Saints in Zone trial

[saintbrat]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/a ... me1.htmlby

It meant that the likes Paddy McCartin, Josh Bruce, Jake Carlisle and Nathan Brown had their work cut out for them during the two ten-minute halves. The first half saw umpires forcing two pairs of players back inside the arcs and the second half trialled three pairs.

"The AFL just wanted to trial it and see what it could possibly look like," Umpires boss Hayden Kennedy told Fairfax Media. "It just happened to fit in with (the Saints) training program.

"We had two umpires there to adjudicate it and see what it looked like and to see what the difficulties could be.

"

[Dis Believer]

I was at Training Friday and had a chat with another guy who was there watching (actually apparently got spoken to about filming it on his iPad). He pointed out to me about the trial for the zones, and we had both heard a player call out to teammates to stay inside the 50.
I had already noticed the extra film crew on the roof of the building. Normally there is only one film crew who are in a cherry-picker up behind the goals, but there was a second crew on the roof of the building and they were filming for the AFL/umpires.

[saintbrat]

now this as well

Sportsday Retweeted
Mitch Cleary ‏@cleary_mitch

AFL's answer to T20 cricket took a major step forward yesterday. AFLX, 7 a side, soccer size pitch trialled by @NMFCOfficial at Arden St

[Clayton Davis]

now this as well

Sportsday Retweeted
Mitch Cleary ‏@cleary_mitch

AFL's answer to T20 cricket took a major step forward yesterday. AFLX, 7 a side, soccer size pitch trialled by @NMFCOfficial at Arden St

Sheeeiiittt!!! Wot next!?! Play da gayme wid nerf balls!?!

Hit dat der big red button AFL! Sheeeiiittt!!! Shameful sheeeiiittt!!! Clay shaykes his heyad.

[Bluthy]

now this as well

Sportsday Retweeted
Mitch Cleary ‏@cleary_mitch

AFL's answer to T20 cricket took a major step forward yesterday. AFLX, 7 a side, soccer size pitch trialled by @NMFCOfficial at Arden St

I've suggested this for a while. The preseason comp should be a totally different game of footy to give some variety. Try using zones. goals are 12 points, you can run it over for 3 etc etc etc. Just have fun with it.

[White Winmar]

Trampolines in the goal squares. Imagine the speccies! Trap doors strategically placed around the ground so you can surprise your opponent who thinks he's in the clear. Flood the ground, colloseum style for the final quarter and have the players in ships, battling it out for victory with cannons and cutlasses.

[Sainter_Dad]

On a more relevant note - Reddit AFL is hating on us for participating - like we need any more bad 'umpiring' juju?????

[Jacks Back]

They're also trialing 16 a side FFS!!! What's this, the VFA?

[St Plugger]

In my opinion, 16 a side is a far better way to go than using zones. Don't knock it, as It was a success for the VFA.
Those games in the 60's, 70's, 80's etc were very competitive.
16 a side didn't change the basic principles of how the game of Australian Rules is played. Football as we know it is a game played all over the playing area. Zoning will change this basic philosophy/premise.
16 a side simply just removes 4 bodies from the field, ie 2 mids for each team, therefore easing congestion.
[Another benefit is that team lists could have 2 less on them than what we currently have, making the talent pool across the 18 teams less diluted. ie 36 less players required or nearly a full team.
This quite possibly would also strengthen the state leagues as well, with those 36 players not quite up to AFL level playing in them.]

[Jacks Back]

In my opinion, 16 a side is a far better way to go than using zones. Don't knock it, as It was a success for the VFA.
Those games in the 60's, 70's, 80's etc were very competitive.
16 a side didn't change the basic principles of how the game of Australian Rules is played. Football as we know it is a game played all over the playing area. Zoning will change this basic philosophy/premise.
16 a side simply just removes 4 bodies from the field, ie 2 mids for each team, therefore easing congestion.
[Another benefit is that team lists could have 2 less on them than what we currently have, making the talent pool across the 18 teams less diluted. ie 36 less players required or nearly a full team.
This quite possibly would also strengthen the state leagues as well, with those 36 players not quite up to AFL level playing in them.]

The AFL have a charter and part of that is that football at the top level has to have 18 players on the park per side at any one time.

Here are the top 3 items on the charter:
■ Played with an oval shaped ball
■ Played on an oval shaped ground
■ Has 18 players on the field per team

[St Plugger]

In my opinion, 16 a side is a far better way to go than using zones. Don't knock it, as It was a success for the VFA.
Those games in the 60's, 70's, 80's etc were very competitive.
16 a side didn't change the basic principles of how the game of Australian Rules is played. Football as we know it is a game played all over the playing area. Zoning will change this basic philosophy/premise.
16 a side simply just removes 4 bodies from the field, ie 2 mids for each team, therefore easing congestion.
[Another benefit is that team lists could have 2 less on them than what we currently have, making the talent pool across the 18 teams less diluted. ie 36 less players required or nearly a full team.
This quite possibly would also strengthen the state leagues as well, with those 36 players not quite up to AFL level playing in them.]

The AFL have a charter and part of that is that football at the top level has to have 18 players on the park per side at any one time.

Here are the top 3 items on the charter:
■ Played with an oval shaped ball
■ Played on an oval shaped ground
■ Has 18 players on the field per team

If the AFL want to change their "Charter" they will. It's a motherhood document, setting out their ideals.
16 a side will definitely open up the game, less people across the ground means more space. In the VFA the extra space meant the CHF had room to lead up the wings and the game was fast paced and open, with high scoring possible. The FF's had room as well and they also dominated, ie Frosty Millar, Fred Cooke, Bob Johnson. We could see 100 goal FF's again if 16 a side comes to pass.

[Jacks Back]

With no wings we wouldn't have had the likes of Keith Grieg, Dougie Hawkins, Turner from Geelong, Nicky Winmar, Lance Oswald, Dipper, Francis Bourke, et al.

No, no changes to this rule.

[St Plugger]

With no wings we wouldn't have had the likes of Keith Grieg, Dougie Hawkins, Turner from Geelong, Nicky Winmar, Lance Oswald, Dipper, Francis Bourke, et al.

No, no changes to this rule.

Oh yes we would have!!!! They were champs who happened to play on the wing at that time. They would today be described as "Mids" and still be champs. If we take the great Nicky "Elvis" Winmar, he played HB, Mid and HF all with aplomb. In 16-a-side the better players, like those mentioned, have more room to shine and do! - The Defence rests!

[White Winmar]

It would fit with the AFL's aim to further speed up the game and open it up more. Less congestion, fewer stoppages, 6 on the interchange. The pace would be furious. Better to watch as well, IMHO. Loved the VFA in the old days. Open, fast and generally high scoring. It might also help key position type forwards like Paddy. More space, one on ones and fewer players to drop back on him. I reckon it's at least worth a trial in the preseason comp. I think that restricting players to zones is complicated and would be hard to police.

[saynta]

Oswald was a centreman

[St Plugger]

Oswald was a centreman

And a bloody good one too. Pity that Ian Stewart came along, more or less at the same time, and squeezed him out!!

Just another note on 16-a-side, the VFA introduced the concept to overcome their perception way back then that the game was becoming congested and it proved to be successful and opened up the play.
The VFL a few years further down the track brought in the centre diamond, later to become a square, to do the same job as the 18 -a-side was still clogging up. Same objective, but a different strategy. It worked at the time too. [The VFL couldn't/wouldn't bring in the 16-a-side idea because that was their competitors concept and there was quite a bit of angst between the 2 organisations]
Now days players are full time professionals and are far fitter and faster. The grounds are still the same size but with far better playing conditions and surfaces. The change to 16-a-side makes perfect sense just from the perspective that the fitness levels of the past 10 years or so mean that we no longer need 36 players on the field to cover the ground adequately and those extra players are contributing to the congestion in the play that we see today.
The fact is that if you put a 16 v 16 game in front of most spectators without telling them, they probably wouldn't notice the slightest difference, except thinking what an open and free-flowing match it is/was.

[BackFromUSA]

Disagree completely with changing the game AT ALL to ease congestion.

In fact NOTHING has to change except the way the umpires pay free kicks for rules that exist!

IN THE BACK

If a player jumps on top of another player on the ground in the back in a manner that PUSHES him into the ground then this is immediately paid as a free kick!

Consequence

- no pack forms and players have to spread to space for a 60m play
- coaches will train players NOT to jump on top and create possible infringements unless they are 100% certain of not infringing

HOLDING THE BALL

If a player is tackled correctly and has had SOME prior opportunity (not the rediculous amount given now) then that player MUST dispose of the ball CORRECTLY by hand or foot or a free kick is paid against.

Consequence

- we shall no longer see players hold onto the ball to take the tackle knowing it will be a ball up or play on

- we shall not have to put up with seeing players just drop the ball or throw the ball to keep it moving

But most importantly coaches will coach players to dispose of the ball QUICKLY and out of congestion t avoid an infringement rather than try to work their way through congestion (and take the current acceptable risk of a ball up) ... which means the opposition will have to take players out of the congestion and deploy them to guard space ... hence opening up play.

BOTH RULES ALREADY EXIST

Just umpire them properly.

[St Plugger]

Don't disagree with the game being umpired properly. We all wish for that......!
But 16-a-side team takes the umpire factor out of the equation. Same goes for refereeing numbers in zones at stoppages. 16 in a team remains 16 in a team no matter what decisions umpires make or more importantly, fail to make!!!
[BTW I'm also a believer in a 16 + 4 interchange setup, so that the game opens up even more as the players tire.]

[Jacks Back]

Oswald was a centreman

I was just going by our team of the century that had Winmar and Oswald on the wings (not in the centre).

[St Plugger]

This from todays Age. AFLW: Five things we learnt from round one of the inaugural season
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/womens-afl ... u63tw.html

Further contemporary evidence of the suitability of the 16-a-side game.

"Not only did Carlton comfortably account for old enemy Collingwood on Friday night, the Blues did it in style. They, perhaps better than any other side, took advantage of the 16-a-side rule in this competition, executing an impressive transition game."

Which team is attempting to execute this style of game plan????

Bring it on ASAP should be the call from the St Kilda hierarchy!!!!!

[lefty]

This from todays Age. AFLW: Five things we learnt from round one of the inaugural season
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/womens-afl ... u63tw.html

Further contemporary evidence of the suitability of the 16-a-side game.

"Not only did Carlton comfortably account for old enemy Collingwood on Friday night, the Blues did it in style. They, perhaps better than any other side, took advantage of the 16-a-side rule in this competition, executing an impressive transition game."

Which team is attempting to execute this style of game plan????

Bring it on ASAP should be the call from the St Kilda hierarchy!!!!!

Carlton were not good at all. Not compared to the other games over the weekend.

In their game, the ball was stuck in the middle of the ground for ages. I'd say Collingwood will finish last and Carlton don't look that good apart from one dominate forward.

There were better teams out there, dogs / freo are better teams.