- Oct 18, 2010
- 1,618
- 8
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- University Blues. The Panthers.....
- Banned
- #76
This is what happens when you give power to mental pygmies such as..
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Idiotic Stupid Interchange Substitute rule
- Thread starter crimson
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Hi Simple
But, get 2 game ending or limititing injuries and it is 20 V 21... and so on. (READ that is WORSE!!!!)
It is rare in a modern AFL game to have a side come through a game withoutmore than one injury. Currently at least bench management allows a 'break' (err.. rest) to carry a contributor through it.
LOL! a few yrs ago the 'A F'n L Dimwit House' wanted to speed up the game by quick kick in by abolishing goal umpire flag waving and strengthening intential "rushed" deliberate behinds.
Now they want appently want to S L O W it up!? By having one quality player possibly spending the whole the 'business end' of his working week in a tracksuit and bib on the bench.
NFI, and a rediculous amendment to previous eff'd up amendments to the rules of the game
Cheers
Corp
- Banned
- #79
Hi Simple
But, get 2 game ending or limititing injuries and it is 20 V 21... and so on. (READ that is WORSE!!!!)
It is rare in a modern AFL game to have a side come through a game withoutmore than one injury. Currently at least bench management allows a 'break' (err.. rest) to carry a contributor through it.
LOL! a few yrs ago the 'A F'n L Dimwit House' wanted to speed up the game by quick kick in by abolishing goal umpire flag waving and strengthening intential "rushed" deliberate behinds.
Now they want appently want to S L O W it up!? By having one quality player possibly spending the whole the 'business end' of his working week in a tracksuit and bib on the bench.
NFI, and a rediculous amendment to previous eff'd up amendments to the rules of the game
Cheers
Corp
How is 20v21 worse than 20v22 ?
SJ
Premium Platinum
Exactly. The mind boggles.
SJ
Premium Platinum
A game of footy with 21 against 21 "strains bodies to the limit"? Source?
And as for your last sentence, I don't even know what that means.
Father Jack
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 23, 2006
- 23,242
- 27,415
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
how on earth did we manage before we had 100+ interchanges per game?
SJ
Premium Platinum
Or 17 per team per game like in 2000.
How did we manage before we had more than 1 umpire? How did we manage before we had an out of bounds rule that allowed for a throw in rather than a free kick? How did we manage before we came out of caves and ran around on a dirt oval kicking around a stone ball.
TempleKelvington
Cancelled
- Sep 23, 2009
- 6,096
- 5,130
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Yes maybe too simple. What if you get 2 injuries? Or 3? What then. Where does it end? Do they add 2,3,4 subs? I think if the problem is the number of rotations per game, then limit the rotations. If you limit rotations then there is less advantage lost if you get a few injuries.
But, because we don't know how this will play out, then it should have been trialed and debated first. It's such a departure from what we had, it needed more thought and consultation. They rushed this....why?
SJ
Premium Platinum
I'd be in favour of a an even further restrictions on the interchange, but since there's been such an outcry over such a relatively insignificant change as it is, clearly the AFL was not going to do any more tightening in one move.
I expect it in the future though.
For me the whole issue of interchange / substitutes has been bought on by the coaches. They have short term goals to win flags etc so they apply whatever tactic they can within the rules to achieve that aim.
I started to get concerned in 2005 when Chris Connelly started rotating players through the bench at a rate not seen previously. Then the usual situation occured with all other coaches copying. Now the coaches complain when they get an injury and the roatations are effected so they are in effect 1 player down.
The new issue will be with the "rolling zones" or the "defensive pressure" or whatever its called. For a spectator at the game it is a horrible thing to watch with nearly every player on the field crammed into a 50-60 metre area. Again, coaches are using whatever tactic they can to attempt to gain an advantage. Im pretty sure the AFL wont like this congestion and will want to see more free flowing play. This means they will probably go to the next change no-one wants which will be areas painted on the field and zone where players can & cant go, and I dont think anyone wants to see that.
If the AFL can control the abuse of the bench by using substitutes, i am all for it. The bench should only be used in case of an injury or if a player needs his ear bent by the coach or did something stupid and needs an attitude adjustment, not to be used for tactical advantage.
The game needs to slowed. I hate that we have the best players on the bench for a siginficant portion of the game. I realise they need a rest etc, but fans want to see players on the field, not on the bench.
I started to get concerned in 2005 when Chris Connelly started rotating players through the bench at a rate not seen previously. Then the usual situation occured with all other coaches copying. Now the coaches complain when they get an injury and the roatations are effected so they are in effect 1 player down.
The new issue will be with the "rolling zones" or the "defensive pressure" or whatever its called. For a spectator at the game it is a horrible thing to watch with nearly every player on the field crammed into a 50-60 metre area. Again, coaches are using whatever tactic they can to attempt to gain an advantage. Im pretty sure the AFL wont like this congestion and will want to see more free flowing play. This means they will probably go to the next change no-one wants which will be areas painted on the field and zone where players can & cant go, and I dont think anyone wants to see that.
If the AFL can control the abuse of the bench by using substitutes, i am all for it. The bench should only be used in case of an injury or if a player needs his ear bent by the coach or did something stupid and needs an attitude adjustment, not to be used for tactical advantage.
The game needs to slowed. I hate that we have the best players on the bench for a siginficant portion of the game. I realise they need a rest etc, but fans want to see players on the field, not on the bench.
Wahooti Fandango
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 10, 2007
- 19,663
- 6,406
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Queensland Reds, Melbourne Rebels
Mick would want to be working on something as your game plan for last year won't work nearly as well as with the rule change. Dane Swan will struggle big time.
You are still better off playing against 21 than you are playing against 22.
Adrian Whitehead has already been there done that.
Father Jack
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 23, 2006
- 23,242
- 27,415
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Tottenham Hotspur FC
No he hasn't. He sued Carlton. How could he (or anyone else) have sued the AFL?
Anybody trying to sue the AFL in such a scenario would be unlikely to have a win. It wouldnt be the AFL sending him out injured, it would be the club. And even then the club would probably not be liable.
Whitehead was told by the court he was entitled to compensation, not from the AFL or Carlton, but from Workcare.
The Whitehead case sets a clear precedence. If you are injured at work, sue through the Workers Compensaion Act.
