Darren Jolly: 2 subs, 2 interchange is "bloody stupid"

[Timmy from Thomastown]

They made a mistake. The four on the interchange was never intended to be used in the way it is now.

The game evolves.

It doesnt mean it needs rule changes every time a coach innovates.

Every rule change will result in new tactics. All the AFL is doing these days is brining in rule changes as a response to coaching strategies which often have occurred as a result of previous rule changes.

Bottom line as I said....the game is still 18 v 18 regardless of the interchange rules.

 

[The Speaker]

The game evolves.

It doesnt mean it needs rule changes every time a coach innovates.

Every rule change will result in new tactics. All the AFL is doing these days is brining in rule changes as a response to coaching strategies which often have occurred as a result of previous rule changes.

This is correct. And more importantly, constantly changing the rules is preventing the game from naturally changing.

 

[SJ]

The game evolves.

It doesnt mean it needs rule changes every time a coach innovates.

Every rule change will result in new tactics. All the AFL is doing these days is brining in rule changes as a response to coaching strategies which often have occurred as a result of previous rule changes.

Bottom line as I said....the game is still 18 v 18 regardless of the interchange rules.

If the bolded is the case then you shouldn't care what happens to the interchange.

 

[Stamos]

Just mindless crap to suggest this sub rule is anything but a BIG fail.

Commentators don't like it... most of the supporters don't like it.

This is simply not true.

The game evolves.

Bottom line as I said....the game is still 18 v 18 regardless of the interchange rules.

The game does evolve, and in 2009-2010 it had evolved to be a game of 22 v 22, not 18 v 18. Due to the rule change at the start of last year, the game is now 21+1 v 21+1.

 

[DNine]

Simply is true, http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=907827.

Hear nothing but negative things from commentators, ex players, players, coaches.

Just wish the AFL would do a full comprehensive polls before they brought anything in. The opinions of Coaches, Players, Ex players, Commentators and supporters would be closer to the correct thing to do than Demetrio and Anderson, who I believe are the worst thing that has happen to the AFL EVER.

The game is too taxing on players now days, and the load needs to be spread over more players, not less. Basketball has 20 players in a small area, and a football field is 3 times bigger. Going on that, we should have 60 players on the field. 22 is the right amount of rotating players on the field.

 

[Fluro Boots]

why not make sections of the ground that can't exceed certain numbers, like an offside rule. It could be something like no more than 18 in a each 50 meter arch.

Not suggesting this is ideal, but it is a hell of a lot better than the Sub rule. WORST rule I have seen brought in to the AFL EVER.

Whether you're for or against the sub rule surely it's better than introducing offside? how are umpires supposed to keep track of numbers? they have enough trouble as it is and at least with the sub the game itself is the same.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Whether you're for or against the sub rule surely it's better than introducing offside? how are umpires supposed to keep track of numbers?

Netball bibs for everybody

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The game does evolve, and in 2009-2010 it had evolved to be a game of 22 v 22, not 18 v 18. Due to the rule change at the start of last year, the game is now 21+1 v 21+1.

Its always been 18 v 18 and still .

I have never seen more than 36 players out on the ground.

 

[SJ]

Its always been 18 v 18 and still .

I have never seen more than 36 players out on the ground.

Are you arguing the interchange has no effect on the game?

 

[cmndstab]

Pretty much the only positive comment I've ever heard from a commentator about the sub rule was from Robert Walls, saying it was a success because he found himself checking who was the sub at the start of each match with fascination.

I could introduce a rule where a random player from each team gets shot at the start of each match that would have you checking at well Walls. Doesn't make it a good rule. The only reason you're checking is because you want to know which player will only get to play half a match today.

If it ever becomes two subs, we'll have two players, probably young players, who would have benefitted far more from a match in the twos than warming the bench for three quarters.


As for having moved to four positions on the bench, of course it's had an effect - this is exactly what I'm talking about. Every time the AFL introduced a rule to handle some kind of perceived problem, they end up altering the game in ways they never intended, and their first thought is to introduce yet another rule to handle that problem. This isn't just restricted to interchange rules. Remember when the AFL decided that stoppages were a blight on the game, and so introduced the new interpretations for HTB that have absolutely infuriated supporters ever since - creating a much worse blight on the game than ever existed to start with.

The game is fine. The interchange bench is fine. We don't need subs. We don't need reduced positions, we don't need to try to change it, whether to go backwards or otherwise. Leave it alone.

 

[DNine]

Whether you're for or against the sub rule surely it's better than introducing offside? how are umpires supposed to keep track of numbers? they have enough trouble as it is and at least with the sub the game itself is the same.

Don't think about it too much. Just a team takes a risk of the ball being taken away from them if they flood. A player from the opposition could point it out to the umpires at any time.

6 forwards and 3 other midfielders players could enter the forward or defensive fifty. That is 9 per side. So the six forwards, one ruck, one ruck rover, and one rover. The Wingman and centre can not enter the forward or defensive fifty unless one of the others are out of it.

Get caught, get penalised, it is as easy as that. Don't get caught, then your lucky aren't you. Can't see it as a major issue to umpire, and it would certainly bring back the open type plan that makes for a better spectacle.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Are you arguing the interchange has no effect on the game?

It has an equal effect on both teams and the use of it is natural evolution.

I certainly think that the top teams of 10/11 played a more appealing brand of footy than the top teams of 05/06 so the game is more watchable now than in the recent past.

I also think that the 3 and 1 rule was the "least worst" option so if they had to bring a rule in, that was better than the alternatives. But I didnt really see any need for it at all.

 

[Stamos]

Its always been 18 v 18 and still .

I have never seen more than 36 players out on the ground.

You have a very limited understanding of the game.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

You have a very limited understanding of the game.

Thats a a very convincing argument

 

[DNine]

You have a very limited understanding of the game.

Never has there been more than 36 players on the field at any one time. That's not a limited understanding, that is bang on the money.

There was that time for North though Timmy, they had 19 on the ground. And these times when there is 19 players on the field for a split second when they run on in confusion, before turning after one step, and seeing a red flag waiting for them. So technically there has been, but you would only jokingly reply to this comment above, because he is just trying to wind you up. So not worth it. I and everyone else knows what you mean, some need a bouncing white ball at the bottom of the screen to be able to understand anything.

"Thats a a very convincing argument" Well played Timmy, only a straight bat would deal with this comment correctly.

 

[Stamos]

If it's truly 18 v 18, and always has been, why bother with an interchange at all?

Why don't we scrap the bench and go back to the original rules?

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Never has there been more than 36 players on the field at any one time. That's not a limited understanding, that is bang on the money.

There was that time for North though Timmy, they had 19 on the ground. And these times when there is 19 players on the field for a split second when they run on in confusion, before turning after one step, and seeing a red flag waiting for them. So technically there has been, but you would only jokingly reply to this comment above, because he is just trying to wind you up. So not worth it. I and everyone else knows what you mean, some need a bouncing white ball at the bottom of the screen to be able to understand anything.

It was Sydney. Not North.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

It was Sydney. Not North.

shhh he was trying to outsmart me and you ruined it for him

 

[DNine]

shhh he was trying to outsmart me and you ruined it for him

Wasn't trying to outsmart you Timmy, I was with you. I said that with tongue firmly in cheek.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Wasn't trying to outsmart you Timmy, I was with you. I said that with tongue firmly in cheek.

As did I

 

[dumb]

i tire of the ****ing around with the rules, but the public are as guilty as any rules committee in their willingness and desire to change things as they see fit. ironically it is the AFL's desire to appease fans which can create the avalanche of disenfranchisement we see. with a steady set of rules, people can take or leave the game. instituting ill-conceived change naturally upsets the balance.

 

[Hand]

he has got a point, no need to change a rule that worked well last year.

 

[mxett]

'Slowing the game udown' doesn't mean it is a more attractive, slower, more skilled sort of game. Bit of a misnomer actually. Generally it means all 36 players follow the ball and it becomes a defensive-fest. It's not as though we didn't have brilliantly fluid, skilled matches prior to the past decade

But many many people are sick of the flood or the rolling zone. They want to see 1 on 1 contests, not 6 on 2 or 10 on 10 within 4 metres.

Reducing the rotations will limit the players ability to run back and forward to form the zone for the entire game. This will force teams to use this tactic sparingly or not at all.

This can only be a good thing in my opinion.

The reason the clubs dont like it at the moment is because the new sub rules are limiting their ability to zone in the same way. But thats the idea!

 

[lindsay_bulldogs]

Cross for the Bulldogs would benefit from a rule change to 2 and 2. He is an endurance athlete and would greatly benefit from less rotations. Making a slower player with more staying power a valuable asset.

I disliked the rule for more on the bench at the time it was changed with one of the major reasons being the blood rule and injuries in general which has now lead to players flooding with 2 min stints on and off the ground.

Injuries is the only reason for more on the bench and makes sense to legislate for that hence the subs instead of more numbers available on the bench.

I am for the new rules and if a player is complaining about the work load then maybe he should change jobs and work for the council.

 

[DNine]

Everyone keeps saying that it will stop all this flooding and rolling zones. IT'S NOT, IT HASN'T. Last year with one sub made no difference to the look of the game at all. They are taught to play in a way they can run the maximum amount they can. They are trained to run great distances from contest to contest. No interchange rule is going to stop this. They will just run themselves into injury, and then they will have the required weeks off to mend that injury.

If we want to stop the flooding, and the rolling zones, then we make forwards not be able to enter the opposite ends fifty, and the defenders can't enter the forward fifty. How does the umpires police this, simply make a number that each end can't exceed, like 10, and if it appears their is more than 10 in either end for one team, then the umpire blows the whistle and pays a free. Simple and easy.