AFL may shorten quarters: McLachlan

[Hotdog60]

LINK

THE AFL will investigate cutting the length of matches in a bid to keep the game attractive and protect players from burnout.

Carlton coach Mick Malthouse is keen to see games cut to around 90 minutes of playing time, instead of the usual 120-125 minutes.

AFL chief executive Gill McLachlan says 90 minutes is too short, but he confirmed the League has been looking into the issue to find a middle ground.

"When you have 36-37 minute quarters, I think we agree with Mick that that is too long," McLachlan said during his visit to Perth on Wednesday.

"It's something that's been looked at this year.

"I think there has been a consistent message now from the players that they are almost at their limits.

"This is one of the most taxing and physical games in the world and our guys are incredible athletes.

"I think they are close to their limits and we've heard that message.

"But as far as 60, 80, 90 minutes (quarters are concerned) - that's a bit short."

Malthouse, who is entering his 31st year as a senior coach, suggested the game could save time by cutting the half-time break from 20 to 15 minutes.

He also said a large portion of the time-on, such as when the ball goes out of bounds, is irrelevant and can also be slashed.

McLachlan also confirmed the AFL would introduce goalline technology for the stadiums in Perth and Adelaide, bringing them up to standard with the grounds in Melbourne.

[Hotdog60]

Why can't they just leave well enough alone.

I'm with Bornadog I wish the AFL would stop tampering.

Like the interchange, if players could rotate more they wouldn't get so fatigued. Here's an idea roll back 20 years and go back to when you could rest players in the pockets and have two on the bench.

[LostDoggy]

It's simply a bloke wanting to put his stamp on the game. It's pure corporate culture of meddling for the bloody sake of it.

[soupman]

FFS can they stop tinkering?

So they reduce the interchange cap to tire the players out through extended time on the ground, and then when they get tired they decide they can't be having that so should make the quarters shorter. Idiots.

That article straight away shows one of the possible unintended consequences of a rule change they haven't made yet:
"He also said a large portion of the time-on, such as when the ball goes out of bounds, is irrelevant and can also be slashed"
I look forward to the end of games when the side winning in a close one keeps trying to run the ball out of bounds to run the clock down.

As a result in 5 years they'll make quarters 22 minutes to combat this unintended but totally foreseeable consequence.

[Greystache]

"The players are at their limits". No, the players are at their limits playing the way the current coaches are making them play. Which iss to have all 18 players around the ball so the coach can have more control over the game. Coaches will fight tooth and nail to have either rotations increased or quarters shortened because otherwise the players will be forced to play positionally and actually get by on ability.

I'm all for a reduction in interchange and keeping the game the same length.

[1eyedog]

When I was a kid we played 30 minute quarters. The clock started and the siren went after 30 minutes. It's a good formula with potentially the only hiatus being for injuries.

[bornadog]

When I was a kid we played 30 minute quarters. The clock started and the siren went after 30 minutes. It's a good formula with potentially the only hiatus being for injuries.

We could have 25 minute quarters, plus injury time, ie for example a stretcher situation that stops the game. Anyone caught time wasting like kicking the ball away or throwing it over the fence during an out of bounce can be penalised 50 metres (this is a rule anyway). Bang problem solved.

[1eyedog]

We could have 25 minute quarters, plus injury time, ie for example a stretcher situation that stops the game. Anyone caught time wasting like kicking the ball away or throwing it over the fence during an out of bounce can be penalised 50 metres (this is a rule anyway). Bang problem solved.

Yep sounds easy doesn't it.

[bornadog]

Yep sounds easy doesn't it.

Easier for the time keeper as well.

[BulldogBelle]

Shorter games = more explosive speeds and movements = more potential for injuries.

[chef]

Another ridiculous change, wish they'd just leave the game alone.

[KT31]

Why can't these imbeciles just leave the game alone ?

[hujsh]

LINK

The AFL are discussing introducing one or two extra balls to be used simultaneously during matches.

"We feel the game is stagnating and it's up to us at AFL headquarter to keep things fresh and make sure everyone is wondering what'll happen next," AFL chief executive Gill McLachlan stated this afternoon.

"We know that this is a competitive market and that the advantage of the AFL is that all people, whether they're just introduced to the game or have been watching their entire lives, never understand all the rules. In order to maintain this it is important to make sure the rules are like the ocean, ebbing and flowing with the tide of the moon."

AFL coach Mick Malthouse backed the idea, desperate for any external change that might turn his performance at Carlton around. Malthouse stated, "When you've only got one ball people know where to look and can see the play unfolding, the players have to be smart independently of the coaches instruction and we coaches can implement tactics and influence the game. Well given my year last year I'll just take the random chance of multiball thanks."

Fans across Australia were seen running into their backyards screaming that at the heavens. The Heavens at this point have declines to comment.