the way they play through the tactics they implement, the law makers are duty bound to keep updating the rules as teams take advantage of the present ones.

We are in the 21st century , and that means evolving as things change. Things never stay the same and I'm glad they don't.

For those that say it's a massive change game, well you are only removing 10% of your team. It's hardly a huge imposition.

To appease the doubters, we'll let you have 6 on the bench, so that will keep the players association on side.

Let's have a look at 16 on the field. It can't hurt.

 

[MagooTheRoo]

If they are going to bring back the 16 a side that I grew up watching in the glory days of the VFA, they should also bring back the VFA biffo.

And they should bring back the mighty Dandy Redlegs!!

Yeah, I'm all for VFA style gladitorial contests. I can remember Trevor Price at Coburg beating up just about anyone who strayed into his path. Those were the days.

 

[Big Scottknowsall]

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')

Went well didn't it?

 

[SirJimi05]

Don't want to be too cocky about my own team but did anyone see Geelong play at all last year?

If you did you would notice that this flooding, around the boundary, handballing crap is going to disappear soon enough.

Geelong did it once during the year, against the Hawks, and we lost. Coaches are going to wake up that it will no longer win you matches.

We don't need a new rule to get rid of congestion, because that style of play will naturally die out because it doesn't win games.

And to those who say we need to keep changing the game to keep it fresh, like we did in the past, bugger off. Rule changes in the past have been relatively minor compared to changing how many players you have on the field. It's a major part of our game, and is not a problem.

Thats what they said when Essendon dominated in 2000, 7 years on and we are still talking about it.

 

[Slattery_20]

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

But is it really all that wrong?
Tactics come and go
We saw the rise of the Swans, we've seen their fall - ffs even mid-table Essendon knocked em off last year. Yes teams do - occasionally - play that style of crap football - Hawks v Saints springs to mind - but it hasn't got them anywhere. Both sides only started making progress once they loosened up

When all teams start employing a tactic that's really bad to watch, then we get worried.

 

[Tigersman]

Easy way to keep the talent level up when the new teams come in.

I liked the VFL/VFA when it was 16 a side

 

[walhawk]

Barassi agrees with me.
From thwe AFL website...

'I think we should go to 16 a side, it's been done before in the VFA many years ago, it will make more space and more one-on-one contests'