16-a-Side to Fix Scoring

[58er 6,456]

13 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

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.

One wouldn't trust Clarko fir a fair attempt to assist the game would one?

Now that the Hawks are   more than 2 players short of a flag chance dnd are slower in real pace ( hence he sees their  pace as important in lieu of kicking accuracy ) losing wings will give him a chance.

Leave as is and it will evolve in the way footy always does OR go back to the original rules before the last rush to increase scoring was hastened in by Gill and Co with shallow evidence and even shallower thought processes.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,225]

7 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

It’s an 18 player a side game

That is Australian Football

Pretty sure the SANFL and VFA have had 16 a side. Australian Football began with 20 a side before being culled.

Changes have been made throughout the history of the game to maintain the aesthetics. The centre diamond/square wouldve been anathema to you in the 70s as well as the out of bounds on the full rule because "thats not Australian Football"

[old55 23,609]

6 hours ago, Macca said:

Depends on your definition of fatigued.  Players throughout the history of the game paced themselves.  With rotations,  players can go flat out knowing they are going to get rest.

I can't remember ever seeing a game where even a small percentage of players were unable to complete basic football tasks right up to the final siren.

You've missed the point I'm trying to make. Many here are advocating a solution based on limiting rotations thus causing fatigue and therefore reducing congestion. But that is a poor solution.

[Uncle Fester 2,848]

Let it go as it is. Why do we feel the urge to change something every year? The game is fine as it is (and was a lot better 20 years ago and better again 20 years before that etc).

Every rule change is just another chance for a smart coach to exploit it and change the game in a way that was unexpected, and lo and behold, another rule change to combat the last one. Rinse and repeat.

[Macca 16,972]

2 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

Many here are advocating a solution based on limiting rotations

Reducing rotations won't necessarily cause fatigue-like low skills

As previously stated,  players would pace themselves if the rotations were dramatically reduced and coaches would be forced to adjust their style so as the players weren't taxed too much. 

We'd effectively just go back to the way it once was.  Again,  if the AFL were on top of the situation the mess that we often see wouldn't exist. 

But they (the AFL) have let the coaches ruin the sport and now they don't know how to fix it. 

And too many here argue in a micro sense with their own club at the forefront of their thinking.  Their thinking is therefore clouded.

This is a macro discussion,  or at least it should be. To be honest,  I put all thoughts of the MFC aside when addressing the congestion issue.

I'm for drastic change but I'm probably on my own in that sense. 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Macca

[Clintosaurus 7,851]

It could be 12 a side and there would still be congestion. The whole premise of the game from the coaches point of view is to stop the other team scoring, and maintain possession until a scoring opportunity presents.

[whatwhat say what 22,775]

33 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

It could be 12 a side and there would still be congestion. The whole premise of the game from the coaches point of view is to stop the other team scoring, and maintain possession until a scoring opportunity presents.

yep

the free to air networks hate it cos more goals = more ads = more revenue

i don't mind the concept behing 16-a-side but i don't think that it'll make a lick of difference in terms of increased scoring

now, reduce the competition to 16 or 14 sides - as there's already too many teams, and thus too many ordinary players - and you might see an improvement in overall skill level

but instead the afl is likely to go the other way and increase the size of the comp to 20 teams

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,807]

10 hours ago, Kiss of Death said:

John Lennon said it best:

Let it be, let it be

There will be an answer

but fgs let the rules be.

 

Paul McCartney, actually.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Lennon was remembering the way Australian football was played in the 1960s when he wrote 'Imagine'.

[Macca 16,972]

34 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

It could be 12 a side and there would still be congestion. The whole premise of the game from the coaches point of view is to stop the other team scoring, and maintain possession until a scoring opportunity presents.

True in many respects but putting rules in place to help stop the coaches from having such a defensive mindset is a real possibility

So take some measures now,  and then see where it takes us

The alternative is to do nothing and we'll just get more of the same dross that we see now.

[sue 9,107]

10 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Fair enough, I don't necessarily disagree. More scoring isn't necessarily the aim for me it's more the aesthetic of the game. Opening up the play to remove the rolling scrums and providing some space for the game to breathe and players to be able to show off their talents instead of being suffocated by 25-30 players around the ball is the aim. Higher scoring is just a consequence of that.

If you like the game as it is now that's fine. The best games are still great. But for me they're few and far between and I often find myself bored for large patches of games which never happened previously. Maybe I'm just getting older but I don't think so, the more open game of the 90s and early 00s is still great to look back on and watch

I agree.  While I don't think the scoring needs to increase (there is a limit to how many ad breaks I can  stand!), I totally agree that the congestion needs fixing. 

I'm not sure how best to achieve that.  Obviously reducing the number of players would work - it would be very open with 12 per side (not serious, just indicating it is a certain solution at some level.  Maybe 1 less would work as well and introduce interesting tactics).  But maybe other things should be tried first.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,807]

27 minutes ago, sue said:

I agree.  While I don't think the scoring needs to increase (there is a limit to how many ad breaks I can  stand!), I totally agree that the congestion needs fixing. 

I'm not sure how best to achieve that.  Obviously reducing the number of players would work - it would be very open with 12 per side (not serious, just indicating it is a certain solution at some level.  Maybe 1 less would work as well and introduce interesting tactics).  But maybe other things should be tried first.

Reducing numbers on the field might not reduce congestion. I suspect what will happen will be just as many players will still congregate around the ball leaving fewer players upfield leading to fewer opportunities to score once a ball comes clear of the congestion. Thinking it through, I just see a congested group of players moving like a rugby scrum between the two arcs with the ball rarely getting into the forward 50.

[sue 9,107]

28 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Reducing numbers on the field might not reduce congestion. I suspect what will happen will be just as many players will still congregate around the ball leaving fewer players upfield leading to fewer opportunities to score once a ball comes clear of the congestion. Thinking it through, I just see a congested group of players moving like a rugby scrum between the two arcs with the ball rarely getting into the forward 50.

I don't think that is right.  It seems to me obvious that at some level there will be no congestion. It's just not clear what that level is.  Clearly 2 players per team means no congestion. What about 4, 8, 12, 14, 16. But it is also clear that with too few players the game will be nothing like the sport we know. 

We've seen 16 work in the past as maintaining the look of the game, though that was in a time and league of less fit players so I'm not sure that is much evidence in support of 16 now.   What about no interchanges, just 2 reserves. As well as tiring players, that would force players to pace themselves at least until latish in the game for fear of losing a player to injury earlier on.

[Macca 16,972]

38 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Reducing numbers on the field might not reduce congestion. I suspect what will happen will be just as many players will still congregate around the ball leaving fewer players upfield leading to fewer opportunities to score once a ball comes clear of the congestion. Thinking it through, I just see a congested group of players moving like a rugby scrum between the two arcs with the ball rarely getting into the forward 50.

You may well be right but what about these 2 ideas?

A variation on 6-6-6 could be that teams have to start with 7 forwards vs 5 backmen and vice-versa. Therefore a quick clearance from the centre bounce-downs could be quite productive

As an add-on teams could be required to have X amount of players (4, 5 or 6?) in their forward line every time a stoppage is called for (boundary throw in or ball-up around the ground)

That doesn't mean that the forwards couldn't venture out of the 50 arc at any time. 

[Dr. Gonzo 24,225]

4 hours ago, Clintosaurus said:

It could be 12 a side and there would still be congestion. The whole premise of the game from the coaches point of view is to stop the other team scoring, and maintain possession until a scoring opportunity presents.

In your example 12 a side would make defensive zones untenable. The ground is too big and players can kick the ball too far too quickly to be able to cover distance between the opposition in a 12 man zone.

There were always be some congestion around the ball but it would be drastically reduced and coaches would be forced to play man on man due to the zones being unworkable

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

6 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Pretty sure the SANFL and VFA have had 16 a side. Australian Football began with 20 a side before being culled.

Changes have been made throughout the history of the game to maintain the aesthetics. The centre diamond/square wouldve been anathema to you in the 70s as well as the out of bounds on the full rule because "thats not Australian Football"

I knew that would be your answer. 
The Centre Diamond was a joke. It lasted one season

Go ahead and invent your new game, just don’t call it Australian Rules Football

 

[jnrmac 20,097]

13 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

Fatigued players does not provide a better game, it means more skill errors and a poorer spectacle where players are unable to perform at their optimum.  How can this be better? Maybe we should make all the players run a half marathon before the bounce eh?

Less congestion because there's less players per square metre is a far superior solution.

Says you.

The end of a game when everyone is out on their feet  can be frantic and amongst the best recollections of a games' appeal.

I think it is indisputable that when players are 'fatigued'  and running on willpower, G&D etc  is when you see the real warriors stand out.

It's not just as you say related to 'skill errors' or ''attractiveness" Do you work at Channel 7? Personally I don't care how a game looks. I grew up with one on one contests and looked forward to seeing a Jakovich vs Carey battle. A rare thing these days.

[old55 23,609]

2 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

Says you.

The end of a game when everyone is out on their feet  can be frantic and amongst the best recollections of a games' appeal.

I think it is indisputable that when players are 'fatigued'  and running on willpower, G&D etc  is when you see the real warriors stand out.

It's not just as you say related to 'skill errors' or ''attractiveness" Do you work at Channel 7? Personally I don't care how a game looks. I grew up with one on one contests and looked forward to seeing a Jakovich vs Carey battle. A rare thing these days.

Fatigued players just cannot play as well.  This is a very simple concept to grasp.

[daisycutter 29,616]

1 hour ago, Fifty-5 said:

Fatigued players just cannot play as well.  This is a very simple concept to grasp.

players now get fatigued (frequently, and it does impact skills). regardless of the interchange (small or large) players will get fatigued. coaches (and players) will ensure this. a small interchange will force coaches to minimise the two way running as it won't be feasible for a full game. this will increase the chance that forwards and defenders are more likely to stay closer to "home" and less players are close to the ball thus reducing congestion. skills wont be impacted, in fact they may improve especially among the fwds/backs  

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

2 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

Fatigued players just cannot play as well.  This is a very simple concept to grasp.

But the great players always did play well late in a game That’s the whole point. 
Robbie Flower didn’t rotate off the bench every 8 minutes 

When did Tulip ever looked Fatigued?

The games congestion problems all ramped up in the 90’s after Sheedy’s rule was implemented 

Not all new rules work, and this is one of them

But the overpaid AFL Suits do not have the gonads to admit this one. They will implement 30 other new rules to hide the root problems 

Edited March 13, 2020 by Sir Why You Little

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

14 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

Fatigued players does not provide a better game, it means more skill errors and a poorer spectacle

Yes it does.   I will provide more open space,  as players struggle to cover enough ground to close up play defensively.  Your right, it would impact skills when players fatigue,  but this enhances one-on-one contests,  with the character of players standing out in these duels.

 

These are inspiring battles that stood the test of time, of over 100 years of footy.

[deanox 9,931]

18 hours ago, deanox said:

He is on the money in that article, but not for the reasons quoted in the headline.

“We probably need to look at the way the games officiated and say to ourselves: ‘How can we reduce the congestion? Do we reward holding the ball more regularly, so that we don’t have three, four or five stoppages in a row where as many as 20 players, 25 players get to that area of the ground and it gets really congested?’” Clarkson asked.

 

Nothing needs to change, just play the rules as written:

-Pay holding the ball when players are caught.

-Pay holding the man against the 3rd player in who locks a contest up by "tackling a tackler".

-Pay shepparding in the mark, every time someone prevents an opponent marking by bodying them out of the way, instead of trying to contest the ball in the air. 

Terrible interpretations are the problem, not numbers of players. 

Bumping this, in case anyone wants to comment: I think it's a really different take that just reducing numbers and worth discussing.

Edited March 13, 2020 by deanox

[sue 9,107]

30 minutes ago, deanox said:

Bumping this, in case anyone wants to comment: I think it's a really different take that just reducing numbers and worth discussing.

I'd certainly second this suggestion of Demonox:

-Pay holding the man against the 3rd player in who locks a contest up by "tackling a tackler".

No interpretation required there.  Almost always it is clear the tackler does not have the ball, so he can't be tackled without giving away a free kick.  Enforce that for starters and see how much it helps. I expect quite a bit.

(This thread has morphed into discussing the congestion issue rather than concentrating on supposed lack of scoring of the title. Shows the wisdom of Demonlanders.)

[jnrmac 20,097]

2 hours ago, Fifty-5 said:

Fatigued players just cannot play as well.  This is a very simple concept to grasp.

You miss the point entirely. Let me make it simple for you by giving you an analogy.

In a boxing match when players are tired it becomes a test of wills and ability to withstand what your opponent can throw at you. Its very often not pretty but enthralling and ultimately why people watch boxing.

I think you are the one that is strugling to understand simple concepts.

 

[old55 23,609]

24 minutes ago, jnrmac said:

You miss the point entirely. Let me make it simple for you by giving you an analogy.

In a boxing match when players are tired it becomes a test of wills and ability to withstand what your opponent can throw at you. Its very often not pretty but enthralling and ultimately why people watch boxing.

I think you are the one that is strugling to understand simple concepts.

 

You won't sell me with a boxing analogy.

Like I said earlier then - why don't we just get every player to run a half-marathon before the game and don't change any rules then.

[deanox 9,931]

4 hours ago, sue said:

I'd certainly second this suggestion of Demonox:

-Pay holding the man against the 3rd player in who locks a contest up by "tackling a tackler".

No interpretation required there.  Almost always it is clear the tackler does not have the ball, so he can't be tackled without giving away a free kick.  Enforce that for starters and see how much it helps. I expect quite a bit.

(This thread has morphed into discussing the congestion issue rather than concentrating on supposed lack of scoring of the title. Shows the wisdom of Demonlanders.)

This focus on interpretation change was suggested by Clarko in the article though!

 

I think this will help both congestion and scoring though, with players starting further outside of a contest (3rd man in is now less valuable), and Moore scotty to knock the ball clear.