News Collingwood News & Media

Remove this Banner Ad

I was under the impression that drop punts tended to be just used for stab passes in that era? Might have been trying to transition them away from drop kicks and torps?
A Stab Pass was it's own kick - basically a drop kick over a short distance with a low profile (not much height) - Barry Price was a master of it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The AFL is set to retain its much-scrutinised four-man bench and substitute despite strong lobbying from senior players and the player union to eradicate the sub.
The league is still working through potential rule changes for the 2025 season but was thrilled senior coaches and players gave up their time in Grand Final week for a rules and game analysis forum.

At that forum players made clear that they hate the sub and the ramifications for players, much preferring a five-person bench.

Under the current rules the fifth member of the bench is only able to come into the game as the substitute to replace a teammate – either through injury or tactical reasons – who then cannot return to the game.

Players hate being the named sub and hate being subbed off midgame, with Western Bulldogs deputy vice-captain Caleb Daniel leaving the club in part because of his use in that role seven times this year.
Players including Patrick Cripps, Darcy Moore and Sam Frost attended that rules summit and were strong in their dislike for the rule.

They believe players who are the sub or are subbed off are often disadvantaged at selection the next week because of a lack of game time and fitness, with players subbed off struggling to hide their frustration at the decisions.

But the Herald Sun understands the league is set to stick with the four-person interchange bench and sub.

It believes that specific make-up of the bench with a cap of 75 rotations allows for fairness and also the capacity to replace an injured player with a fresh teammate.
The AFL remains upbeat about the standard of the game, entertainment value and strong appetite from supporters to attend the football despite gripes about umpiring standards.

Some senior coaches at the summit agreed with the player push, with some believing a fifth member of the bench to be used freely would also bring more tall players into the game.

Coaches say they would more often play a second ruckman in their sides if they had the capacity to use all five players on the bench from the first bounce.

Players and coaches at that rules summit spoke about the stand rule, game length, how to disincentivise dangerous tackles and the holding the ball rule.

Carlton captain Cripps was worried a mid-season rule tweak which rewarded a player who pinned an arm of his opponent would stop players going for the ball.

“It’s around the new interpretation. It’s not a crack at the umpires, it’s what’s being coached,” he said in July.

“The arm being pinged, it’s automatically holding the ball if you don’t get rid of it. My thing is, if people don’t have prior and they have the arm pinged, it should be a quick ball-up.”

Last year the AFL cracked down on illegal smothers over summer in the wake of the Angus Brayshaw-Brayden Maynard finals collision and also banned officials from whistling on the bench as part of rule changes.

It also strengthened the onus on players not to commit a strike when fending or pushing an opponent in a decision that saw Isaac Heeney ineligible for the Brownlow Medal after a high fend on Jimmy Webster.
 
The AFL is set to retain its much-scrutinised four-man bench and substitute despite strong lobbying from senior players and the player union to eradicate the sub.
The league is still working through potential rule changes for the 2025 season but was thrilled senior coaches and players gave up their time in Grand Final week for a rules and game analysis forum.

At that forum players made clear that they hate the sub and the ramifications for players, much preferring a five-person bench.

Under the current rules the fifth member of the bench is only able to come into the game as the substitute to replace a teammate – either through injury or tactical reasons – who then cannot return to the game.

Players hate being the named sub and hate being subbed off midgame, with Western Bulldogs deputy vice-captain Caleb Daniel leaving the club in part because of his use in that role seven times this year.
Players including Patrick Cripps, Darcy Moore and Sam Frost attended that rules summit and were strong in their dislike for the rule.

They believe players who are the sub or are subbed off are often disadvantaged at selection the next week because of a lack of game time and fitness, with players subbed off struggling to hide their frustration at the decisions.

But the Herald Sun understands the league is set to stick with the four-person interchange bench and sub.

It believes that specific make-up of the bench with a cap of 75 rotations allows for fairness and also the capacity to replace an injured player with a fresh teammate.
The AFL remains upbeat about the standard of the game, entertainment value and strong appetite from supporters to attend the football despite gripes about umpiring standards.

Some senior coaches at the summit agreed with the player push, with some believing a fifth member of the bench to be used freely would also bring more tall players into the game.

Coaches say they would more often play a second ruckman in their sides if they had the capacity to use all five players on the bench from the first bounce.

Players and coaches at that rules summit spoke about the stand rule, game length, how to disincentivise dangerous tackles and the holding the ball rule.

Carlton captain Cripps was worried a mid-season rule tweak which rewarded a player who pinned an arm of his opponent would stop players going for the ball.

“It’s around the new interpretation. It’s not a crack at the umpires, it’s what’s being coached,” he said in July.

“The arm being pinged, it’s automatically holding the ball if you don’t get rid of it. My thing is, if people don’t have prior and they have the arm pinged, it should be a quick ball-up.”

Last year the AFL cracked down on illegal smothers over summer in the wake of the Angus Brayshaw-Brayden Maynard finals collision and also banned officials from whistling on the bench as part of rule changes.

It also strengthened the onus on players not to commit a strike when fending or pushing an opponent in a decision that saw Isaac Heeney ineligible for the Brownlow Medal after a high fend on Jimmy Webster.
It wasn't an illegal smother.
 
Damn it. I really thought they'd get rid of the sub for next season.

Who actually wants it? It seems to be universally disliked.
Thats right. Players. clubs and fans hate it.
 
The AFL is set to retain its much-scrutinised four-man bench and substitute despite strong lobbying from senior players and the player union to eradicate the sub.
The league is still working through potential rule changes for the 2025 season but was thrilled senior coaches and players gave up their time in Grand Final week for a rules and game analysis forum.

At that forum players made clear that they hate the sub and the ramifications for players, much preferring a five-person bench.

Under the current rules the fifth member of the bench is only able to come into the game as the substitute to replace a teammate – either through injury or tactical reasons – who then cannot return to the game.

Players hate being the named sub and hate being subbed off midgame, with Western Bulldogs deputy vice-captain Caleb Daniel leaving the club in part because of his use in that role seven times this year.
Players including Patrick Cripps, Darcy Moore and Sam Frost attended that rules summit and were strong in their dislike for the rule.

They believe players who are the sub or are subbed off are often disadvantaged at selection the next week because of a lack of game time and fitness, with players subbed off struggling to hide their frustration at the decisions.

But the Herald Sun understands the league is set to stick with the four-person interchange bench and sub.

It believes that specific make-up of the bench with a cap of 75 rotations allows for fairness and also the capacity to replace an injured player with a fresh teammate.
The AFL remains upbeat about the standard of the game, entertainment value and strong appetite from supporters to attend the football despite gripes about umpiring standards.

Some senior coaches at the summit agreed with the player push, with some believing a fifth member of the bench to be used freely would also bring more tall players into the game.

Coaches say they would more often play a second ruckman in their sides if they had the capacity to use all five players on the bench from the first bounce.

Players and coaches at that rules summit spoke about the stand rule, game length, how to disincentivise dangerous tackles and the holding the ball rule.

Carlton captain Cripps was worried a mid-season rule tweak which rewarded a player who pinned an arm of his opponent would stop players going for the ball.

“It’s around the new interpretation. It’s not a crack at the umpires, it’s what’s being coached,” he said in July.

“The arm being pinged, it’s automatically holding the ball if you don’t get rid of it. My thing is, if people don’t have prior and they have the arm pinged, it should be a quick ball-up.”

Last year the AFL cracked down on illegal smothers over summer in the wake of the Angus Brayshaw-Brayden Maynard finals collision and also banned officials from whistling on the bench as part of rule changes.

It also strengthened the onus on players not to commit a strike when fending or pushing an opponent in a decision that saw Isaac Heeney ineligible for the Brownlow Medal after a high fend on Jimmy Webster.
I'm with Cripps on the pinned arm with the ball not pinned. It frustrates me that it's holding the ball in one particular situation where the player has had no prior and can't get the ball out legally, but not in all other situations of no prior.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Thats right. Players. clubs and fans hate it.

I will never ever understand why and I think it's one of those things no one seems to be able to find a way to convince me with a genuine reason. But I'm very open to being convinced.

So far the reasons against the sub seem to ultimately amount to basically whingeing? (not from supporters, but clubs/players?)

Like, what happens when we go to 5 on the bench and there's an injury? We're then back to "Oh we were down a rotation, it's not fair" like we were before the sub came in.

As to the reasoning of "It's not fair on the player who is sub/coaches hate telling the player they're the sub/players hate being subbed" Guess what?

Before the sub rule, there was no 23rd spot on the team. That player wouldn't be playing at all. Maybe be happy you're being considered to be playing Seniors at all?

As to the player who hates being subbed? Well...maybe play better? Maybe use it as incentive to fight to stay on the field. Force the coaches to use the sub purely for injury purposes.

Maybe as I've said before, clubs could use it more intelligently rather than just use it as "Let's just make a fringe player the sub"?

I'll never get it. For me, it's 100% worth it purely for injury cover.
 
I will never ever understand why and I think it's one of those things no one seems to be able to find a way to convince me with a genuine reason. But I'm very open to being convinced.

So far the reasons against the sub seem to ultimately amount to basically whingeing? (not from supporters, but clubs/players?)

Like, what happens when we go to 5 on the bench and there's an injury? We're then back to "Oh we were down a rotation, it's not fair" like we were before the sub came in.

As to the reasoning of "It's not fair on the player who is sub/coaches hate telling the player they're the sub/players hate being subbed" Guess what?

Before the sub rule, there was no 23rd spot on the team. That player wouldn't be playing at all. Maybe be happy you're being considered to be playing Seniors at all?

As to the player who hates being subbed? Well...maybe play better? Maybe use it as incentive to fight to stay on the field. Force the coaches to use the sub purely for injury purposes.

Maybe as I've said before, clubs could use it more intelligently rather than just use it as "Let's just make a fringe player the sub"?

I'll never get it. For me, it's 100% worth it purely for injury cover.

I'm someone who doesn't care either way, but I think this latest decision is about concussion. If it's 23 vs 23 there's more of a disincentive to sub someone out if they have concussion. 22 vs 22 with a sub each makes a substituion for concussion less disadvantageous - or at least feel less disadvantageous.
 
My only issue with the sub is that it can't really be used tactically because of the fear of an injury straight afterwards.
Happened multiple times this year.
Tactical sub was used and then the team is 1 down due to an injury soon afterwards.

So clubs just wont use it.

Not sure how this would work, but i'd like to see a situation where if a tactical sub is used (needs to be declared), then the player taken off can come back on for an injury.

...with the injured player immediately ruled out for the following game to stop clubs gaming it.
 
I'm someone who doesn't care either way, but I think this latest decision is about concussion. If it's 23 vs 23 there's more of a disincentive to sub someone out if they have concussion. 22 vs 22 with a sub each makes a substituion for concussion less disadvantageous - or at least feel less disadvantageous.

Correct

They could also easily alleviate some angst by allowing a tactical sub to come back into the game should a player be injured or concussed.

Which to me is a pretty ok compromise
 
Correct

They could also easily alleviate some angst by allowing a tactical sub to come back into the game should a player be injured or concussed.

Which to me is a pretty ok compromise
The issue with that is it gets back to the reason why they moved away from the medical sub - fake injuries.
 
...with the injured player immediately ruled out for the following game to stop clubs gaming it.
The issue is that it isn't that uncommon for a player to sit out due to an injury concern but get up the next week. You don't want fit players to be ruled out the next game due to the sub rules.
 
I'm with Cripps on the pinned arm with the ball not pinned. It frustrates me that it's holding the ball in one particular situation where the player has had no prior and can't get the ball out legally, but not in all other situations of no prior.
sooner they remove prior...the better.
Would have an impact on ruckman, but unless they actually trial it somewhere, they're just guessing.

All rules are just so hard to adjudicate.
Every rule has some sort of clause in it and degrees of severity and interpretation.
Its impossible for the umpires.

If they were actually honest in their assessment, they would be tracking under 30% accuracy per game in terms of what they don't pay. e.g. they get 1 in 4 right.

Which i think is where the frustration comes in.
Its not the ones they pay, its the similar incidents not paid that frustrates everyone.

Make it simpler and clearer.
 
The issue is that it isn't that uncommon for a player to sit out due to an injury concern but get up the next week. You don't want fit players to be ruled out the next game due to the sub rules.
Yeah i know.....thats the part i can't see a way around.

But if you don't have some level of deterrence, clubs will absolutely game it.
Give a player 1.5 qtrs to refresh then go hard for the last 20....

I guess the idea was to make it more of 'break glass' scenario in the case there is a real injury (concussion etc).

Just trying to see a way clubs can use it more freely without fear of injury.
 
Yeah i know.....thats the part i can't see a way around.

But if you don't have some level of deterrence, clubs will absolutely game it.
Give a player 1.5 qtrs to refresh then go hard for the last 20....

I guess the idea was to make it more of 'break glass' scenario in the case there is a real injury (concussion etc).

Just trying to see a way clubs can use it more freely without fear of injury.
Personally, I'd just keep it as it is. I don't see the issue - a lot of sports have blokes who sit on the bench and get zero game time.
 
I will never ever understand why and I think it's one of those things no one seems to be able to find a way to convince me with a genuine reason. But I'm very open to being convinced.

So far the reasons against the sub seem to ultimately amount to basically whingeing? (not from supporters, but clubs/players?)

Like, what happens when we go to 5 on the bench and there's an injury? We're then back to "Oh we were down a rotation, it's not fair" like we were before the sub came in.

As to the reasoning of "It's not fair on the player who is sub/coaches hate telling the player they're the sub/players hate being subbed" Guess what?

Before the sub rule, there was no 23rd spot on the team. That player wouldn't be playing at all. Maybe be happy you're being considered to be playing Seniors at all?

As to the player who hates being subbed? Well...maybe play better? Maybe use it as incentive to fight to stay on the field. Force the coaches to use the sub purely for injury purposes.

Maybe as I've said before, clubs could use it more intelligently rather than just use it as "Let's just make a fringe player the sub"?

I'll never get it. For me, it's 100% worth it purely for injury cover.
Agree, it's also a great way to introduce players to game-day preparation and readiness
 
Correct

They could also easily alleviate some angst by allowing a tactical sub to come back into the game should a player be injured or concussed.

Which to me is a pretty ok compromise
This just seems like a crappy version of an extended bench that has needless rules
 

Remove this Banner Ad

News Collingwood News & Media

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top