Idiotic Stupid Interchange Substitute rule

[Kahuna]

Didn't see anything wrong with the game myself, if it ain't broke then don't fix it.

In regards to the substitutions and the injuries. Won't this just mean the guys are going to have to work harder to keep the same game plans etc as they have at the moment, I can't see coaches changing the way they play. Making them work harder to going to lead to injuries.

 

[Furn]

Didn't see anything wrong with the game myself, if it ain't broke then don't fix it.

In regards to the substitutions and the injuries. Won't this just mean the guys are going to have to work harder to keep the same game plans etc as they have at the moment, I can't see coaches changing the way they play. Making them work harder to going to lead to injuries.

Players are working as hard as they can. If they could work harder they would be already. If coaches dont change a bit they will run out of gas late in games.

I also dont buy that fatigue causes injuries, can someone show me a study or something that backs this up?

I would think a tired out guy jogging would be less likely to injure something than a rested guy sprinting.

 

[TempleKelvington]

Having given this significant thought I guess I just have to say that I have never really understood the need for this rule. I personally don't see that reducing the number of interchanges will change anything much but if you must do it, why not do it by reducing the number of interchanges rather than reducing the number of interchange players. Surely that's not rocket science. History tells you that when you modify a loosely related parameter for the sake of having a given effect, the change will potentially have unrelated, undesirable or unintended side effects. That's the main thing bothers me about it.

The other thing that bothers me is the way the AFL went about justifying it by quoting some underfunded research that produced a finding in relation to soft tissue injuries which was all underlined (or undermined) by the qualifier that it was all anecdotal. To me this was a dishonest approach by the AFL and smacks of paying the research body to produce a report to substantiate a preordained finding.

In the end I have to say that if the AFL is intent on reducing the number of interchanges then so be it but what I find is an undesirable outcome is that for every club there is one player each week who potentially gets to play no football. To me that is a big step backwards and puts us back where some other codes are. To me the interchange was a positive innovation in the game which ensured that every player got to play every week and having played the game myself I know I hated sitting on the bench. Simple as that!

Yes....great post I agree 100%. I can only add that if they wanted to bring it in then why not trial it in the NAB cup first? Least then we could perhaps see what the consequences are. They seem to like to trial other rules/changes there, but for some reason not this one? Why not?

For me...it purpose seems bizarre. The haste in bringing it in baffling.

 

[Stamos]

Yes....great post I agree 100%. I can only add that if they wanted to bring it in then why not trial it in the NAB cup first? Least then we could perhaps see what the consequences are. They seem to like to trial other rules/changes there, but for some reason not this one? Why not?

For me...it purpose seems bizarre. The haste in bringing it in baffling.

Because the NAB Cup is for practice, giving guys a run. That's why they have extended benches.

 

[Dr Awkward]

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.

This is actually an excellent idea and would be a better rule imo.

 

[db swannie]

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.

Correct, and I'm starting to come around to the idea. If coaches leave the player as a bona fide replacement for an injured player then that's fine, if they choose to roll the dice, it's on their head.

I think some people need to have a cold shower and relax a bit over this rule change, let's just wait and see how it operates in the season proper. TBH I have no idea whether it will work or not, but when the rushed behind rule first came in a couple of seasons ago I was ranting and raving about how it would never work etc (as were many others on BF), but once it was operating most people looked around and realized that it worked, despite all the doomsayers...One less player on the interchange bench will have an impact, but perhaps not as great as we all fear...

 

[Seadog]

I think it will be interesting to see which coaches see it as an oppurtunity to close the gap on the better teams with innovative tactics.
I think we'll see some rope a dope tactics with teams defending for periods without expending too much energy and then attacking in 10 min bursts.
Malthouse is too smart to think he can play exactly the same way as last year so will have tweaked his strategies as well.
Will it make the game better or worse? Don't know but it will be interesting.

 

[db swannie]

This is actually an excellent idea and would be a better rule imo.

This is actually a terrible idea IMO. Imagine if your Dustin Martin got subbed off with minor concussion as a precaution, then was fine by Monday, but had to sit out the next weekend because of this rule, you'd be furious, as would I if it happened to an important Swans' player.

 

[imperial_oz]

Players are working as hard as they can. If they could work harder they would be already. If coaches dont change a bit they will run out of gas late in games.

I also dont buy that fatigue causes injuries, can someone show me a study or something that backs this up?

I would think a tired out guy jogging would be less likely to injure something than a rested guy sprinting.

Try this for starters. The link between fatigue and increased injuries has been well documented, on and off the sporting field.

http://mmajunkie.com/news/15364/med...a-constant-area-of-study-in-medical-world.mma

The link between fatigue and injury during athletic competition may not be well understood or recognized by the public, but it has been a well-researched and supported concept in sports medicine literature for quite some time.

The reasons given for this new rule - reducing injuries is somewhat flawed in my view.

 

[Sloth]

stupid stupid rule. Won't be around next year.

 

[PieNSauce]

Try this for starters. The link between fatigue and increased injuries has been well documented, on and off the sporting field.

http://mmajunkie.com/news/15364/med...a-constant-area-of-study-in-medical-world.mma

The link between fatigue and injury during athletic competition may not be well understood or recognized by the public, but it has been a well-researched and supported concept in sports medicine literature for quite some time.

The reasons given for this new rule - reducing injuries is somewhat flawed in my view.

I think you'll find that is only one of the reasons given while the true agenda is about opening the game up and supposedly improving its visual appeal. Of course it's a matter of opinion that it doesn't curremtly have visual appeal and that is certainly not mine.

 

[TempleKelvington]

Because the NAB Cup is for practice, giving guys a run. That's why they have extended benches.

Yes I understand your point. But this seems an important change and for 1 year I don't think it would have hurt at all.

 

[imperial_oz]

I think you'll find that is only one of the reasons given while the true agenda is about opening the game up and supposedly improving its visual appeal. Of course it's a matter of opinion that it doesn't curremtly have visual appeal and that is certainly not mine.

Couldn't agree with you more about the appeal and the game doesn't need to be opened up more than it is. Game looks just fine to me also.

My remarks were addressing the so-called injury justification....which is a massive fail.

 

[PieNSauce]

Couldn't agree with you more about the appeal and the game doesn't need to be opened up more than it is. Game looks just fine to me also.

My remarks were addressing the so-called injury justification....which is a massive fail.

Agreed. Of course you don't hear them spouting that BS too much anymore. I think it's been pretty well discredited. From memory Collingwood provided equally believeable evidence directly contradicting the AFL's report.

 

[imperial_oz]

Agreed. Of course you don't hear them spouting that BS too much anymore. I think it's been pretty well discredited. From memory Collingwood provided equally believeable evidence directly contradicting the AFL's report.

Hahaha!

Bet that would have been hard to do...well hard not to laugh while presenting it. Heck, a quick Google debunks it in minutes let alone a properly established AFL club sports science department. Willing to bet every club would have had similar evidence.

 

[PieNSauce]

Hahaha!

Bet that would have been hard to do...well hard not to laugh while presenting it. Heck, a quick Google debunks it in minutes let alone a properly established AFL club sports science department. Willing to bet every club would have had similar evidence.

lol. Wouldn't be surprised at all. Of course if you're going to rely on anecdotal evidence you really can pretty much come to any conclusion you like. Even statistics can be made to support opposing cases in lots of areas. For instance, the Victorian Government insists that the increase in traffic camera use is directly responsible for a reduction in road trauma over the last 10 years. This is based on the fact that while cameras have increased, road trauma has reduced. Nice in theory but completely ignores other factors such as the drought ensuring that our roads have barely seen a drop of water in 10 years etc. Gotta love it!

 

[Old Spice]

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.

Yes, we wouldn't want clubs to refer to tactics. Maybe we can also make players wear hobnail boots again - just wike it was when Kevvy was pwaying.

Stupid fuking geriatric!

 

[Stamos]

stupid stupid rule. Won't be around next year.

You mean it will be 2 interchange + 2 subs in 2012?

 

[grimface_87]

The AFL really should say what they are hoping to achieve with the rule and what their overall aim is for the year.

i.e. X% reduction in injuries, X% increase in disposal efficiency and X% decrease in stoppages. If these targets are met, the rule is deemed a success and kept on for 2012. If they are not close at all (or even go in the opposite direction), the rule needs to be scrapped for 2012.

If somewhere in between, it should at least be reviewed and modified if necessary.

 

[gbatman]

This will be gone by season's end. It must. Only idiots think this will some how improve the game.

 

[Stamos]

This will be gone by season's end. It must. Only idiots think this will some how improve the game.

So it's idiotic to think that a rule that clearly makes the game fairer, does not improve it?

 

[Dr Awkward]

This will be gone by season's end. It must. Only idiots think this will some how improve the game.

Yeah well that's what we all thought when the hands in the back rule came in... it's still here...

 

[SJ]

stupid stupid rule. Won't be around next year.

Well that's convinced me.

 

[Old Spice]

Coaches like Brad Scott want to manage player game-time to manage injuries, by leaving rotations as they were. But what would he know?

He's not an 80 year old krazy fart who loves committees.

 

[SJ]

Coaches like Brad Scott want to manage player game-time to manage injuries, by leaving rotations as they were. But what would he know?

He's not an 80 year old krazy fart who loves committees.

Get a game-ending injury early on in a match in 2010 and you are down 21 players against 22 for the rest of the game.

Get a game-ending injury early on in a match in 2011 and it's still 21 against 21.

Simple.