Extended Bench - Is this a joke??

[shoe]

Yeah, good point about no player would want to be replaced.

Hamstring strains can be faked - all you've got to do is to be sprinting then suddenly pull up, clutching the back of your thigh. And the player will be listed as a "Test" on the injury list for the next week.

Another thing is having a player get "injured" at 3 quarter time, and the guy to replace him will then be fresh and competing against guys who've already played 3 quarters.

It's not going to be fair when endurance and fitness is such an important part of footy.

That is true.
Though in the same vein of thought, it already isn't what i'd consider fair when the other team will end up with a higher percentage of rested legs on the ground at the end of the game - which is how the system sits at the moment.

I dunno - i'm thinking that a player faking an injury (even a hammy) would stick out like a sore thumb. It's not easy to fake that 'ow that ****ing hurts' limp/expression.
Maybe i'm just being optimistic.

 

[NQTIGER]

Why dont we change the name to grid iron and be done with it, unlimited subs

 

[shoe]

The biggest problem with the theory of the 'substitute' interchange player is that they will have fresh legs and will be of much more value to the team who gets the injury.


It just pushes the imbalance the other way....


Now, if we were to make these substitute players run on a treadmill, whilst having medicine balls thrown at them every quarter that was being played they would come into the game in the same condition (barring injury) as the injured player, making the system perfectly fair. It is so logical, the AFL may even adopt it.

If we only think of solutions that make it absolutely fair then we'll never get anywhere..

How can there possibly be a solution that completely balances a large, already quite unbalanced problem?

 

[SJ]

I watched the Port Adelaide v Kangaroos Saturday night. If ever you wanted an example of how you don't want the game to be played, this was it. Players were trying to play the game faster than their modest skills allowed, resulting in fumbling, missing targets, etc.

This is created by the presence of fresh legs around a contest for 100 minutes every game. It's unattractive, it's crap. Increase the bench and the game will become ever quicker, hence more mistakes, less attractive again.

These coaches pushing for extended benches couldn't give a stuff about the appeal of the game, so long as they win. It's time to find ways to slow the game down, not make it quicker.

Spot on once again.

 

[That's deliberate]

Regardsless of what anyone thinks, the game has never been better and the quality of games are much higher then they have ever been...an extended bench would make it even better.

Far too many people are forgetting how lame the game use to be and there were never ever any momentum shifts during a course of a game, as soon as a team established a lead it was pretty much over.

An extended bench will mean the quality of play will be

better
Quicker,
less injuries as players not playing through fatigue,
prolong careers,
will give more players opportunities,
less impact on Teams with injuries as load is carried over more players.

I hardly ever notice the interchange rotations during the game and who gives a toss how many changes a team makes.

Those saying that an extended bench will disadvantage poorer performing clubs is just a ridiculous statement.

What happens today when a poor list get injuries during the game, they are worse off ten fold...the ability to play fresh players who can do a job and atleast run with a player regardess of talent can only help.

more interchange please....

 

[jim boy]

I prefer to keep the interchange bench the same, but allow 1 or 2 emergencies to play if required. No qualification on injury, if they replace someone, that someone can't come back on.

This is actually the way that footy has been played throughout most of its existence and how other codes, such as soccer operate. Ted Hopkins is the classic example of the 19th man as it was then. At the time it was considered a dangerous move, because if someone was later injured, they would not be able to replace him.

I don't know that clubs would use them all that much outside of injuries. Most players are so fit, that lasting out the game isn't an issue. And the 23rd player is on the pine because there are 22 players ahead of him. May also help players who are going through rehab. For example if a player can only play half-a-game, then let him and then replace him at half-time.

 

[The Casey Cat]

Two more on the bench and two less on the field. Open things up a bit.

regards

S. Pete

I reckon this is a pretty nice idea and have liked it for a while.

 

[The_Undertaker]

I feel that extending the bench to nullify an advantage to a team which happens to have less injuries during the match than their opponent IS a joke. If you extend it to six and if Team A has four fit people on the bench compared to Team B's six they are still going to be at a disadvantage. Team B's legs will still be fresher than Team A's.

Another variation for example could be to keep the interchange at 4 but if a player becomes injured allow him to be permanently substituted off for an emergency. This approach has its problems too, lets assume for example that Clinton Young for the Hawks comes off with a 'hammy' at the midpoint of the 4th quarter and is replaced with someone like a Travis Tuck. Clinton is probably the better player yes, but we aren't talking night and day here and Tuck's fresh legs could definitely be considered an advantage late in the 4th in a close game. Even if the injury was legitimate this could still provide an unfair advantage to the Hawks over their opposition.

Probably the best approach to stoping this advantage would be to make it that if a player is deemed injured enough to require an emergency to come in and play for the rest of the match, the injured player can not be named in the following week's team. This would discourage shrewd coaches from taking advantage of any little niggle that a player may have in order to bring in fresh legs as they would probably be unwilling to lose a starting 22 player for a week. It still doesn't solve the problem of giving a team with a legitamate injury an advantage though. To solve this you would probably have to adapt the rule to allow the opposition team to swap one of their players with an emergency if they so wish at no penalty so both teams get the injection of fresh legs.

Of course after all of that we get an overly complex rule that completley misses the point of what footy is all about. We use a non-round ball FFS. How many games have been won/lost because the bounce didn't favour a player or the ball decided not to dribble between the two big posts? Or for that matter, surely poor umpire decisions influence games as well. Inequalities have always existed in this game of ours and is part of what makes this game fun. If a player goes down in the first 10 minutes well then tough! Good teams still win even if they sustain a few injuries during the match; we see it week after week. If an injured team didn't win the game than perhaps they wern't good enough in the first place.

 

[do you know george?]

Secondly, what is the difference if you have 22 vs. 20 or 24 vs. 22 no matter how many you put on the bench a team with an injured player will always be one player behind.

That is true, but with more players on the bench you dilute the disadvantage when injuries occur.

 

[hornet68]

wow wow wow how far behind are you flooding and mass rotation? how long u been living under a rock for flooding in only just subsiding in the game in the last couple of years and mass rotation why do u think the clock on system was introduced other than to not let 19 on the ground problem to happen again but to control collingwoods 200+ rotations a game mass rotation has only just been comming up in the last few year and i guess u can thank mick malthouse for that one

So having 36 players in one half of the ground is no longer flooding?
It is still occurring in nearly all games at some stage.
100 interchanges per game is longer a mass rotation?
Occurs every week!!

Why legislate an increase to the numbers on the bench which will apply to 100% of the game, when the situation of injured players etc occurs sporadically.
Introduce more fresh legs on the bench and more rotations and flooding will occur.

 

[EB&W Pieman]

MM's suggestion refutes all of the 'fake injury' arguments. The player who is replaced must miss the next match!!

It's not rocket surgery.

BTW, the 2005, 2006 GF's were both lost by the team that sustained an injury before half time. Given the closeness of both those matches, it would be hard to argue that the injury was the deciding factor.

I like Mick's idea; it covers most contingencies.

 

[Consumed]

i am aware i will probably get shot down for this but MM brought up a good idea the other day
not just an injury, but if u decide to replace that person because of 'injury' they automatically miss the following week of football

Seems like a good common sense rule. Allows the freedom of swapping out a player too injured to continue, but doesn't allow you to rort the system.

 

[NEMINI]

so what happens when 3 playersare injured and there are only 2 to replace them? What if one of th replacements get hurt, shall we have a replacement replacement bench? Where does it end?

 

[Lloydy4Pope]

Why not extend the bench by 2...or even 1

Great idea as far as i'm concerned, it doesn't disadvantage anyone and eliminates inequality of having a man or 2 down during a game..

I can't see why any club would oppose it.

Then the arguement would be 'we've only got 5 on our bench while the other team has 6'. Not a good arguement...