16-a-Side to Fix Scoring

[Demonland 73,266]

Just Great!!! Just when the cavalry arrives and we finally get some decent wingmen they want to take them away from us.

‘We don't want to be like soccer’: Alastair Clarkson’s radical solution to fix AFL scoring drought

Hawthorn coach Alastair Clarkson has urged the AFL to “pull a lever” and consider trialling 16-a-side rules to address the league’s dramatic scoring drop – because “we don't want to be like soccer”.

And the four-time premiership coach admits he and other coaches with a defence-first attitude have played a role as to why “no bugger can score anymore”.

Despite a raft of changes that were originally intended to promote goalkicking, AFL scoring reached a historic low in 2019, with the average team score being just 80.4 points – the lowest since 1967, when teams averaged 78.8 points.

[pineapple dee 2,892]

Great idea. Just what we need are some half rrrrrrrsd new rules to manipulate/ increase scoring. 

To increase scoring, just simply remove all defenders from the game. It will open up the game and enable more advertising to take place, something we all desperately want. My favourite ads relate to the myriad ways I can invest and win money on the game.

Edited March 11, 2020 by pineapple dee
incomplete sentence

[DistrACTION Jackson 9,635]

My idea to fix this is to bring in a bonus point every time a team scores over 100.

Coaches will then have an incentive to have an attacking gameplan.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,950]

I'd keep 18 a side on the ground but have only two men on the bench (plus a concussion sub). I'd also reduce the breaks after every goal kicked to 35 instead of 45 seconds. With only two on the bench there would probably be no need for an interchange cap, but I wouldn't object to a limit of 10 changes per quarter, excluding any invoilving he concussion sub.

[ArtificialWisdom 4,045]

Will just result on 6 defenders vs 4 forwards instead of 7 defenders vs 5 forwards. What's the difference? 

 

[In Harmes Way 7,826]

There will still be a stacked backline and nobody to kick the ball to going forward from D50. Not sure how that increases scoring.

 

[My name is legion 158]

50 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Just Great!!! Just when the cavalry arrives and we finally get some decent wingmen they want to take them away from us.

‘We don't want to be like soccer’: Alastair Clarkson’s radical solution to fix AFL scoring drought

Hawthorn coach Alastair Clarkson has urged the AFL to “pull a lever” and consider trialling 16-a-side rules to address the league’s dramatic scoring drop – because “we don't want to be like soccer”.

And the four-time premiership coach admits he and other coaches with a defence-first attitude have played a role as to why “no bugger can score anymore”.

Despite a raft of changes that were originally intended to promote goalkicking, AFL scoring reached a historic low in 2019, with the average team score being just 80.4 points – the lowest since 1967, when teams averaged 78.8 points.

Go back to the rules when big scores were kicked. Don’t invent new ways to stuff up our game!

[HBDee 369]

Clarkson a mastermind of the defensive zone, and now all of a sudden lacks the offensive firepower of their dominant years and wants to change the rules? AFL will probably bow to his every demand.

[drysdale demon 4,837]

1 minute ago, HBDee said:

Clarkson a mastermind of the defensive zone, and now all of a sudden lacks the offensive firepower of their dominant years and wants to change the rules? AFL will probably bow to his every demand.

Yeah, strange about that.

[daisycutter 29,806]

AFLW has 16 players a side and that certainly ensures high scores..............................not

[Demonland 73,266]

1 minute ago, My name is legion said:

Go back to the rules when big scores were kicked. Don’t invent new ways to stuff up our game!

Wasn't 6-6-6 meant to create higher scores?

[My name is legion 158]

1 minute ago, Demonland said:

Wasn't 6-6-6 meant to create higher scores?

It’s B$ and it didn’t fix anything. Get rid of the rotations off the bench.

[Red and Blue realist 2,058]

Not wanting people to jump in and have a crack at AFLW, becuase clearly it is still developing - but they've got 16 a side and there's still massive congestion around the ball whenever it's heading into the Fwd50 for any team. Yes the men will have better skills and more powerful kicks but taking players off the field still won't change what coaches are going to focus on.

Be better to implement the last touch rule (only for kicks or handballs and in between the 50m - not within them) like in AFLW, that seems to speed the play up, and requires a great emphasis on skills, which then should increase scoring. 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Red and Blue realist

[drysdale demon 4,837]

11 minutes ago, Demonland said:

Wasn't 6-6-6 meant to create higher scores?

Correct

[dl4e 5,851]

Ridiculous idea. I think Clarkson may be starting to lose it a bit. Hope hawthorn get the spoon.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,368]

Removing players from the field is the only logical solution to congestion and should have happened 10-15 years ago

AFL grounds remain the same size as 120 years ago yet players are exponentially fitter not to mention the constant rotations

Removing players from the field will break up defensive zones because the area each defender will need to cover between opponents will be too large and so will force teams into man on man game plans

There will always be "loose defenders" but removing players from the field will limit their impact as there will be greater space for players to move into which they will not be able to cover

It will have a dramatic impact on the flow of the game without changing any fundamental rules relating to how the game is actually played.

16 a side is the minimum, I would consider taking it down to 15 or 14 or perhaps even further.

I would still keep the wings but remove one midfielder, one forward and one defender to start with (5-5-5) fewer midfielders at centre bounces will make it easier to clear the ball

Or we can refuse to change this, keep implementing rules that alter the fundamental nature of the game which have unintended consequences and don't address the issues they were brought in for and watch the game continue to devolve into an unentertaining rolling scrum of players with little room for individual brilliance and skill

 

[My name is legion 158]

20 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Removing players from the field is the only logical solution to congestion and should have happened 10-15 years ago

AFL grounds remain the same size as 120 years ago yet players are exponentially fitter not to mention the constant rotations

Removing players from the field will break up defensive zones because the area each defender will need to cover between opponents will be too large and so will force teams into man on man game plans

There will always be "loose defenders" but removing players from the field will limit their impact as there will be greater space for players to move into which they will not be able to cover

It will have a dramatic impact on the flow of the game without changing any fundamental rules relating to how the game is actually played.

16 a side is the minimum, I would consider taking it down to 15 or 14 or perhaps even further.

I would still keep the wings but remove one midfielder, one forward and one defender to start with (5-5-5) fewer midfielders at centre bounces will make it easier to clear the ball

Or we can refuse to change this, keep implementing rules that alter the fundamental nature of the game which have unintended consequences and don't address the issues they were brought in for and watch the game continue to devolve into an unentertaining rolling scrum of players with little room for individual brilliance and skill

 

Let’s have five a side then. Why can’t we leave the rules alone and stop wrecking the game? It was a great spectator sport before all the rule changes. Go back to the rules in the 1960s.

Edited March 12, 2020 by My name is legion

[Diamond_Jim 12,643]

Let's trial it at VFL level for two seasons. 16 a side with two interchange.

Has the added advantage of reducing the cost of the VFL team.

The 6-6-6 rule was ill thought through and had no impact because it wasn't fully trialled.

[Fat Tony 5,291]

4 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

Let's trial it at VFL level for two seasons. 16 a side with two interchange.

Has the added advantage of reducing the cost of the VFL team.

The 6-6-6 rule was ill thought through and had no impact because it wasn't fully trialled.

Trials at the lower level will not be meaningful, as the game is so much different at VFL level.

Bold action is required now.  The game is stuffed and taking players off the field will obviously reduce congestion.

[Clintosaurus 7,913]

Coaches will still find a way to stop the opposition scoring.

This is a terrible idea. As said earlier, Clarko is trying to find a way to help his team who cannot run up big scores.

[Mazer Rackham 14,971]

All these rules on rules, rules on rules on rules .... take away interchange, which has been abused beyond belief beyond its original conception as relief from injuries.

 

No need for 666, 16 a side, etc etc. Remove interchange or restrict it severely.

[Macca 17,088]

16 a side would enhance wing play rather than see it diminished

Do people here honestly believe that the coaches would leave the wings vacant?

And I've been calling for 16 a side for at least 5 years now ... music to my ears. But 16 a side won't fix the congestion outright.

14 or 15 a side is a better solution. 

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Zones are the only way to fix the game.

I'm not saying I want them but it's the only way to open up the ground and ensure that forwards stay forward and can lead at the ball carrier which will allow for more scoring.

[nosoupforme 3,085]

Clarkson might be a very good coach but he is having a brain freeze. However he might be thinking of his pockets as he will be looking for a higher salary . Less two players is not the answer  for your pocket and for the sake of our game.

Leave the game and your thoughts to yourself  the game is doing fine.  Doc C .....................Please !!!!!

[Tony Tea 2,813]

Any suggestion to increase scoring that doesn't include either restricting or removing the interchange should be ignored.