I'd like to see the pre-season comp try out 17 or 16 players per team on the field

[Courtney_Fish 183]

Ok, I'm ready for the insults now. (You know, evey time I hear the word season I think of cooking!)

[deeko 952]

Ok, I'm ready for the insults now. (You know, evey time I hear the word season I think of cooking!)

For the pre-season comp I really couldn't care what they do, just as long as our boys get through injury free and play some decent footy.

16 a team (say removing the wings) would see games open up a lot faster and the return of multiple large goal kicking full forwards which is one thing I miss from the late 80's and 90's. Everyone loved ripping into the opposition FF and every week it seemed there were guys slotting through bags of 7 - 12 every week.

As long as we leave the real stuff alone I really dont mind

[Gorgoroth 12,757]

Having less players would probably equal more often only one or no players in your half of the ground.

[ManDee 7,124]

This may suit Essundone.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

I don't particularly like any form of pre-season competition. But if there's going to be one, it should have exactly the same rules as the season proper. Otherwise the teams practice all pre-season for one set of rules and conditions and then have to waste their time playing something else.

[ManDee 7,124]

I don't particularly like any form of pre-season competition. But if there's going to be one, it should have exactly the same rules as the season proper. Otherwise the teams practice all pre-season for one set of rules and conditions and then have to waste their time playing something else.

Sounds like cricket.

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

This may suit Essundone.

Was thinking the same thing.

I'd actually like to see it go the other way and have 23 players trialled. I'd love to see 2 subs as opposed to one- more strategy involved, can use one sub withougt worrying about holding off for possible injuries, then have another sub up the sleeve for big impact. Also a great way to introduce newbies into the team

[daisycutter 29,429]

This may suit Essundone.

nah, that'd require a 6 to 7 side team.......afl sevens anyone?

[DeeSpencer 24,945]

I don't particularly like any form of pre-season competition. But if there's going to be one, it should have exactly the same rules as the season proper. Otherwise the teams practice all pre-season for one set of rules and conditions and then have to waste their time playing something else.

No. Teams practice all pre season for the existing rules they just grin and bear it when a special preseason rule ie. super goals, play on from the goal posts etc interrupts normal play.

I'm not pro rule changes, although I do think their is some space for small rule changes to see if they will improve the game. It's important that these rules get fair trials and should be over many years of preseason football. In fact I'd want up to 5 years of pre season games to justify an effective major rule change.

So if they are ever thinking of going to 16 a side (which I think does have some merit) then the pre season is a good space to trial it.

[ManDee 7,124]

nah, that'd require a 6 to 7 side team.......afl sevens anyone?

I would like to see an 8 per side game with eight 10 minute quarters (eighths for the pedantic) and 16 subs. with no interchange.

[Curry & Beer 5,444]

I would like to see an 8 per side game with eight 10 minute quarters (eighths for the pedantic) and 16 subs. with no interchange.

I was just about to post that

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,664]

No. Teams practice all pre season for the existing rules they just grin and bear it when a special preseason rule ie. super goals, play on from the goal posts etc interrupts normal play.

I'm not pro rule changes, although I do think their is some space for small rule changes to see if they will improve the game. It's important that these rules get fair trials and should be over many years of preseason football. In fact I'd want up to 5 years of pre season games to justify an effective major rule change.

So if they are ever thinking of going to 16 a side (which I think does have some merit) then the pre season is a good space to trial it.

Cogent argument which forces me to re-think. There is definitely merit in the idea of trialing rule changes. I'm still not sold on the idea of different rules for the sake of it.

[DeeSpencer 24,945]

Cogent argument which forces me to re-think. There is definitely merit in the idea of trialing rule changes. I'm still not sold on the idea of different rules for the sake of it.

The only different rule for the sake of it I like is the supergoal. Easy, simple, something fun and then gone. And of course the different squad, bench and sub sizes so clubs can play more than 22 in a practice match which is a pretty standard thing across most sports.

I certainly didn't like trialling the rule for a free kick for last touch over the boundary similar to soccer. That's trash that was never going to be implemented.

Things like the slide rule (when adjudicated properly) and other player safety rules and even things like the deliberate rush behind rule, they are rules that are probably for the better of the game.

I think what should happen is a process of using rule changes in the preseason, then trials in 2nd level comps or in the TAC and evaluating them over time. 16 players is one of those rules, I'd love to have a round or two of TAC played with 16 as a trial.