Would 15 or 16 a side work and would you want it?

Would you be open to a 15 or 16 a side rule change?

  • 15 a side

    Votes: 6 4.9%
  • 16 a side

    Votes: 36 29.5%
  • Leave it at 18 a side

    Votes: 80 65.6%

  • Total voters
    122

Remove this Banner Ad

Feb 28, 2007
51,171
66,527
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
I must admit I began thinking of this again because of the most recent episode of AFL Daily on the AFL website where they talked about how low scoring the game has become, a trend that has been happening for the last 20 years in fact and does not seem to be slowing down as teams become more professional and coaches become better at taking away what the opposition need to score. The AFL have introduced rules that have helped slow the decline but that is all it has done, slowed the decline as the rule changes have been too small to have any meaningful difference.

I am reminded of the NBA actually, when a number of decades ago they noticed the trend of scoring was decreasing so they made one big rule change, introducing shot clock rule stating a team had 24 seconds to possess the ball before they had to go for a shot. Now I am not saying the AFL introduce this as it would clearly be terrible for AFL but it was a huge rule change that I am sure upset a lot of purists at the time but ultimately was the right call for the league as it basically fixed the scoring issue forever.

We need a rule change like that in the AFL, something big, something that will fix the scoring issue once and for all and I think that change would be decreasing the current 18 a side to either 16 or even 15 a side, changing the game so instead of 36 players on the field you have 32 players or even 30.

I think this works as right now the problem is not just congestion but also the fact that teams have enough players to set up zones, zones that make getting the ball past them very difficult. Players are more well drilled and fitter than ever so they can maintain these zones the entire match if they want, they don't drop off in the final quarters.

Lowering the amount of players on the field by 2 or 3 per team changes things a lot as it makes a zone so much harder to implement as teams have to cover the same space since the grounds are not getting smaller but they have to do it with fewer players, meaning there are going to be bigger gaps in teams zones, gaps that attacking teams can exploit, and sure coaches will try and rework their defensive structures but there is only so much they can do. There will be more room to move, and when a team is kicking forward they will look up and see fewer players in the forward 50, giving their forwards more room to move and the opposition defenders a more difficult time as they have to be more accountable to their own man since they can't rely on a teammate covering for them.

Also I am not the only one who thinks this as Chris Scott has said in a press conference that Geelong do 16 a side practices and the ball movement and scoring is noticably better with fewer players on the field. He also mentioned this

“If we played with 16 v 16 and didn’t tell anyone, I don’t think anyone would notice, for a long time anyway. I think it would make the game better.

“We’ve had 18 players since the game was invented on grounds that are exactly the same size with athletes that are fundamentally different. The logical extension is that the game is going to be more congested.”


I strongly think that in the 2022 VFL season they should lower it to 15 a side on the field and experiment with the idea for an entire year in the lower level, see how it goes and possibly look to implement the idea at an AFL level in 2023, assuming it works in the VFL.

So what do you think, would you be willing to consider 15 or 16 a side to improve the game?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Feb 23, 2009
32,069
45,591
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
New York Jets
No. Not yet anyway. Year on year we make changes and year on year coaches adapt.

Let's see where the game goes with current rules before then making intelligent decisions based on a decent block of qualitative and quantitative evidence.

Then if they do want to trial this, it should require multiple trial games in the preseason to assess and tweak before it goes near being an AFL rule.
 
Feb 11, 2011
15,087
15,111
pakenham
AFL Club
Fremantle
No. Not yet anyway. Year on year we make changes and year on year coaches adapt.

Let's see where the game goes with current rules before then making intelligent decisions based on a decent block of qualitative and quantitative evidence.

Then if they do want to trial this, it should require multiple trial games in the preseason to assess and tweak before it goes near being an AFL rule.
VFA had it many moons ago and the game was totally open.

The stand the mark increased scoring initially but coaches adjusted.
 
Jul 13, 2015
36,175
40,287
AFL Club
Hawthorn
16 a side does everything people want.

opens up the game, less players on lists means we would have the talent for a 19th and 20th side.

No. It reduces the number of tall key position players and will mean even more focus on athleticism and less on skill.

It doesnt matter in the VFA and AFLW because thry dont have the skill.

We need less teams with a greater concentration of skills. Not less.
 
Feb 28, 2007
51,171
66,527
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
No. It reduces the number of tall key position players and will mean even more focus on athleticism and less on skill.

It doesnt matter in the VFA and AFLW because thry dont have the skill.

We need less teams with a greater concentration of skills. Not less.

I wonder though. If the forward line is more open surely a big strong KPF looks even more attractive, someone who can beat his man one on one either on the lead or in a pure wrestle.
 

nick1408

Club Legend
Dec 12, 2010
1,848
1,928
Why?
AFL Club
Richmond
The first thing I would ask is why lower scoring = less exciting football. I've never understood this.

Secondly, I'd be doing the same as HTT suggested and remove all the rules that were supposed to increase scoring and did the opposite. I'm no expert but my feeling is that less interchanges available in the efforts to slow the players and open the field has actually slowed the players thus slowed the scoring. This in only one example of a rule I'd reassess.

The problem the AFL has is that the rule makers are seen as having to do something so they change a rule. The next year they change another rule. this happen year in, year out. Those in charge feel football was best in 1986 and want to see that return. It isn't happening. Coaches are too smart to allow that style of play anymore. The law makers need to look forwards, not backwards.

I look at something like soccer that hasn't really had a major rule change since 1992 (back-pass rule). While there have been some minor tweaks to the game along the way (VAR, amount of substitutes during COVID, various tweaks to goalkeeper rules) soccer has remained more or less the same for 30 years yet scoring has remained fairly stable at around 2.7 goals per game (EPL). This is with the increase of player fitness, tactical improvements, changes in player recruitment and money that has been introduced into soccer.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jul 13, 2015
36,175
40,287
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I wonder though. If the forward line is more open surely a big strong KPF looks even more attractive, someone who can beat his man one on one either on the lead or in a pure wrestle.

If you have less numbers you want them at the ends of the ground. Not on the ball. Unless you remove the wings and go 6, 4, 6.

But that will see the better team win 80% of clearances and make a thoroughly boring game.
 
Feb 28, 2007
51,171
66,527
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
The first thing I would ask is why lower scoring = less exciting football. I've never understood this.

Secondly, I'd be doing the same as HTT suggested and remove all the rules that were supposed to increase scoring and did the opposite. I'm no expert but my feeling is that less interchanges available in the efforts to slow the players and open the field has actually slowed the players thus slowed the scoring. This in only one example of a rule I'd reassess.

The problem the AFL has is that the rule makers are seen as having to do something so they change a rule. The next year they change another rule. this happen year in, year out. Those in charge feel football was best in 1986 and want to see that return. It isn't happening. Coaches are too smart to allow that style of play anymore. The law makers need to look forwards, not backwards.

I look at something like soccer that hasn't really had a major rule change since 1992 (back-pass rule). While there have been some minor tweaks to the game along the way (VAR, amount of substitutes during COVID, various tweaks to goalkeeper rules) soccer has remained more or less the same for 30 years yet scoring has remained fairly stable at around 2.7 goals per game (EPL). This is with the increase of player fitness, tactical improvements, changes in player recruitment and money that has been introduced into soccer.

I would argue that the new rule changes have slowed the decline of lower scoring, so if you go back to the old rules the decline would speed up. Of course slowing the decline of the lower scores isn't what the new rules were brought in for, so on that level they have not worked.

Also I never understood the lower interchange cap idea. All that would do is push the slower players out of the game and create a game where endurance athletes are more important than players with skill.
 
Feb 11, 2011
15,087
15,111
pakenham
AFL Club
Fremantle
No. It reduces the number of tall key position players and will mean even more focus on athleticism and less on skill.

It doesnt matter in the VFA and AFLW because thry dont have the skill.

We need less teams with a greater concentration of skills. Not less.
In the 80’s we had more flowing football and the individual skills or talents could be shown off.

Now we have team defenses that limit the individual talents of players.

The skillful players will have more space to execute if we reduce numbers.
 
Jul 13, 2015
36,175
40,287
AFL Club
Hawthorn
In the 80’s we had more flowing football and the individual skills or talents could be shown off.

Now we have team defenses that limit the individual talents of players.

The skillful players will have more space to execute if we reduce numbers.

Until they are run off their feet by the endurance athletes.

So do you go 6 on the bench and unlimited interchange?

Or maybe stop meddling and revert to the old rules.
 
Feb 23, 2009
32,069
45,591
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
New York Jets
VFA had it many moons ago and the game was totally open.

The stand the mark increased scoring initially but coaches adjusted.
Of course they did, and what do you think they will do this time? If space means teams cut you up through possession and skill, the only way to stop that will be either to hold the ball yourself and play extremely slow build up chip footy so as to limit the opponents time in possession, or flood back extra numbers in defence to congest the defensive 50.
Coaches will learn and implement that by round 2.
 
Feb 28, 2007
51,171
66,527
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Until they are run off their feet by the endurance athletes.

So do you go 6 on the bench and unlimited interchange?

Or maybe stop meddling and revert to the old rules.

Yes I was thinking a 6 player interchange bench as that would help prevent the game becoming too endurance based as you don't want skillful players being pushed out in favour of players who can run all day. That requires a bigger interchange bench so players can all get semi-regular 2 or 3 minutes rests.
 
Feb 28, 2007
51,171
66,527
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
While the scores hasn’t increased but the ball isnt stuck in one part of the ground for too long.

Teams are more zoning back but a least the ball is moving from one end to the other.

Yes, I think even though the stand-on-the-mark rule did not increase scoring like desired it did lower congestion and made the game more aesthetically pleasing.

To me though the only way to truly fix the game is not to introduce a lot of small rule changes, but instead to just bite the bullet and make one big rule change, lowering the amount of players on the field and opening up space.
 
Feb 11, 2011
15,087
15,111
pakenham
AFL Club
Fremantle
I must admit I began thinking of this again because of the most recent episode of AFL Daily on the AFL website where they talked about how low scoring the game has become, a trend that has been happening for the last 20 years in fact and does not seem to be slowing down as teams become more professional and coaches become better at taking away what the opposition need to score. The AFL have introduced rules that have helped slow the decline but that is all it has done, slowed the decline as the rule changes have been too small to have any meaningful difference.

I am reminded of the NBA actually, when a number of decades ago they noticed the trend of scoring was decreasing so they made one big rule change, introducing shot clock rule stating a team had 24 seconds to possess the ball before they had to go for a shot. Now I am not saying the AFL introduce this as it would clearly be terrible for AFL but it was a huge rule change that I am sure upset a lot of purists at the time but ultimately was the right call for the league as it basically fixed the scoring issue forever.

We need a rule change like that in the AFL, something big, something that will fix the scoring issue once and for all and I think that change would be decreasing the current 18 a side to either 16 or even 15 a side, changing the game so instead of 36 players on the field you have 32 players or even 30.

I think this works as right now the problem is not just congestion but also the fact that teams have enough players to set up zones, zones that make getting the ball past them very difficult. Players are more well drilled and fitter than ever so they can maintain these zones the entire match if they want, they don't drop off in the final quarters.

Lowering the amount of players on the field by 2 or 3 per team changes things a lot as it makes a zone so much harder to implement as teams have to cover the same space since the grounds are not getting smaller but they have to do it with fewer players, meaning there are going to be bigger gaps in teams zones, gaps that attacking teams can exploit, and sure coaches will try and rework their defensive structures but there is only so much they can do. There will be more room to move, and when a team is kicking forward they will look up and see fewer players in the forward 50, giving their forwards more room to move and the opposition defenders a more difficult time as they have to be more accountable to their own man since they can't rely on a teammate covering for them.

Also I am not the only one who thinks this as Chris Scott has said in a press conference that Geelong do 16 a side practices and the ball movement and scoring is noticably better with fewer players on the field. He also mentioned this




I strongly think that in the 2022 VFL season they should lower it to 15 a side on the field and experiment with the idea for an entire year in the lower level, see how it goes and possibly look to implement the idea at an AFL level in 2023, assuming it works in the VFL.

So what do you think, would you be willing to consider 15 or 16 a side to improve the game?
The 16 a side could easier to trialled at SANFL and WAFL seconds level first.
 
Back