I think the media loves live sport in 100 minute chunks.
Hence the media loving T20 cricket - game completed in about 100 minutes.
And now it seems they “love” AFL being reduced to 16 (and a half?) minute quarters + time on. Means each game is over in 100 minutes. Bookend the game with 10 minute lead in and 10 minute wrap up and you have a neat 2 hour time slot for an AFL game. Makes it perfect for TV schedules.
Yep, that is what appeals to me. I like the idea of a game being done within a two hour period - including breaks.
That said, I’m not too fussed either way. If they keep the quarters as is, or shorten them to 16 mins, it won’t affect my enjoyment of the sport.
Football is supposed to be survival of the fittest
Just leave it!
Also tongue punch my fart box whately
If they want a 100 minute game, 4 25 minute quarters with no time on.
I wonder how the players felt in the close games having no indicators on quarter length going in. We had the count down clocks in telecast but being at the grounds you wouldn’t know.
Does anyone know the rationale behind 16 min quarters? Is it to limit exposure?
Given that we are still tackling & sharing drink bottles, I cannot understand the benefit to the players or the game from shorter quarters (Given the virus is blamed for this)
Maybe I’m missing the obvious, but as a traditionalist, I wish they would stop ■■■■■■■ around with the rules for the fun of it.
Lets all assume everything goes bacl to normal.
I don’t see how 16 minute quarter helps defeat corona virus.
Likely just an excuse to trial something the AFL has been hinting at for a while - obviously at the directive of C7, who know that people stop watching after 3/4 time and for whatever reason jump to the conclusion that they stop watching because it’s too long and not because the game has turned into a blow out (or people have been driven nuts by Lingy and Bruuthce).
Anyway, too bad if you’re a club who have drafted and developed a team focused on endurance.
Let’s face it,… there was really no need for shortened qtrs until and unless the season ended up compressed with 2 games a week etc,
The AFL just took the opportunity to enforce something it, & the AFLPA have been pushing for, … and now their Media stooges are following up stridently praising it straight up because there’s no more games.
It’s AFL mug punter manipulation 101.
Here’s the rub though, … many people said …“but the qtrs went for about the same amount of time??” or " … they didn’t seem shorter!".
Well, guess what, … I watch a lot of games on Replay, and to shorten time spent, I fast fwd after Goals to get back to the next bounce.
EVERY year & EVERY Game I’ve watched since I’ve been doing that, has been almost precisely 45 seconds from Ump raising 2 fingers, … to the Centre ump moving in for the Bounce, … 3 clicks on the Kayo 15 sec advance button.
Every game I’ve watched that way from the 1st round, … has been 60 Seconds between, … (4 Clicks) an extra 15 secs tacked on between every Goal!!
No agendas here, … nope.
The logic is they’re looking for teams to play (say) 1.25 games a week later on, so have reduced game length to get the same time played.
Yet to see evidence that this week’s 80% game time meant an equivalent reduction in exertion. We know that repeated six day (or less) breaks between games can kill a team.
Did run the timer over that bikini ad?
Must have,. coz I don’t know what you mean 
T20 Cricket is farking awful.
There, ive been wanting to get that off my chest for a while 
Before play started in our match Eddie was going on about how Essendon had had an extra 7 mins in their warm up, which I thought was interesting. And not just kicking at goal but he seemed to think we had really worn ourselves out a bit. No wonder our skills were better at the start but dropped off at the end.
I wondered if it had something to do with the shorter quarters and building a bugger tank for the season.
As others have said, one round at the start of the season in front of no crowd is not an indicator of anything in terms of trends.
I think whether it’s a good idea really depends on what any given individual thinks football is, and what they think it should be about. The endurance, last man standing, side of the game doesn’t do much for me, but obviously it’s a crucial part of the game for others. So if they change the rule it wouldn’t bother me, although if they did it just because it’s better for broadcasters or gambling it would.
not sure if you’re from NZ or…
A bloke at work comes from Manchester (huge Man U fan) and hates AFL. Says the game goes too long. Was happy that the season was shut down. (I have told him many times that he moved to the wrong city…)
Another guy is from here, but also seems to hate AFL (motorsport fan). Also says AFL games go too long.
Are they really going to pander to people who don’t actually like the game??
The media (and the AFL) love cheap gimmicks.
Nothing gets Better football viewership than cheap gimmicks… until it’s no longer a gimmick anymore. By the time the gimmick has worn off, it’s ruined the game.
Some bloke just streaked behind mark Stevens on the news. What a pissa!
I watch most games and when I can’t watch because there is 2 on the same time I sometimes watch the replay, I hated the 16 min quarters as stated above football is meant to be hard and tough and this change made it seem easy and boring.
It’s also quite obvious the media have been told to say it’s a success and that it should be brought in for the long term, They argue about everything but are all on the same page regarding this based on 1 round?