Come again, not sure how you read that into what I said.
Would 15 or 16 a side work and would you want it?
- Thread starter RUNVS
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Come again, not sure how you read that into what I said.
It’s not complicated, you said positions are no longer a feature of the game, that is wrong .
Spot on. SA has been playing with modified rules for out of bounds rules. Do it ..
A feature is what I said, not dont exist, as you seem to have read it.
The context of my comment was a suggestion around dropping forwards.
Errr... so I said "if you remove 2 players from teams they'll just be removed from the forward group" and you said "but positions are not a feature of the game"... In this context it seems clear you were trying to say you can't remove forwards because nowadays its just 18 players chasing the ball around... which obviously isn't true.
We used to play 16 a side matches at local level during preseason, effectively it didn't change too much, we removed the wingers from each team and really the only things that changed was you played slightly more direct up the middle of the field, or you made sure your HBF were excellent runners and got the ball out into space for them.
So if the AFL wants players taking more bounces on the wings coming out of defence, or players doing longer kicks out of defence then dropping the wings works. But intercept marking players still have a field day across CHB, and you still get flooding in the hot spots (C, CHF/CHB) because when wings go play becomes a bit predictable.
That said, thats local level. Would love to see the AFL do a few practice matches where they remove the wings and see what changes it makes.
So if the AFL wants players taking more bounces on the wings coming out of defence, or players doing longer kicks out of defence then dropping the wings works. But intercept marking players still have a field day across CHB, and you still get flooding in the hot spots (C, CHF/CHB) because when wings go play becomes a bit predictable.
That said, thats local level. Would love to see the AFL do a few practice matches where they remove the wings and see what changes it makes.
All I can say is no.
Yes... that's about as much sense as you've made.
spudmaster
Brownlow Medallist
We might have won a few more games if the opposition had 15 or 16 players, certainly.
I agree. Many of the best games are the low scoring tight thrillers. Less scoring generally = closer contests.
Teams will never go back to a mentality where they just allow their opposition to score at willl - that ship has sailed. As a result, 15 or 16 per side, or any rule change that makes it harder to pressure in the forward half of the ground will just encourage teams to be even more defensive and push numbers back inside defensive 50, leading to even less scoring.
This is exactly what we saw this year with the 'stand' rule. There were a few teams who dallied with a run and gun, play on style early in the year - my team was one of them. Other teams like Geelong were more happy to go back to defending inside 50 and then possess the ball and move it cautiously. By mid-year, it was clear what the superior strategy was and every team started doing the same. By the last third of the year we were routinely getting 70-25 scorelines as weak teams found it almost impossible to score against a top quality team that was parking the bus.
The same happens in AFLW with 16 per side, and it would be exactly what happens in AFL. The same will happen if they reduce interchanges, or a range of other measures suggested.
I've posted this before, but there's only one way to increase scoring imo and that is to give teams and coaches an incentive to build around scoring (not just win). My preference would be a bonus premiership point for scoring 100 (which incidentally aligns with the 100-86 premiership formula). Even a losing team has incentives to try and rack up score - for teams in the mid-table it could stack up to 5-6 premiership points across the year and that's more than enough to tip a team into finals. A smaller alternative would be to replace 'percentage' as a tie-breaker with 'point for'.
This is exactly what we saw this year with the 'stand' rule. There were a few teams who dallied with a run and gun, play on style early in the year - my team was one of them. Other teams like Geelong were more happy to go back to defending inside 50 and then possess the ball and move it cautiously. By mid-year, it was clear what the superior strategy was and every team started doing the same. By the last third of the year we were routinely getting 70-25 scorelines as weak teams found it almost impossible to score against a top quality team that was parking the bus.
The same happens in AFLW with 16 per side, and it would be exactly what happens in AFL. The same will happen if they reduce interchanges, or a range of other measures suggested.
I've posted this before, but there's only one way to increase scoring imo and that is to give teams and coaches an incentive to build around scoring (not just win). My preference would be a bonus premiership point for scoring 100 (which incidentally aligns with the 100-86 premiership formula). Even a losing team has incentives to try and rack up score - for teams in the mid-table it could stack up to 5-6 premiership points across the year and that's more than enough to tip a team into finals. A smaller alternative would be to replace 'percentage' as a tie-breaker with 'point for'.
If the players would gladly stay near their areas on the ground then it would easy to enforce some stoppage density rules and that would be great. But we know players wont do that.
So how do you propose to make that work?
If it's zones then you'll get the netball response.
If it's waiting for the players to reset positions constantly then the game is a mess.
If it's punishing teams for not having players there immediately post a stoppage being called then you've got guys sprinting back to position which is ugly too.
It's hard to see what the solution is that gets a decent amount of players back in to position in a practical manner.
I disagree.
Players and clubs seem to rarely stuff up centre square set up.
It actually not rocket science how it would pan out.
Players would know there no point flooding down one end when some of them have to be ready to be back in forward line soon after.
Coaches will just go back to have their first line of forward line of (full forward and forward pockets) not roam way down the ground. They may wander up to half forward line but I doubt there much point going beyond there. If there a stoppage in opposition forward 50 metre arc they only have to move back a little way to get back with their own 50 metre arc if wandered up that far.
They would adapt pretty easily.
Centre bounces occur at the start of quarters or following goals with 40+ second breaks, not sure how that's relevant.
If the rule says 2 must be inside 50 for each stoppage and if they aren't it's an automatic free kick then yes, some players will be instructed to stay fairly deep. But I still can't imagine a coach freely giving up the advantages of 18 man defensive set up.
Would teams start picking a specialist full forward and small forward who stay inside 50 or would teams continue as is but tell their forwards to keep an eye out for potential stoppages and have a couple of them defend only slightly less up the field.
Unless you're specialists are prime Tony Lockett and Eddie Betts I don't think they'll be going that way. Much easier to just make sure forwards are alert to the ball going deep.
The game has changed so much since teams learnt the benefit of all players defending. It's going to take something pretty drastic to change that.
Yep.
16 on the field.
6 on the bench.
No wings.
16 on the field.
6 on the bench.
No wings.
Prefer keeping the wings and removing a defender and forward.
5-6-5
5 on the bench so 21 players overall just for tad higher quality teams per game.
I see why you worried as centre bounces do have quite a break in between.
But yeah, overall, if coaches and teams know a certain amount have to be inside each stoppage it simply going to be a case of 18 man defensive set up is not going to be a thing as a zone defence set up at either 50 metre arc, cannot happen which is what we want. It never been good for game as a spectacle so it no loss. The coaches won't be fussed once they know it cannot happen.
That why when thought about this idea in last few years it makes more sense the more I see games clogged up at either end of ground with roller mauls how it will remove a lot of that dead end negative nonsense.
- Apr 9, 2016
- 1,825
- 3,173
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Keep zones.
Eliminate defenders.
6 forwards in each attacking half - no defenders.
teams will still kick an unacceptable about of behinds.
Eliminate defenders.
6 forwards in each attacking half - no defenders.
teams will still kick an unacceptable about of behinds.
Maybe its having 22 players doing what 18 used do?
I wouldn't be against each player on the bench only being able to be brought on once per quarter. So you have a total of 16 rotations per game max, and allow 1 extra per game for an emergency for the medi sub.
That's possibly a factor but coaches rarely rotated players through positions in the good old days. Coaching didn't become a true profession for a very long time and finally soccer and basketball tactics begun to influence footy. As long as they were fit enough you'd still be able to play modern structures.
I think it is a factor regardless of the other points raised.
Would love to see another basketball inspired rule be trialled - Illegal defence rule
Make it a free kick to be guarding space at the point the player is standing guarding space.
Big penalty to be a loose man in defence, hard to be third man intercept player if they have to pay more attention to a player.
exception being from a behind, a forward zone can be set up
be interesting to see how the coaches would pull it apart for advantage
Make it a free kick to be guarding space at the point the player is standing guarding space.
Big penalty to be a loose man in defence, hard to be third man intercept player if they have to pay more attention to a player.
exception being from a behind, a forward zone can be set up
be interesting to see how the coaches would pull it apart for advantage
Similar threads
