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

[Kwality]

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.

Think of a team of 10 running a marathon verses a lone competitor with endurance. Why a 4 x 100 relay is quicker than a gold medal winning 400 metre swim.

Less players not being interchanged across the 100 minutes (sic) will encourage man & man contests rather than zoned defences that dominate coaches thinking, see Malthouse coached sides since day one of the AFL.

 

[Kwality]

Agree, we want footballers not 400mtr runners, lets not get away from our game.

That boat has sailed & the decisions were never thought through nor have they been reviewed as such. We started with 18 players playing 100 minutes each, 1800 minutes of elapsed time & now its 22/23 players interchanging through that 1800 minutes i.e 81 minutes per player.

Players rest off the ground not on, with athleticism over skill being the key criteria.

 

[footyfan1978]

That boat has sailed & the decisions were never thought through nor have they been reviewed as such. We started with 18 players playing 100 minutes each, 1800 minutes of elapsed time & now its 22/23 players interchanging through that 1800 minutes i.e 81 minutes per player.

Players rest off the ground not on, with athleticism over skill being the key criteria.

You will find often it is last line of defence that tend to stay on the ground the most now. Due to fact they do not have to cover as much running up and down the ground as all the other players. Probably spend 95 to 100% of time on the ground.

 

[L_W_P]

I'd love 15 a side personally. Put 7 on the bench with unlimited rotations again. Scrap the medical sub.

Name the ruck in the middle of the ground so we get a true 'spine' of talls.

 

[And_ROOS]

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.

The reason is that during the 90s which is seemingly everyones favourite era of football, you had teams putting up big scores in matches but then only winning by under 20 points. Its nostalgia for forwards at each end kicking bags of 10.
But there was just as many blown out games, but people remember the best from the era and want to go back to it.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Couple of points. Scores themselves don't always represent whether the game has improved or not. So increasing scores is largely just so Channel 7 can sell more ads. And if we want to achieve more ad breaks without actually improving the game visuals, we can just make the goals wider. Won't change the strategies of play a lot, but will lead to higher scores.

I do think that the rule changes have led to some better footy, even if it isn't in scores. Total stoppages and tackles per game have decreases somewhat. The kick-in rules actually reduce score (as old rules, a team that just kicked the behind is likely to kick the next goal, when new rules, ball is more likely to get into midfield, reducing the score but improving play).

I think 16 a side would help, even if it isn't measurable by score.

 

[Kwality]

You will find often it is last line of defence that tend to stay on the ground the most now. Due to fact they do not have to cover as much running up and down the ground as all the other players. Probably spend 95 to 100% of time on the ground.

That would be an interesting stat.
I know from following the Eagles in 2021, Jack Darling was running in that 95-100 bracket when I was looking at his midseason slump.
The back line numbers support your suggestion though 80 to 90% game time.

The suggestion of a 16 a side has more positives than negatives to me. I would further limit the number of times individual players can be interchanged thus increasing even more tactical use of the bench.

Getting back to the Eagles, NicNat is at 68% game time, effectively not resting on the ground. I'd prefer to see him spending more time up forward for the spectacle, not benching him.

 

[footyfan1978]

That would be an interesting stat.
I know from following the Eagles in 2021, Jack Darling was running in that 95-100 bracket when I was looking at his midseason slump.
The back line numbers support your suggestion though 80 to 90% game time.

The suggestion of a 16 a side has more positives than negatives to me. I would further limit the number of times individual players can be interchanged thus increasing even more tactical use of the bench.

Getting back to the Eagles, NicNat is at 68% game time, effectively not resting on the ground. I'd prefer to see him spending more time up forward for the spectacle, not benching him.

Nic Nat time on field is more about him personally, not able to do much more due to injuries and how his body copes. Eagles manage that well, and try not to let him play much more than 65% of game time.

16 a side is not even worth doing and the problem of congestion can be fixed without needing a drastic change of touching the actual basic part of sport which is 18 players v 18 players on field.

The main issue as you know is it been turned into 22 v 22 when it was never meant to be. We just have to essentially get it back to 18 v 18
We seen interchange for a long time where it was not about rotations but for mainly injuries and the rare tactical move.
If it ain't broke, do not fix it. They tried to fix something that was not broke and now it has lead to coaches abusing interchange system into something it was never intended for. Remove the rotations and big part of problem gone. Then do not have to be concerned with how much time on field as virtually all the main players will be spending 95 to 100% of game on ground as they should be.

That is just removing one of the changes they never needed.

 

[RUNVS]

Nic Nat time on field is more about him personally, not able to do much more due to injuries and how his body copes. Eagles manage that well, and try not to let him play much more than 65% of game time.

16 a side is not even worth doing and the problem of congestion can be fixed without needing a drastic change of touching the actual basic part of sport which is 18 players v 18 players on field.

The main issue as you know is it been turned into 22 v 22 when it was never meant to be. We just have to essentially get it back to 18 v 18
We seen interchange for a long time where it was not about rotations but for mainly injuries and the rare tactical move.
If it ain't broke, do not fix it. They tried to fix something that was not broke and now it has lead to coaches abusing interchange system into something it was never intended for. Remove the rotations and big part of problem gone. Then do not have to be concerned with how much time on field as virtually all the main players will be spending 95 to 100% of game on ground as they should be.

That is just removing one of the changes they never needed.

Problem with that theory though is that there has been an interchange cap for a number of years, and it has been getting smaller but it has not resulted in higher scoring or more space. I am willing to bet there isn't much of a scoring increase in the 4th quarters compared to the 1st quarters indicating being tired is not much of a factor when it comes to more open play and more scoring.

 

[Rotayjay]

I've been on board with this idea for years. It would go a long way to resolving congestion although won't get rid of it completely. If there are fewer players on the ground, even if they build greater endurance to compensate, they physically cannot clog up the ground like they do now.

Depending on how many players are allowed on the interchange, it might also increase the standard of the competition by removing the need to select the least-talented few players.

 

[dumb]

It won't remove the rolling maul that lots of people complain about.

I think the game should go backwards - poorer ground drainage and any roof open to let rain in. What skills do we want to showcase? People are bored when every game is played on a featherbed, maybe they'll learn to appreciate other aspects of footy if it's played in other conditions. OH&S notwithstanding.

 

[RUNVS]

It won't remove the rolling maul that lots of people complain about.

I think the game should go backwards - poorer ground drainage and any roof open to let rain in. What skills do we want to showcase? People are bored when every game is played on a featherbed, maybe they'll learn to appreciate other aspects of footy if it's played in other conditions. OH&S notwithstanding.

I am not sure about you but I don't like watching rain affected games. The game is just so much less nice to watch as players can't string together a chain of possessions and instead hoof the ball forward and hope for the best.

 

[footyfan1978]

Problem with that theory though

It is not a theory though.
I watched footy for decades without rotations.
It only got worse with rotations as a spectacle.
I get if you not seen it yourself, it might be only a theory to you but for me it simply practical based on what seen already and what bringing rotations in has done to the game to reduce it as a spectacle.

 

[footyfan1978]

It won't remove the rolling maul that lots of people complain about.

I think the game should go backwards - poorer ground drainage and any roof open to let rain in. What skills do we want to showcase? People are bored when every game is played on a featherbed, maybe they'll learn to appreciate other aspects of footy if it's played in other conditions. OH&S notwithstanding.

Was interesting watching players cope with some of the conditions down in Tassie when rained and windy at Ballarat too.
That just part of sport to deal with all types of conditions.

 

[RUNVS]

It is not a theory though.
I watched footy for decades without rotations.
It only got worse with rotations as a spectacle.
I get if you not seen it yourself, it might be only a theory to you but for me it simply practical based on what seen already and what bringing rotations in has done to the game to reduce it as a spectacle.

There is a big difference now compared to 30 years ago though. Players are a lot fitter now and as a result they can cover the ground. The reason guys like Lockett did not move far from the forward 50 was because he physically could not run 10km a game, nor could many of the key forwards or key defenders back then. Now days the key forwards and defenders can do that and they are just as involved in the setup of zones and defensive structures as the midfielders. You can't suddenly make the players less fit to the point where coaches stop trying to get them involved in defensive structures.

 

[footyfan1978]

There is a big difference now compared to 30 years ago though. Players are a lot fitter now and as a result they can cover the ground. The reason guys like Lockett did not move far from the forward 50 was because he physically could not run 10km a game, nor could many of the key forwards or key defenders back then.

Theory again.
Plugger did not run far from forward 50 as the idea was to actually have a full forward be somewhere near goals if you got the ball off opposition...
Nothing to do with fitness. There no need for every player on ground to run 15km's. They just running up and down the ground for no benefit to spectacle for the most part to flood each 50 metre arc.

 

[RUNVS]

Theory again.
Plugger did not run far from forward 50 as the idea was to actually have a full forward be somewhere near goals if you got the ball off opposition...
Nothing to do with fitness. There no need for every player on ground to run 15km's. They just running up and down the ground for no benefit to spectacle for the most part to flood each 50 metre arc.

Jason Dunstall has said many times how unfit he was compared to the midfielders when he was playing. He mentioned finding shortcuts so he didn't have to do the full runs that his fitter teammates were able to do.

 

[Demons09]

Christ I’m sure this same thread gets posted twice a year just because you think there’s something wrong with the game doesn’t make it so.

 

[Kwality]

The reason is that during the 90s which is seemingly everyones favourite era of football, you had teams putting up big scores in matches but then only winning by under 20 points. Its nostalgia for forwards at each end kicking bags of 10.
But there was just as many blown out games, but people remember the best from the era and want to go back to it.

Thats more to do with age than anything else, its hard to like something you didnt ever see.

A real review would go back to 18 players only, then to +2 reserves, then interchange etc to where we are today. Then decide what we want, what are the features of our game we value most & since that is winning .... I often hear how good it is when the likes of Fyfe & Danger go one on one, it happens so rarely in todays game.

 

[footyfan1978]

Jason Dunstall has said many times how unfit he was compared to the midfielders when he was playing. He mentioned finding shortcuts so he didn't have to do the full runs that his fitter teammates were able to do.

Yeah of course. There no need for him to be as fit as Tuck, Platten, Pritchard, Loveridge etc. Their job was to be followers of ball all over the field and be able to play 100% of game and be fit enough. Dunstall job was to be the spearhead out of the goal square. No need for him to be as fit as them when it not needed for his role. His role was to get his strength for marking duels, leading patterns and goal kicking skills. If he going on a training run with them of course he going to find short cuts... ha ha. Percy Jones had the best shortcut to not have to do the full runs. Would jump on the tram when others not looking.

 

[RUNVS]

Yeah of course. There no need for him to be as fit as Tuck, Platten, Pritchard, Loveridge etc. Their job was to be followers of ball all over the field and be able to play 100% of game and be fit enough. Dunstall job was to be the spearhead out of the goal square. No need for him to be as fit as them when it not needed for his role. His role was to get his strength for marking duels, leading patterns and goal kicking skills. If he going on a training run with them of course he going to find short cuts... ha ha. Percy Jones had the best shortcut to not have to do the full runs. Would jump on the tram when others not looking.

There is no way to go back to a time where there is a proper forward spearhead again without a significant rule change. Creating more space, fewer defenders to zone and to cover space it could bring back the dominant key forward, at least to some extent, possibly get the Coleman medalist getting 80 goals in a season instead of 56 goals.

 

[Kwality]

There is no way to go back to a time where there is a proper forward spearhead again without a significant rule change. Creating more space, fewer defenders to zone and to cover space it could bring back the dominant key forward, at least to some extent, possibly get the Coleman medalist getting 80 goals in a season instead of 56 goals.

Interchange drives congestion.

 

[RUNVS]

Interchange drives congestion.

Does it though? The interchange cap of 90 came in in 2016 and now that cap is down to 75 and in that time congestion has only gotten worse. I don't think it is the solution many of its proponents think it is.

 

[footyfan1978]

Does it though? .

It does.
If you watched the game closely for more than just a couple of decades you would know it.
Basically all the interchange up to early 2000's was essentially around injuries or tactical positional moves like changing rucks around or bringing on a small forward/rover type or utility and had nothing to do with rotations.
Rotations started to come in vogue once coaches got onto the idea of rotating players on and off in mass numbers to allow them to flood more or just have 2 or 3 guys try to run with best midfielder on opposing team. Basically from early 2000's this started to happen and then exploded well past 40, 60, 80, 100 etc.
Before rotations interchanges would have been between 6 to 25 a game from time interchange came into the game until the bench went from 3 to 4 in mid to late 90's. But once the ideas of rotations came into vogue it been a clear case of the spectacle of a game has mutated to big chunks of games more and more congestion in each forward 50 arc.

 

[Kwality]

Does it though? The interchange cap of 90 came in in 2016 and now that cap is down to 75 and in that time congestion has only gotten worse. I don't think it is the solution many of its proponents think it is.

The reductions are not targetted, it needs to restrict individual players to say once a quarter. We keep fiddling round the edge, not addressing all the issues of what we want from our game. Thats why we need to go back & examine how we go here, not start with what we've got.


16 or 15 is a great idea if only for the depth of the player pool, but its got so much more going for it.