Could future AFL be 16-a-side?

Welcome to World Footy News Monday, December 08 2025 @ 12:10 am ACDT

Could future AFL be 16-a-side? | 12 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Comments are closed and no new posts are allowed.

Could future AFL be 16-a-side?

Authored by: Cam Homes
on Tuesday, March 08 2011 @ 10:14 am ACDT

Too true Aaron, the 'conservatives' you mention are most likely the descendents of the old VFL that wouldn't play in the original AFL for the reasons 'hinted' at. I'm not against 16-a-side(my old side used to play with 14 men every week, just couldn't get enough players) as such but is it really necessary at the elite level?

I just don't think that we should be constantly making rule changes every year as is happening at the moment. We spent years trying to speed the game up and now they are saying its too fast (reserve player from interchange player).

At the moment it seems like changes are made because the Rules Committe need to justify their existence.

Other codes don't yearly change the rules. Ya see a change happen every now and again.

Lets take a real punt and see how the state of play develops and not trial any rule changes or actually change any rules for say 2 years. Hell! I know that the rules committe might feel a bit superfluous for a while but is it really necessary that they make changes every year.

Could future AFL be 16-a-side?

Authored by: Brett Northey
on Tuesday, March 08 2011 @ 11:13 am ACDT

I'd be content for them to quarantine the rules for 2 years as well. And then trial 16s. After a break from rule changes they would likely have more support for such a significant one.

The Adelaide Crows refer to their supporters as "the 19th man", so I wonder if they would change it to the 17th man.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

Could future AFL be 16-a-side?

Authored by: Michael Christiansen
on Tuesday, March 08 2011 @ 03:24 pm ACDT

I reckon instead of 16 aside, pull the subs/interchange mix back to a 2 I/C and 2 subs balance. Even further need to rotate players on the field - - having changing ruckmen in a forward pocket and midfielders changing in the pocket and flank makes it very much harder to push everybody back all the time.

Congestion though - the problem is they often let the play go on so long when they could simply pull it up, have a bounce,....and engage the ruckmen and other 'followers', but, it's this leaving the rolling maul looking srimmage going too long that looks ugly, congests further and half the time you can see the umpy feeling pressure to pluck a free kick out, just to break it up.

I reckon the 4 free interchange bench was a shocker, it was Sheedy whinging and whining - - and coaches have learned to exploit it. It needs a windback.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

Could future AFL be 16-a-side?

Authored by: Cam Homes
on Wednesday, March 09 2011 @ 10:36 am ACDT

I can't argue with any of what you have said Michael.(even the Sheedy bit) As a ruckman I always rested in a pocket (and I had to learn to kick goals as well) Two subs and two interchange would force coaches to rest players on the field and as you say the tendency to push all players up or back into the area of the field where the play is all the time would reduce and ease congestion. Less time with all 36 players in one half of the ground makes for a much better game of footy(or as some say, less ugly).

I've always suspected that a lot of the rule changes carried out a decade or so ago were made to make Our game more acceptable to followers of other codes in the non-traditional footy states and overseas(migrants etc). and I think there are still some people in the Aussie Rules fraternity that carry an inferiority complex about our game, hence must change rules to make game "prettier", faster, 'a bit more like this aspect or that aspect of that other code' or 'less rough' so more kids will play, Aussie rules is" too violent" so "helicopter parents" would only let their kids play soccer.

There! got that off my chest.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

Could future AFL be 16-a-side?

Authored by: Brett Northey
on Wednesday, March 09 2011 @ 01:10 pm ACDT

Were the rules changed to try to reduce injuries and image of being violent so as to appease parents? I think yes.

Were they changed to make it more like any other sport? I think no.

One thing we have to remember is that we pride our game as being one of the most spectacular in the world, and in part that has come about through the rules changing to make sure it stays amongst the best. So I don't mind changes to continue that, especially if the game is changing due to other factors like tactics as discussed.

My worry with reducing interchange is that we'll have injured players being forced to stay on the field because coaches won't want to sub them out in case they get worse injuries.

If I was god of footy I'd leave this season with 4 interchange and put a 2 year rule change moratorium in place for the main season, and trial 16s in the next 2 NAB Cups, assuming it still exists, and open up the discussion to community debate.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

RSS news	RSS events
Twitter	Facebook

World Footy News

Search

Translate

User Functions

Events

Featured Sites

Older Stories

Friday 11-Apr

Sunday 30-Mar

Thursday 27-Mar

Friday 21-Mar

Thursday 06-Mar

Wednesday 05-Feb

Tuesday 04-Feb

Socials

Who's Online

Random Image

What's New

Articles last 2 weeks

Comments last 2 weeks

Links last 2 weeks

Advertisements