16 minutes

[DCLXVI 13]

16 minute quarters could suit the dees. I can't remember how many quarters we've given up a winning quarter in the last 2 minutes.

 

Edited March 18, 2020 by DCLXVI
Spelling

[At the break of Gawn 4,460]

But on the flip side it also undermines all the work we’ve done this off season on our fitness and over running teams which we demonstrated in the Marsh series...

[Earl Hood 6,086]

Why 16 minutes? This is AFL getting their odd agenda in play under the guise of a virus?  At this stage they have said go and have round one going. Let’s review rounds 2 plus onwards to determine if we need to condense game time etc. 

[Nelo 813]

38 minutes ago, DCLXVI said:

16 minute quarters could suit the dees. I can't remember how many quarters we've given up a winning quarter in the last 2 minutes.

 

Tend to think it will be a disadvantage. Seems like our fitness base could separate us from other teams. 

[Deestar9 1,636]

Playing five games in 3 weeks could suit us though !

[trout 385]

How do we know our fitness is any better than the rest of the comp, yeah sure it will be better than last year but most clubs would be saying the same thing. On another note I hate the 16 min quarters feels to far removed for me a bit like twenty twenty cricket. 

[DemonOX 8,791]

Pity we didn’t have 16 min quarters last season that may have been beneficial considering our fitness levels. 

[dl4e 5,851]

16 minutes will help West Coast this week. They faded badly in their practice matches and have some good players returning who have had interupted pre seasons.

[Deemented Are Go! 3,684]

Can someone help me understand the rationale with this? How exactly will shortening quarters reduce risk....if they’re playing a contact sport anyways? Makes no sense to me. 

[brendan 3,437]

It’s 16.5 plus time on isn’t it so what would that mean 20 minutes give or take, I’m glad crowds cant go as I wouldn’t bother travelling 2 hours to watch a game that takes a bit over an hour 

[Dame Gaga 2,453]

20 minutes ago, Deemented Are Go! said:

Can someone help me understand the rationale with this? How exactly will shortening quarters reduce risk....if they’re playing a contact sport anyways? Makes no sense to me. 

I didn't hear an explanation in the announcement for the reason for the 16 minute quarters. Did anyone else? 

[spirit of norm smith 16,474]

Why 16 minutes?? What’s the change to fixtures ?!! 
 

surely the change should be no tackling ... bumping only. No tackling and no allowing anyone to run and bounce. Simples!!! Crazy times

[brendan 3,437]

Don’t forget we are playing in 30 degrees Sunday so 16 minute quarters could be a good thing on a hot day 

[DeeSpencer 25,719]

The multiple games within weeks sounds like a dud idea to me but I think the 16.5 minute quarters is also designed and approved by the sports science guys to stop players going in to exhaustion which then leaves them more susceptible to illness.

[MyFavouriteMartian 572]

3 hours ago, DCLXVI said:

16 minute quarters could suit the dees. I can't remember how many quarters we've given up a winning quarter in the last 2 minutes.

 

It will suit quicker team lists.  And teams of power and endurance will slip a little.

[Ron Burgundy 8,584]

I just hope Lewis Hamilton is cool with this.

 

[whatwhat say what 22,780]

it should suit teams who win contested footy and those capable of scoring quickly - i reckon the dogs could benefit big time

the 16 mins plus time on is all a set up so that - if we do get to this position - that they'll be able to have 3 games in 10-14 days for teams for rounds 5, 6, and 7

IF they can get thru to then - and it's a very big if - they'll have played 7 games in the first 6 weeks and they might take a winter 'break' as that could be around peak flu season

next trick is to wait and see if a player comes down it; the minute one does, it's a two week hiatus - minimum - for the competition

[Young Blood 2,628]

I'd imagine the biggest impact this will have especially from a coaching perspective is the rotations. 

Also agree with others that this doesn't bode too well for us. Definitely gives us less opportunity to grind out games by out running and contesting late in longer games.

Will benefit the cleaner sides for sure of which we haven't been the best of late.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,813]

9 hours ago, brendan said:

It’s 16.5 plus time on isn’t it so what would that mean 20 minutes give or take, I’m glad crowds cant go as I wouldn’t bother travelling 2 hours to watch a game that takes a bit over an hour 

In recent years, games have been 20 minutes plus time on and that has led to quarters being about 30-32 minutes each (sometimes longer). I suspect at 16.5 plus time on, quarters will run to about 25-27 minutes in real time, which is not hugely different to how it used to be in the 60s and 70s.

The 16.5 minute quarters appears to be a measure to allow teams to play more games with fewer days breaks in between. Similarly, the expansion of lists to 50 players (which I've seen reported but not officially stated - can anyone confirm?) is said to be for this reason, too.

 

[TGR 1,367]

16 minute quarters and a bigger bench rotation means ultra quick footy.  This disadvantages the MFC who are largely one-paced, and advantages young and quick teams (particularly quick) like St.Kilda IMO, who weren't slow to being with; and then have added Hill and Zak Jones on the wings.

 

If the season is completed, it will more than likely be a year whereby a quicker younger team, before its' premiership window, will pinch a flag.

Edited March 18, 2020 by TGR

[The Chazz 4,077]

9 hours ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

it should suit teams who win contested footy and those capable of scoring quickly - i reckon the dogs could benefit big time

the 16 mins plus time on is all a set up so that - if we do get to this position - that they'll be able to have 3 games in 10-14 days for teams for rounds 5, 6, and 7

IF they can get thru to then - and it's a very big if - they'll have played 7 games in the first 6 weeks and they might take a winter 'break' as that could be around peak flu season

next trick is to wait and see if a player comes down it; the minute one does, it's a two week hiatus - minimum - for the competition

This is the bit that I'm struggling to understand.  Should a player contract the virus, the competition will shut down for 2 weeks.  The club of said player realistically will be placed in to isolation, meaning they can't train in that time (especially as a team).

Are they expecting to just resume to full transmission as normal at the end of the fortnight?

Can't happen.

[Skuit 10,031]

So I understand the justification of playing shortened quarters to support a possibly condensed schedule. But that's so the AFL can squeeze in as many games as possible to partly cover the broadcast deal, right? But then they're shortened broadcasts anyway . . . Surely the contract is x number of games at x length? I guess by having a greater number of games, peripheral content opportunities are increased? 

[jnrmac 20,104]

16 hours ago, DCLXVI said:

16 minute quarters could suit the dees. I can't remember how many quarters we've given up a winning quarter in the last 2 minutes.

 

There will still be a last 2 minutes.....

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,813]

2 hours ago, Skuit said:

So I understand the justification of playing shortened quarters to support a possibly condensed schedule. But that's so the AFL can squeeze in as many games as possible to partly cover the broadcast deal, right? But then they're shortened broadcasts anyway . . . Surely the contract is x number of games at x length? I guess by having a greater number of games, peripheral content opportunities are increased? 

Actually, before the Covid-19 issues arose, TV networks were asking for shorter games and shorter breaks because the broadcasts were too long to hold people's attention. Therefore, I doubt the broadcasters are going to complain about shorter matches. Fewer matches, though, might be more problematic. I sense lots of work for lawyers in the next months or years interpreting 'Force Majeur' clauses in various contracts.  

[Skuit 10,031]

2 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Actually, before the Covid-19 issues arose, TV networks were asking for shorter games and shorter breaks because the broadcasts were too long to hold people's attention. Therefore, I doubt the broadcasters are going to complain about shorter matches. Fewer matches, though, might be more problematic. I sense lots of work for lawyers in the next months or years interpreting 'Force Majeur' clauses in various contracts.  

Those bloody millennials again, ruining everything.