10 hours ago, Diamond_Jim said:

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

No Way, 16 a side. pfft

Simply reduce the rotation numbers allowable until the players fatigue & cannot cover the ground anywhere near as much that they can flood back & forth.

Why do these intelligent pircks keep thinking they should change the game further,,,  to try to undo a scourge upon us.  Instead of just winding back the problem.

 

Is there a secret agenda to turn this game into an international Gaelic oriented game ?

11 hours ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

Agree.

Perhaps it's just nostalgia, but for my mind, the best modern footy was played in that 80s/90s era, with two or three on the bench and limited (but not subitutinal type) interchange.  Current coaches complain that it would "slow the game down" and that players would "burn out in the fourth quarter" - my personal opinion is that's crap:

1.  Players and teams would need to relearn how to 'pace' them selves so as to leave them selves more in the tank at the end of the game.  1500m runners don't go out at 400m pace for the first lap.

2.  Would result in more true one on one (not 5 on 5) contests to move the ball down the ground;

3.  More true lead up and one on one power forward/key back type contests at either end of the ground.

4.  Still plenty of scope for different sized, skilled and athleticly talented players to play different roles and parts of the ground.

This is the way Aussie Rules was meant to be played.  If limited rotations failed to bring the desired result, I'd also actually be in favor of introducing further zone rules in general play, beyond the current centre square one we have now.

Before rampant interchange, if a player needed a rest, usually a ruckman or midfielder they went to the forward pocket for a break. That also applied to players that may have taken a knock and needed to catch their breath back. Since they needed to be manned up that reduced the congestion elsewhere and ensured there will be no vacant goal front.

Edited September 7, 20169 yr by america de cali

I think 16 a side is worth trying.  It's not a rule change in the way the game is played so it would have minimum impact on umpire interpretation etc.  I'd hate to see "zones" and players limited to them, that would be a major change to the way the game is played and umpired.  16 a side is a low impact change that could produce great results.