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

[mxett]

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.

I disagree.

Teams will realize soon enough that forcing the entire team to run back and forward up and down the field all day to follow the ball will result in player fatigue, poor last quarter performances, and potentially soft tissue injuries. A reduced bench will force teams to keep their limited rotations for the mid fielders and leave the key position players in their positions, not running all over to form zones.

The teams need to adapt to the rule changes. Limiting interchanges by either limiting them directly, or decreasing the numbers on the bench will force teams to adapt, or they will eventually suffer.

I'm all for it. Some of the games we have seen recently with so many players around the ball, or heavy flooding by both teams have been virtually unwatchable.

 

[TAITA]

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.

Obviously having a brain and pacing yourself is superfluous to requirements of being an AFL footballer these days in your world.

Whilst we are at it, let's cut the marathon back to say, 1600 metres because athletes will obviously not make the 42 kilometres if they sprint all the way, they might get injured.......

 

[Stone in sock]

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.

That is a hilarious

 

[Saturday@2]

They pushed it up to 4 players on the bench cos the game is faster now as it was back then.

You don't quite understand cause and effect. The game became faster because of the bench being increased to 4.

The real problem here is that the AFL are being disingenuous about the reasons for the rule changes. They have realised that they made a mistake increasing the bench to 4 interchange, and now want to change it back (and mark my words, it will be 2 and 2 next year) but they are unwilling to admit that they made a mistake. Sack up Dimwit and co and admit your mistake; it's not like the public could think any less of you anyway.

 

[Father Jack]

Why would the AFL be disingenuous? It's not like it was the current admin that changed the rules back in the 90s

 

[TAITA]

You don't quite understand cause and effect. The game became faster because of the bench being increased to 4.

The real problem here is that the AFL are being disingenuous about the reasons for the rule changes. They have realised that they made a mistake increasing the bench to 4 interchange, and now want to change it back (and mark my words, it will be 2 and 2 next year) but they are unwilling to admit that they made a mistake. Sack up Dimwit and co and admit your mistake; it's not like the public could think any less of you anyway.

Actually, it wasn't Vlad's mistake - Sheedy was the one who lobbied for, and got, firstly three, and then four interchange. That didn't happen when Demitri was in charge.

I see it not so much as a 'speed of the game' problem, but that as tactics have evolved under the rules, one of the most important and entertaining aspects of our game - the KPP big man taking the big grabs and kicking big bags of goals has been eradicated from the game.

Since 4 men on the bench was introduced - how many times has a single goalkicker kicked 10 goals or more in a match?

Interestingly - how many of those have been KPP's?

Like in cricket when the game favors the batsmen over the bowler because of technology or format - tweaks have to be made to allow for an even contest - having 2 and 2 evens up the balance so that we do not pick 22 gazelle-like 'utilities' each week and the brutal monster forward or backman still has a place in the game.

Those that think the offside rule has a place, or could be enforceable in footy - please spare me......

 

[DNine]

I see it not so much as a 'speed of the game' problem, but that as tactics have evolved under the rules, one of the most important and entertaining aspects of our game - the KPP big man taking the big grabs and kicking big bags of goals has been eradicated from the game.

Since 4 men on the bench was introduced - how many times has a single goalkicker kicked 10 goals or more in a match?

Interestingly - how many of those have been KPP's?

Like in cricket when the game favors the batsmen over the bowler because of technology or format - tweaks have to be made to allow for an even contest - having 2 and 2 evens up the balance so that we do not pick 22 gazelle-like 'utilities' each week and the brutal monster forward or backman still has a place in the game.

And those who believe ANYTHING quoted above please spare me.

 

[donbooger]

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.

The rule wasnt expected to directly end flooding and zones, it may not even do the job in the long run. The AFL are trying to subtly nudge the evolution of the game over time. The results last year were a predictable nothing at all to defensive tactics. However the effectiveness of these strategies has been lowered, teams are now knackered due to there implementation leading to there inability to pressure, defend and run effectively in the late game.

Now a pre season has come, coaches now know that zones and floods are less effective, they will have the opportunity at this stage to develop new strategies, perhaps some more pleasing to our eyes. Now is the time we will see the results of the AFLs rule, they will be watching closely and seeing the way football evolves if they like the way it is heading they may go further.

One less interchange will be there considered next step and they will be hoping it tips coaches over the edge, it will make the players struggle even more, zones and presses will be unsustainable even earlier during matches. The AFL will only get there goal when the coaches turn away from presses and zones, there implementation will eventually no longer be the optimal way to play football, the resulting fatigue will no longer be worth there advantage. The final results in the interchange rule changes may be years in the coming, calling it a failure at this early stage is pointless.

Yes an interchange rule will stop them running from contest to contest, and no they will not be stopped by injury they are stopped by fatigue.

Im not sure if your serious about the second paragraph. Andrew would be burnt at the stake for even hinting at trialing that crap in the NAB cup.

 

[TAITA]

And those who believe ANYTHING quoted above please spare me.

Pretty 'special' aren't you mate?

For the record I don't think you have the first clue about football either.

 

[Chewy]

I have zero interest in what Collingwood players and coaches have to say about the interchange rules. They are driven purely by self-interest. They have zero credibility in the football world.

I'll tell you what is "bloody stupid": the AFL have spent the past 15 years tweaking the rules in order to speed the game up and now they are trying to tweak the rules in order to slow the game down.

 

[donbooger]

I have zero interest in what Collingwood players and coaches have to say about the interchange rules. They are driven purely by self-interest. They have zero credibility in the football world.

I'll tell you what is "bloody stupid": the AFL have spent the past 15 years tweaking the rules in order to speed the game up and now they are trying to tweak the rules in order to slow the game down.

They have not changed there goals at all. They want to speed up ball movement not player movement, the rule changes have consistently been in this direction for 15 years and the reduced interchange is in line with this as well. Not as bloody stupid as you say.

edit: Correct on Collingwood though, they have developed the most impressive and up to date press that this rule is targeted at stopping, they should treated with a lot of scepticism when they speak out against it. I would expect pretty much every coach and player in the league to have a similar appraisal of the rule also, the rule is supposed to be to there detriment and spectator advantage after all.