16 a side.... is it the future

[Diamond_Jim 12,065]

Seems that there is some support for trialling sixteen a side football.

The old VFA was 16 (no wings) so it isn't groundbreaking. Not sure what I think but it could be a way of opening up the game. Would also make zoning that little bit harder perhaps.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-09-07/afl-prepared-to-trial-16aside-matches

[old55 21,777]

It's worth trialling IMO.

[stuie 7,374]

I want "leaving the game alone for a bit" to be the future.

 

[Hampton 22 519]

I've thought for some time that this would be a good idea. It should open up the game, reduce stoppages and hopefully decrease collision injuries. Players are so much faster now than they were in the past; 16 players would readily cover more territory than 18 in the past. 

[BLWNBA 378]

No. 

[BLWNBA 378]

1 minute ago, Hampton 22 said:

I've thought for some time that this would be a good idea. It should open up the game, reduce stoppages and hopefully decrease collision injuries. Players are so much faster now than they were in the past; 16 players would readily cover more territory than 18 in the past. 

 

What? Have you looked at the GPS data? Territory covered has increased exponentially, how have 16 in the past covered more than 18? 

[ArtificialWisdom 3,945]

Is it the future? Yes.

Do I like it? No.

[Diamond_Jim 12,065]

1 minute ago, BLWNBA said:

What? Have you looked at the GPS data? Territory covered has increased exponentially, how have 16 in the past covered more than 18? 

I think what he is saying is that the total ground covered by 16 players today would be the same as 18 would have covered say 10 years ago.

The game needs to be opened up (most people agree) and the rule changes (deliberate out of bounds, 15 metre area around the mark, limited interchange etc) are all with this result in mind.

16 players is a drastic change but it is worth a think.

[BLWNBA 378]

4 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

Is it the future? Yes.

Do I like it? No.

 

 

Disagree with this, fewer players on the field results in a decrease for the marketability and commercial interests of sponsors and the AFL. I can't see it happening. fewer jumpers on the field, fewer sponsors logos and a decrease in the subsequent commercial exposure. 

Edited September 7, 2016 by BLWNBA

[ArtificialWisdom 3,945]

Just now, BLWNBA said:

Disagree with this, less players on the field results in a decrease for the marketability and commercial interests of sponsors and the AFL. I can't see it happening. 

You could argue that a decrease in rotations means less time of the best players playing at their peak but that didnt stop them

[BLWNBA 378]

1 minute ago, Diamond_Jim said:

I think what he is saying is that the total ground covered by 16 players today would be the same as 18 would have covered say 10 years ago.

The game needs to be opened up (most people agree) and the rule changes (deliberate out of bounds, 15 metre area around the mark, limited interchange etc) are all with this result in mind.

16 players is a drastic change but it is worth a think.

 

Ah, fair enough if that's the case. May have misread if that's what the poster intended. 

Personally, I think it's time to leave the game alone. I really don't see this issue with the game being played as it is. It's adaptation, it happens. It's cyclical in nature, removing two players from the field will just result in the game developing in another way. Ergo, people will merely find something else to complain about. 

[Diamond_Jim 12,065]

1 minute ago, BLWNBA said:

Disagree with this, less players on the field results in a decrease for the marketability and commercial interests of sponsors and the AFL. I can't see it happening. 

Actually in some ways it does the opposite in the sense that the talent pool is not spread as thinly as today (quality of game improves) , players salaries go up (less players to pay)

[red and blue forever 786]

just leave the damn game alone.

[BLWNBA 378]

2 minutes ago, ArtificialWisdom said:

You could argue that a decrease in rotations means less time of the best players playing at their peak but that didnt stop them

 

1 minute ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Actually in some ways it does the opposite in the sense that the talent pool is not spread as thinly as today (quality of game improves) , players salaries go up (less players to pay)

 

Sorry, clarified what I was referring to in my original post. 

[pitchfork 181]

Reflexively, I hate this. But one of the Scott sisters made the point that most people wouldn't realise there are 4 less players on the ground, it's just a bit more open - worth a trial imo.

More to the point I think the way the game looks has more to do with the ground it is being played on. The most aesthetically pleasing games are played at the MCG and Adelaide Oval. These are very different shaped grounds, maybe it is just a tv thing. Unfortunately, Docklands seems to throw up bad footy - whether that is slow dour football, or the kind of 'fast deck' crap that we have had this year. 

[Diamond_Jim 12,065]

As an aside would people think this is a good idea at VFL level while leaving AFL lists and numbers the same as at present for now.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I'm all for it, congestion is the biggest eyesore on the current game so anything to help reduce it would be great.

[Binmans PA 26,594]

I wonder what our FD department think about this possible rule change (specifically Goodwin). I'm selfish when it comes to football. Does this rule change inpact on our game style in a positive or negative way? If it's the latter, then I'm against it.

[What 18,810]

Ridiculous.

[Diamond_Jim 12,065]

1 minute ago, A F said:

I wonder what our FD department think about this possible rule change (specifically Goodwin). I'm selfish when it comes to football. Does this rule change inpact on our game style in a positive or negative way? If it's the latter, then I'm against it.

My gut feeling is that it would favour those clubs with good rucks and midfields. The key position players would continue to disappear as the back and fro running would increase.

The trick is like soccer to put your forward player into space and let them run onto the ball.

[P-man 13,285]

I hate the idea of fundamental changes to the game, but another few years of rugby scrums and goals only being scored when they break out the back of a defensive press, and I may become a lot more open to this.

[Binmans PA 26,594]

2 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

My gut feeling is that it would favour those clubs with good rucks and midfields. The key position players would continue to disappear as the back and fro running would increase.

The trick is like soccer to put your forward player into space and let them run onto the ball.

I guess my line of thinking was how does this impact on the way we use our wings and half forwards to run off half back and rotate onto the wings? We currently have a bit of unpredictably and Goodwin seems to be an ideas man, a bit like Clarkson, which I'm excited about. So would 16 a side make this unpredictability tougher and if so, is that a problem?

[Ted Lasso 17,206]

We make so many changes that we never even wait long enough to see if they make the game better a lot of the time, it's a good game, it's good to watch, let the umpires have a couple of seasons of the rules being consistent and only make changes if a huge issue comes up. 

[Sir Why You Little 35,223]

What would Robert "Tulip" Flower think of this...

No wings on The MCG????

 

reduce the interchange further. That is where the problem lies

Edited September 7, 2016 by Sir Why You Little

[Diamond_Jim 12,065]

And now it is revealed that they have been "secretly" trialling  "7 a side" football at VFL level.

The idea is for it to be a summer game apparently

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-secretly-trials-new-version-of-football-20160907-gral7s.html