2011 NAB Cup - Trial Rules

[divvydan]

Next week is either Alice Springs (unlikely), Manuka or Visy Park.

[Daughter of the West]

*BUMP*

Just came across the following in the Hun:

AFL toys with 16-a-side to get the game flowing
Mark Stevens From: Herald Sun March 02, 2011 12:00AM

THE AFL is so concerned about growing on-field congestion it floated the idea of trialling 16 players a team in this year's NAB Cup.

With the numbers around stoppages reaching alarming levels, the league considered dropping two wingmen from each team in a throwback to the old VFA.

"We spoke about that to the clubs last year, about trying it in the NAB Cup," AFL game analysis manager Andrew McKay confirmed yesterday.

McKay said the league instead opted to trial the contentious last-touch-out-of-bounds rule, which was also designed to tire players quicker and reduce congestion.

But McKay did not rule out the league revisiting the 16-a-side option.

"It's not out of the question - who knows?" McKay said.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/af...-1226014400795

Can they not leave the rules alone for anymore than 20 seconds?

[soupman]

Do they not realise that every rule change they make has repercussions, and a bigger rule change like this is going to make a bigger difference?

First off that would kill off the careers of a lot of fringe players, because I'm assumiong they'd be keeping a small bench to avoid high rotations. Therefore it is sides of 19 + a sub.

[hujsh]

I really wonder what the AFL will look like in 20 years time. It could be just about anything with the changes that get made on a whim year after year.

[mjp]

A trial of 16 per side in the pre-season comp would be fine.

I actually like them trying the rules 'for real' in the pre-season comp - gives it a point of difference and a talking point. What I have learned this year:

- The new 'player decides if it is an advantage' rule (in for the season) is good but is screwed up by the umpires blowing the whistle. They should just raise their hands Union style to ensure play is continuous...the players react to the whistle and some stop.

- The out-of-bounds rule was terrible in the main but did make it obvious that they could really do with toughening up the interpretation of deliberate out-of-bounds at times.

- The opposition player holding the ball in getting penalised is nearly impossible to police and completely dumb. Now you have to tackle them whilst still letting them dispose of the ball/knock it out? Not a good rule.

[The Adelaide Connection]

Leave. The. Rules. Alone.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Leave. The. Rules. Alone.

You haven't gone far enough.

SS's 5 step plan to fixing up the rules.


1) Put the rules back the way they were
2) Put the entire rules committee in a large box.
3) Bury the box deep in the ground
4) Put a very large rock on the ground where the box is buried.
5) Buy a rottwieller and tie him to the rock.

[bornadog]

You haven't gone far enough.

SS's 5 step plan to fixing up the rules.


1) Put the rules back the way they were
2) Put the entire rules committee in a large box.
3) Bury the box deep in the ground
4) Put a very large rock on the ground where the box is buried.
5) Buy a rottwieller and tie him to the rock.

To which year? They have ****ed about with the rules for so long its hard to say when to roll back to.

[The Adelaide Connection]

You haven't gone far enough.

SS's 5 step plan to fixing up the rules.


1) Put the rules back the way they were
2) Put the entire rules committee in a large box.
3) Bury the box deep in the ground
4) Put a very large rock on the ground where the box is buried.
5) Buy a rottwieller and tie him to the rock.

Fantastic.

[boydogs]

To which year? They have ****ed about with the rules for so long its hard to say when to roll back to.

Probably to just before the dragging the ball in holding the ball rule change. That plus hands in the back, deliberate out of bounds and chopping the arms are very inconsistently umpired, they are too subjective or difficult to spot