Idiotic Stupid Interchange Substitute rule

[crimson]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ose-against-new-rule-20110314-1bui7.html#poll

''You replace a player now who's injured, and do you replace him with an interchange player or replace him with the sub? If he comes good towards the end of the game, you could have put him back on the ground, but now you won't? You've got less people to put back, and a player who's injured who hasn't been subbed, you've got to put back on. There's a genuine possibility that it could happen.''

How about we let the AFL know what the general football public thinks of this stupid rule. Who will be the first AFL player to sue the AFL for being forced back on when unfit to maintain 18 players and ends his career.

I say we should send our views to the AFL via Patrick Keane AFL Media Manager

patrickk@afl.com.au

 

[Furn]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ose-against-new-rule-20110314-1bui7.html#poll

''You replace a player now who's injured, and do you replace him with an interchange player or replace him with the sub? If he comes good towards the end of the game, you could have put him back on the ground, but now you won't? You've got less people to put back, and a player who's injured who hasn't been subbed, you've got to put back on. There's a genuine possibility that it could happen.''

How about we let the AFL know what the general football public thinks of this stupid rule. Who will be the first AFL player to sue the AFL for being forced back on when unfit to maintain 18 players and ends his career.

I say we should send our views to the AFL via Patrick Keane AFL Media Manager

patrickk@afl.com.au

You still need 5 injuries to be down to 17 players same as before. The only difference is with 1-4 injuries your better off.

 

[Stamos]

You still need 5 injuries to be down to 17 players same as before. The only difference is with 1-4 injuries your better off.

Exactly, it's a great rule.
They should have gone to this model in 1998 instead of 4 interchange players.

 

[rose jam]

Balme's absolutely right, this is the stupid problem with the rule.

Say for example Brett Moloney gets concussed and he gets subbed off. Then aaron Davey gets tight in the hammy or even pings it. Moloney passes the concussion test and now can't get back on.

It's so moronic

 

[Stamos]

Balme's absolutely right, this is the stupid problem with the rule.

Say for example Brett Moloney gets concussed and he gets subbed off. Then aaron Davey gets tight in the hammy or even pings it. Moloney passes the concussion test and now can't get back on.

It's so moronic

It's pretty simple. Don't use your sub early in the game for a minor injury, where there is every chance that the player will recover. The docs should have a pretty good idea within 5 or 10 minutes.

Also, this is a minor issue compared with a team sustaining multiple serious injuries where the players cannot come back on, and being unable to compete with their opponents who have a full bench.

 

[Father Jack]

Balme's absolutely right, this is the stupid problem with the rule.

Say for example Brett Moloney gets concussed and he gets subbed off. Then aaron Davey gets tight in the hammy or even pings it. Moloney passes the concussion test and now can't get back on.

It's so moronic

then they shouldn't have subbed Moloney off and waited for a couple of minutes. It won't kill them having two interchanges for a short while. Of course they can sub him off but then what you state as a possibility might then happen. That's the risk you take.

The only difference this year as opposed to last is that you might have a player subbed out who can come back on and thus be one down on the bench, or as equally (if not more) likely you might have a three man bench the same as your opposition whereas last year they'd have had an extra interchange.

Not so moronic.

 

[Pipefitter]

The sub is there to replace injured players. If coaches are going to treat it as a tactical "super" sub and get an injury after that it's their own fault.

 

[Henry Jr]

The Sub rule was brought in for injuries correct.

So they should have had a rider on the rule so that if you sub a player off, that player can't play the following week.

 

[Father Jack]

does every player unable to finish a game through injury not play the next week?

 

[Pessimistic]

The clubs have started to push for 2 or 3 subs. Then they will be happy.

Bookmark it

 

[Henry Jr]

does every player unable to finish a game through injury not play the next week?

No, just the Sub player that comes off

 

[Father Jack]

No, just the Sub player that comes off

no, i mean now. Seems a bit silly to force a player to miss the next week, especially if they don't know for certain how serious his injury is at the time of the sub. If teams want to use their sub strategically, let them.

 

[rose jam]

then they shouldn't have subbed Moloney off and waited for a couple of minutes. .

dude, he's concussed, might have been stretched off means he has to wait off at least 20 minutes, which about the minimum for concussion anyway. What do you do, play 20-30 mins down waiting to see if your player comes good?

It's a very stupid rule not thought through by people that have no clue. And anyone that agress with it has zero idea about footy and sport and life.

 

[Father Jack]

dude, he's concussed, might have been stretched off means he has to wait off at least 20 minutes, which about the minimum for concussion anyway. What do you do, play 20-30 mins down waiting to see if your player comes good?

It's a very stupid rule not thought through by people that have no clue. And anyone that agress with it has zero idea about footy and sport and life.

chances are then that he won't be coming back on. If you have to wait a quarter to find out, may as well leave him off. Be the best thing in the long term too, so win/win.

So, please explain your ridiculous last paragraph if you could, as your example does not even go close.

 

[Furn]

dude, he's concussed, might have been stretched off means he has to wait off at least 20 minutes, which about the minimum for concussion anyway. What do you do, play 20-30 mins down waiting to see if your player comes good?

It's a very stupid rule not thought through by people that have no clue. And anyone that agress with it has zero idea about footy and sport and life.

So under the old rule what do you do ?

Are you not a player down.

IF you sub him, straight away your not a player down.

If he recovers, your still not a player down.

If you get another injury and the 1st player is ok again your a player down, but you would have been a player down under the old rule anyway.

I really cant see any scenario where your worse off. There are scenarios where your disadvantaged but all of them would be just as bad or worse under the old rule.

The fairest way to reduce the effect of injuries is to have 4 subs and no interchange, then its 18 on 18 as long as you dont get more than 4 injuries, which leaves u a man down under any system we've had.

 

[The Swert]

I don't know what all the fuss is about...
Soccer manage with 3 substitutes.
Rugby League manages with 4 substitutes.

What happens if they get more injuries? Well it doesn't happen because they treat their players properly. AFL has injuries because they push their players too far. The substitute rule should slow the game down which will hopefully save injuries.

 

[CursoryMercenary]

It's a ****ing stupid rule, just cap the interchanges at 20 a quarter and add two or three more to the bench for crying out loud!!!

 

[Stamos]

dude, he's concussed, might have been stretched off means he has to wait off at least 20 minutes, which about the minimum for concussion anyway. What do you do, play 20-30 mins down waiting to see if your player comes good?

It's a very stupid rule not thought through by people that have no clue. And anyone that agress with it has zero idea about footy and sport and life.

If a player is so concussed that they cannot come back onto the field for half an hour, they shouldn't be coming back on the ground anyway.

Don't be an idiot. This means that there is an extra substitute added to the bench that was in place between 1994-1998, and an extra substitute and an extra interchange player to what was in place between 1978 and 1994. I'm not sure that you know very much about footy at all.

 

[Stamos]

It's a ****ing stupid rule, just cap the interchanges at 20 a quarter and add two or three more to the bench for crying out loud!!!

This would be preferable, but they won't do it because it would be too difficult and costly to implement. It would probably be a minimum 2 staff per game extra they would have to employ to count/police the interchanges.

 

[Sirius Black]

Mostly coaches only see rule changes from their point of view, and regardless of the impact on the quality of the game for spectators they will push for any change that gives them more control and resist any change that reduces their control. Similar to the radio issue currently boiling in pro cycling.
Personally, I think that the flood or the press in its current form is only made possible by unlimited interchange and the AFL has not gone nearly far enough. I say 2 subs, 2 interchange and a max of 3 interchanges per quarter. (or 12 per game).
To anybody who says that is not allowing the game to evolve then go back to 2 subs and no interchange - the way it was for years. Unlimited interchange is a rule that went wrong, it diminishes footy games of all codes as a spectacle. Rugby League recognised it straight away and canned it - is one of the few things they got right. Way overdue that the AFL follows suit

 

[CursoryMercenary]

This would be preferable, but they won't do it because it would be too difficult and costly to implement. It would probably be a minimum 2 staff per game extra they would have to employ to count/police the interchanges.

Yeah I know the league are fighting for every dollar they can.

 

[QuietB]

I cannot believe the overeaction to this. There used to be no interchange - just emergencies. The only mistake was increasing it to 4 in the first place. Should have 4 subs and no interchange and get some Robert Harvey/Shane Crawford types back into the game. Those whining about the interchange rule are probably the same ones who wished there was more positional play. Do you think there is any correlation between 75% of players on the ground being able to run around like blue arsed flys all game and being able to have a rest every 5 minutes?

 

[QuietB]

Mostly coaches only see rule changes from their point of view, and regardless of the impact on the quality of the game for spectators they will push for any change that gives them more control and resist any change that reduces their control. Similar to the radio issue currently boiling in pro cycling.
Personally, I think that the flood or the press in its current form is only made possible by unlimited interchange and the AFL has not gone nearly far enough. I say 2 subs, 2 interchange and a max of 3 interchanges per quarter. (or 12 per game).
To anybody who says that is not allowing the game to evolve then go back to 2 subs and no interchange - the way it was for years. Unlimited interchange is a rule that went wrong, it diminishes footy games of all codes as a spectacle. Rugby League recognised it straight away and canned it - is one of the few things they got right. Way overdue that the AFL follows suit

Exactly - agree 100%.

 

[rose jam]

So under the old rule what do you do ?

Are you not a player down.

IF you sub him, straight away your not a player down.

If he recovers, your still not a player down.

If you get another injury and the 1st player is ok again your a player down, but you would have been a player down under the old rule anyway.

I really cant see any scenario where your worse off. .

Here, pay attention very closely.

If the player subbed off recovers, as happens many many times; rolled ankles, concussion, tight hamstrings and groins, broken finger, etc. and somebody else gets injured you are 2 players down with only 1 injured player. Therefore you only have 20 players to rotate against 21, therefore much suckage for you when it could be 21 v 21 still.

So if that's not worse off what is?

 

[Father Jack]

Here, pay attention very closely.

If the player subbed off recovers, as happens many many times; rolled ankles, concussion, tight hamstrings and groins, broken finger, etc. and somebody else gets injured you are 2 players down with only 1 injured player. Therefore you only have 20 players to rotate against 21, therefore much suckage for you when it could be 21 v 21 still.

So if that's not worse off what is?

up to the medical staff to get it right. or not use their medical tricorders to repair broken bones.