16 a side - what do you think?

[feenix67]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...the-game-flowing/story-e6freck3-1226014400795

Ive advocated for a while now that the best way to get the game flowing and open, as well as tackle tactics like flooding, is to reduce the number of players on the ground. Players are so fit now and tactics are so well honed, that the field is easily blanketed by 18 players.

What do you think - is it a change worth trying out?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I'd be interested to see how it works. Would be worth a shot in the NAB Cup.

It should create more space.

The question is whether the congestion around and behind the ball remains, and if teams just clear out their forward line even more. Then have to chip around or wait for the players to flood forward when they gain possession.

Kids footy (primary school age) should definitely have less on the field. I know they go down to 15 in some age group but this is still too many. It is still just a mass of kids scrambling after the ball on tiny, muddy ovals.

 

[SugarShane]

I think the congestion will always remain, there's not a lot you can do short of imposing netball style zoning of players. That said though, i would like to see if having only 16 does change the game noticeably, maybe in a NAB cup scenario like Carl said.

 

[WALL-e]

Then teams figure out a new way to exploit current rules, new rules introduced, repeat.

Please leave it.

 

[Vader]

Would love to see it trialled in the MMC. We could then make an informed decision. I can think of many worse rules which they could (and have) introduced, such at the out of bounds rule as used in the lightning carnival round this year.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Moving the number of players to 16 a side kind of goes against the AFL newly formed philosophy of trying to slow the speed of the game down doesn't it?

Having less players will amount of teams and players having more space, having more space with improved skills (the lesser skills player will go) will equals greater and more precise ball movement and that equals a quicker or faster game. Having a quicker game will potentially increase the amount of collisions injuries that occur as the desperation levels increase.

I'm all for it as I'm a very strong advocate against flooding and zone defenses in any sport.

 

[feenix67]

Moving the number of players to 16 a side kind of goes against the AFL newly formed philosophy of trying to slow the speed of the game down doesn't it?

Yeah Im not sure about this aspect. It could concievably be a better way of introducing fatigue into the game than the current substitute farce rule. Although the scenario in my head is that we reduce the number of players on the ground, but maintain or slightly increase the number of players on the bench.

In my mind, that would result in a fast game with players able to execute skills, my only problem with it is that it may reduce one on one physical contests which are such an important aspect of the fabric of our game.

It would be great to see it trialled to see how it plays out.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Yeah Im not sure about this aspect. It could concievably be a better way of introducing fatigue into the game than the current substitute farce rule. Although the scenario in my head is that we reduce the number of players on the ground, but maintain or slightly increase the number of players on the bench.

In my mind, that would result in a fast game with players able to execute skills, my only problem with it is that it may reduce one on one physical contests which are such an important aspect of the fabric of our game.

It would be great to see it trialled to see how it plays out.

That (Introducing fatigue as a way of slowing it down) is a good point but won't it be eliminated by having more numbers on the bench as they would just rotate players on and off the ground at a higher rate?

 

[Huntercrow]

Gieschen bases his belief of a lower standard of player skills by what he sees at training.
Is he serious?
Even I could look a million dollars poncing around an oval on a Tuesday night.
Isn't it all about the skills displayed under pressure?
The skills of the game have definitely increased due to the extra workload on the players and the competition for places.
Some of the most watchable football is played under these intense conditions. We have a unique game, why play around with it?

 

[Slippery Pete]

There's been some oridnary rules introduced in the last 15 years to try and reduce stoppages - the worst of the lot for me is not being allowed to take possession of the ball out of the ruck (you only need to be touched to be pinged for holding the ball). That's right, we penalise a player for taking possession of the football. That was the day we knew rule changes were 100% about television, and nothing to do with the integrity of the game.

There's almost no advantage to contesting ruck contests around the ground anymore. The opposing ruckman can't take possesion, so why not have an extra man on the ground? Hard to believe this tactic hasn't become common place.

Feenix, I like what you're thinking, but I think it would be just another reaction to a whole host of stupid rule changes which have led us to insanity we currently have.

 

[Team DJ]

I like it and hope it gets in for next years NAB cup.
Maybe 16 on field. 4 Bench and 2 Subs.

 

[FR0GGY]

What the hell is gonna happen to the 19th man?

 

[Slippery Pete]

What the hell is gonna happen to the 19th man?

The 19th man was found hanging from a rope in the old Shed after Round 6 last year. So no need to worry.

 

[rooboy]

I really hate the changing of the rules all the time.

If they limited the interchanges to a specific number per quarter, they could stop a lot of the congestion. But the powers that be, want to make the game faster and faster, and the coaches also seem to agree. What I believe has happened, is that we now have a game where pretty much all 36 players are following the ball around, like under 10's.

This congestion also limits the really skillfull players from showing their wares. In my opinion.

 

[Vader]

There's been some oridnary rules introduced in the last 15 years to try and reduce stoppages - the worst of the lot for me is not being allowed to take possession of the ball out of the ruck (you only need to be touched to be pinged for holding the ball). That's right, we penalise a player for taking possession of the football. That was the day we knew rule changes were 100% about television, and nothing to do with the integrity of the game.

How is that a bad thing? The purpose of the ruckman, in the ruck contest, is to direct the ball to one of his midfielders, who then clears it from the area.

By opting to take possession in the ruck contest himself, the ruckman has already had his "prior opportunity" - he had the chance to tap it. All it takes is a legal tackle and it's HTB. Fair enough too.

So many bad rules and you have to pick on one of the least controversial/offensive rules introduced in the last decade?

 

[Team DJ]

How is that a bad thing? The purpose of the ruckman, in the ruck contest, is to direct the ball to one of his midfielders, who then clears it from the area.

By opting to take possession in the ruck contest himself, the ruckman has already had his "prior opportunity" - he had the chance to tap it. All it takes is a legal tackle and it's HTB. Fair enough too.

So many bad rules and you have to pick on one of the least controversial/offensive rules introduced in the last decade?

Agreed, silly rule to pick out.

 

[Allefgib]

We aren't penalising ruckmen for taking posession of the ball. We penalise them for not getting rid of it!

Sure it sucks that if they are pounced on immediately they do get pinged (whereas a midfielder receiving the ball from palm wouldn't) but I'm not too fussed by that rule.

16 aside eh? Hmm... 1 less in the centre bounce as well? That woudl really clear things up a bit....

 

[Slippery Pete]

How is that a bad thing? The purpose of the ruckman, in the ruck contest, is to direct the ball to one of his midfielders, who then clears it from the area.?

That is only one purpose of the ruckman. For 100 years, the ruckman also had the option of taking possession of the ball out of the ruck if he could manage it. After 100 years, this was suddenly deemed not acceptable?

By opting to take possession in the ruck contest himself, the ruckman has already had his "prior opportunity" - he had the chance to tap it. All it takes is a legal tackle and it's HTB. Fair enough too.?

No, not fair enough at all. If the other ruckman doesnt make it to the contest, why should the uncontested ruckman be penalised for taking possession of the ball? Why should opponents on the ground just be allowed to sweat off that? Why should you be forced to tap the ball and not grab it when you are not being contested AT ALL?

So many bad rules and you have to pick on one of the least controversial/offensive rules introduced in the last decade?

I didn't say this was the msot controversial, I said it was the most symbolic of the AFL's MO.

 

[rooboy]

Yes, I agree that the rucking rule is rubbish. Lucky Polly Farmer isn't playing today. No more long handballs to players out in the open.

No other player on the ground has to get rid of the ball, as does the ruckman.

It only adds to the congestion.

Whilst I'm on a rave about ruck rules, why the hell can't ruckmen use their bodies in the center ruck contests as once they could. All that has happened by changing that rule, is that the tallest bloke is the best ruckman, not the best skilled.

 

[feenix67]

No, not fair enough at all. If the other ruckman doesnt make it to the contest, why should the uncontested ruckman be penalised for taking possession of the ball? Why should opponents on the ground just be allowed to sweat off that? Why should you be forced to tap the ball and not grab it when you are not being contested AT ALL?

He's not penalised for possessing it, he's penalised for getting caught with it. The only problem I have with that rule is when the time given to ruckment to dispose in this situation is less than a player in general play.

But let's try not to derail the thread eh? Im actually surprised (pleasantly) by the amount of positivity around this idea. Im not one for changing the game too much but perhaps this one has merit. I watched my lad play an internal trial on the weekend with 16 a side and it was noticeable how much less congestion there was. All players had to cover a helluva lot more ground during the match which, together with the heat and early season lack of match fitness, saw fatigue creep in quite quickly.

You just wonder what sort of tactics coaches could introduce to counter the spirit of such a rule change.

 

[FR0GGY]

I would not like it to change to 16 a side. Why not 9 as side? The game has survived for so many years why change it. Why not get rid of some of the recent rubbish rules before we make this game completely unrecogiseable.

 

[Vader]

Yes, I agree that the rucking rule is rubbish. Lucky Polly Farmer isn't playing today. No more long handballs to players out in the open.

No other player on the ground has to get rid of the ball, as does the ruckman.

It only adds to the congestion.

Any ruckman who takes the ball out of the ruck contest has already had prior opportunity to dispose of it (by tapping/palming it). They're penalised for being caught holding the ball, having had prior opportunity. It is their failure to dispose of the ball which results in them being pinged. I fail to see what the problem is here.

Whilst I'm on a rave about ruck rules, why the hell can't ruckmen use their bodies in the center ruck contests as once they could. All that has happened by changing that rule, is that the tallest bloke is the best ruckman, not the best skilled.

This rule was introduced to combat the number of knee injuries which were being suffered by ruckmen who jumped into each other, creating a clash of knees which often left one player injured. The number of ruck-related knee injuries has plummeted since its introduction.

The downside of the rule is that it's almost eliminated the shorter ruckman from the contest - and the AFL were always cognisant that this would be the case. However, there is no argument that the rule has achieved it's primary objective.

 

[rooboy]

I would not like it to change to 16 a side. Why not 9 as side? The game has survived for so many years why change it. Why not get rid of some of the recent rubbish rules before we make this game completely unrecogiseable.

Exactly. Why I believe we once had bumping allowed in our game, incredible.

 

[FR0GGY]

Any ruckman who takes the ball out of the ruck contest has already had prior opportunity to dispose of it (by tapping/palming it). They're penalised for being caught holding the ball, having had prior opportunity. It is their failure to dispose of the ball which results in them being pinged. I fail to see what the problem is here.

How can you dispose of it (by tapping/palming it) when you havent got posession of it?
That point there is what is wrong with the rule.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Any ruckman who takes the ball out of the ruck contest has already had prior opportunity to dispose of it (by tapping/palming it). They're penalised for being caught holding the ball, having had prior opportunity. It is their failure to dispose of the ball which results in them being pinged. I fail to see what the problem is here..

What's the point of contesting the ruck then? Why not just let your opponent jump, and you have one extra man on the ground? He can't take possesson without being pinged immediately, so why bother competing? Let him tap it to the ground where you have an extra man.......