18 down to 16 players on the field

[GVGjr]

SEN are discussing the merit of reducing the number of players on the field down to 16 a side
Apparently the AFL is considering it.
I can recall the old VFA days where it was the point of difference between that competition and the VFL

There appears to be a number of coaches that favor it and many of the people calling in seem to think it has merit in opening the game up. I'm not convinced

So does anyone have some thoughts on this? Would it improve the game and what might be the downside to it?

[Jeanette54]

Re: 18 down to 16 players on the field

Back in the days when the VFA deleted the wing players there were a number of times that the ball seemed to have nobody within cooee of it. This resulted in several seconds of dead TV time while we all waited for a player to arrive.

[Bornadog]

Re: 18 down to 16 players on the field

The AFLW already plays with 16 players and the congestion still exists. I don't believe congestion will be eliminated if that is the reason to reduce the number of players. If it is to save money by reducing players on the field and on the bench and hence list size, well it would achieve that. But, do we want to change the game for financial reasons?

if the AFL really wants to do this, then it must be trialed extensively to see the impact.

[GVGjr]

Re: 18 down to 16 players on the field

Back in the days when the VFA deleted the wing players there were a number of times that the ball seemed to have nobody within cooee of it. This resulted in several seconds of dead TV time while we all waited for a player to arrive.

I remember that to. The players are vastly fitter now which should reduce the chances of that happening

I think they're considering 16 on the ground and 6 on the bench

[soupman]

Re: 18 down to 16 players on the field

Can they just f*ck off with these bullshit change suggestions.

This has got to be the most fatiguing league to follow in the world, just constant bullshit from the top and all the way through the associated media.

[GVGjr]

Re: 18 down to 16 players on the field

Can they just f*ck off with these bullshit change suggestions.

This has got to be the most fatiguing league to follow in the world, just constant bullshit from the top and all the way through the associated media.

They quizzed Gill about this the other day, only sporting code considering fundamental changes to the code

[Bornadog]

Re: 18 down to 16 players on the field

Can they just f*ck off with these bullshit change suggestions.

This has got to be the most fatiguing league to follow in the world, just constant bullshit from the top and all the way through the associated media.

Lots of changes to the game since around the beginning of the 90s when the AFL seemingly took over the running of the game from the National Football League. Not one change has enhanced the game.

[jeemak]

Re: 18 down to 16 players on the field

So.….I'll say it again, coaches are inherently defencively minded first. This means that they will just clog up as much space as they can with 16 players instead of 18 players. This means there's going to be two less options to give the ball to on the way out of defence.

It will do nothing for scoring and won't materially change congestion where coaches deem congestion necessary.

Incentivise the coaches to kick more goals and they will kick more goals.

[chef]

Re: 18 down to 16 players on the field

Lots of changes to the game since around end the 90s when the AFL seemingly took over the running of the game from the National Football League. Not one change has enhanced the game.

Cmon BAD, thats not true.

Have a look here.....

https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/history/rule-changes

[Bornadog]

Re: 18 down to 16 players on the field

Cmon BAD, thats not true.

Have a look here.....

https://www.afl.com.au/about-afl/history/rule-changes

Actually I should have said from early 90's as that is when AFL took over. More changes than ever before during that period compared to pre 90s

the first rules penned 1858 and we still want to change the game some 162 years later

[bulldogtragic]

Re: 18 down to 16 players on the field

Why the fascination with fundamental change? Cricket has done it well, have another format for different variants. They tweak the odd rule here or there in test cricket, but it's still the same product fundamentally.

If they want to reduce wages, just say so. What happened in any/all the games last year or the games in Round 1 to put this on the table? Is the plan to bring fans back by changing a fundamental rule? Really? There's nothing wrong with change per se, but change for the sake of change with no case for it... The echo chamber in AFEL House desperately needs to be broken.

[Mofra]

Re: 18 down to 16 players on the field

The weird part about most recent rule changes is that they designed to 'clear congestion' - yet the third man up rule (which actually did clear congestion) was brought in as part of recent rule changes.

I think some of Clarko's suggestions (e.g. "team prior") would have a greater impact.

[Bornadog]

Re: 18 down to 16 players on the field

The weird part about most recent rule changes is that they designed to 'clear congestion' - yet the third man up rule (which actually did clear congestion) was brought in as part of recent rule changes.

I think some of Clarko's suggestions (e.g. "team prior") would have a greater impact.

The trouble is every rule change complicates the officiating of the game. Imagine the umpire trying to keep tabs on which team has prior opportunity - I can see all sorts of issues. Just go back to the old rule on holding the ball like it used to be pre 1996

[GVGjr]

Re: 18 down to 16 players on the field

Why the fascination with fundamental change? Cricket has done it well, have another format for different variants. They tweak the odd rule here or there in test cricket, but it's still the same product fundamentally.

If they want to reduce wages, just say so. What happened in any/all the games last year or the games in Round 1 to put this on the table? Is the plan to bring fans back by changing a fundamental rule? Really? There's nothing wrong with change per se, but change for the sake of change with no case for it... The echo chamber in AFEL House desperately needs to be broken.

Cricket has introduced different versions of the game to appeal to a changing landscape but Test cricket is still 11 v 11 with a maximum of 5 days of competition. It's still requires 20 wickets etc

I think the AFL are using the Covid 19 as a chance to shorten quarters to appease the TV operators and to mess around with the game. Moving from 18 to 16 is a significant change and should be trialed in preseason games not implemented into an already compromised season
We changed some rules last year and haven't given them a chance to develop

I just need to hear a bit more on the reasons behind it more that just the visuals of the game

[Axe Man]

Re: 18 down to 16 players on the field

I can handle some of the tinkering around the edges but changing the players on the field is just too fundamental change to the game. I just don't think it's necessary either and can't see any great benefit. Are soccer considering reducing to 10 players to increase scoring? Might as well just introduce multi ball while we are at it.