Idiotic Stupid Interchange Substitute rule

[QuietB]

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?

Suggests to me that the coaches stuffed up.

 

[Bradesmaen]

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.

Actually you only need 4, because an uninjured player could have already been subbed.

Rule is still pathetic.

 

[Stamos]

Actually you only need 4, because an uninjured player could have already been subbed.

Rule is still pathetic.

If you get 4 injuries, and sub off an un-injured player, you deserve to play short.

 

[Dundalis]

Maybe all you numbnuts blaberring about how the game 'used' to be played with no interchange don't understand the fact that it's a DIFFERENT ****ING GAME. It's barely recognisable from 20-30 years ago. The amount players run in one game is many many times that covered by players in games from back then.

18v18 is fine for a semi-pro league played way back when. Today's game has evolved significantly, and as far as I'm concerned it's a stupid rule, and it would be even more stupid to reduce the interchange in favour of subs even further. Players need the rest. Comparing it to soccer is ridiculous. They don't run with the same intensity, have a smaller field to cover and don't have the same physicality to deal with. Plus they don't play for as long. And saying them staying on the field longer will slow them down due to fatigue is more stupidity. Fatigue is one of the primary causes of injury.

In addition to the above, I don't like it for development reasons (Less likelyhood of younger players getting games at AFL level IMO), plus it's likely to confirm the extinction of the second ruckman.

 

[Furn]

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?

How can it be 21v21 it would be 21v22 under the old rule.

Your one player down, 20 v 21 same as with 4 interchange 21 v 22. The fact you have a fit player subbed off doesnt make a difference. But at least you were 21v21 in the time between the 1st and 2nd injury and if you dont get the 2nd injury your 21v21 for the whole game.

So its the same OR better off.

 

[Sirius Black]

Maybe all you numbnuts blaberring about how the game 'used' to be played with no interchange don't understand the fact that it's a DIFFERENT ****ING GAME. It's barely recognisable from 20-30 years ago. The amount players run in one game is many many times that covered by players in games from back then.

Why is the game more crowded now? Why do players run and run to make it crowded? UNLIMITED INTERCHANGES. Yes the game is not the same as 20 years ago - it is worse. Wake up you idiot.

 

[kosifantutti]

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

Well said Sirius Black.

What I don't understand with the sub rule is does the sub have to directly replace the player being subbed out.

eg. McEvoy gets a blow to the head and they interchange him off while they assess him. After 10 minutes they decide he should be subbed off. Does he have to go on to the ground again to be officially subbed off or do they just tell the steward that the sub (say Stanley) is coming on and is replacing McEvoy who is still down in the rooms. Obviously another player would have to be interchanged off for the sub to come on.

 

[Bradesmaen]

If you get 4 injuries, and sub off an un-injured player, you deserve to play short.

You could get 4 injuries in the 3rd quarter, after subbing off a tiredish player in the Half time break...

 

[Sirius Black]

You could get 4 injuries in the 3rd quarter, after subbing off a tiredish player in the Half time break...

That's the risk you take. Worked for Barassi in 1970. Coaches call, and if it goes wrong he should carry the can and not blame the rules.

 

[The Swert]

Players need the rest.

Why? They not fit enough? If the players can't hack it then the game must slow down.

Comparing it to soccer is ridiculous. They don't run with the same intensity, have a smaller field to cover and don't have the same physicality to deal with. Plus they don't play for as long.

Soccer players play 45 mins without a break. They have far less stoppages, no goal breaks, no runners with drinks.

The fact is, watching players switch every 60 seconds is a cop out. It's turning into Ice Hockey. And coaches are only complaining because it poses a new challenge for them.

 

[Father Jack]

Maybe all you numbnuts blaberring about how the game 'used' to be played with no interchange don't understand the fact that it's a DIFFERENT ****ING GAME. It's barely recognisable from 20-30 years ago. The amount players run in one game is many many times that covered by players in games from back then.

18v18 is fine for a semi-pro league played way back when. Today's game has evolved significantly, and as far as I'm concerned it's a stupid rule, and it would be even more stupid to reduce the interchange in favour of subs even further. Players need the rest. Comparing it to soccer is ridiculous. They don't run with the same intensity, have a smaller field to cover and don't have the same physicality to deal with. Plus they don't play for as long. And saying them staying on the field longer will slow them down due to fatigue is more stupidity. Fatigue is one of the primary causes of injury.

In addition to the above, I don't like it for development reasons (Less likelyhood of younger players getting games at AFL level IMO), plus it's likely to confirm the extinction of the second ruckman.

Just about every point you make is ridiculous. Once the sub rule is bedded down (and i fully expect it to be extended to two interchange and two subs within a year or two) every single point you raised will have been dealt with by the clubs adapting. You make it sound as if 150 interchanges per match is a necessity, when it isn't.

 

[Stamos]

It's barely recognisable from 20-30 years ago. The amount players run in one game is many many times that covered by players in games from back then.

The problem is, it's barley recognisable from 3 years ago. In 2010, the average number of rotations was twice the number in 2007! It hasn't been a gradual progression, it has been radical and it is not in the spirit of the game. The bench is only there to cover injuries, not so players can play for 5 minutes and run off for a break.

As for certain types of players becoming extinct, I'd rather slow, skill-less ruckman were reduced rather than Diesel/Harvey/Crawford type mid-fielders with super endurance.

 

[Fluro Boots]

The problem is, it's barley recognisable from 3 years ago. In 2010, the average number of rotations was twice the number in 2007! It hasn't been a gradual progression, it has been radical and it is not in the spirit of the game. The bench is only there to cover injuries, not so players can play for 5 minutes and run off for a break.

As for certain types of players becoming extinct, I'd rather slow, skill-less ruckman were reduced rather than Diesel/Harvey/Crawford type mid-fielders with super endurance.[/quote]

I'll have to disagree to a point. Aussie rules has always prided itself on the fact that it's a game that caters to everyone, from you beanpole giant to your midget eye-gouger (bulldogs fans with me?). Those ruckman have been picked because they have added value to their sides. you only have to look at keating to see what a bug guy can bring to a big game when you least expect it.

Harvey and crawford types will always be valuable and are in no danger from being pushed out of the game. I think we need to try and keep the ruck role relevant as it's a big part of the game and provides interest to a lot of supporters and keeps a certain type of athlete in the game.

Already we've seen it go to essentially 14 midfielders in a team, do you really want it go further that way? you might see slow skill-less ruckman reduced but they'll just be replaced with slow skill-less midfielders.

 

[Father Jack]

I'll have to disagree to a point. Aussie rules has always prided itself on the fact that it's a game that caters to everyone, from you beanpole giant to your midget eye-gouger (bulldogs fans with me?). Those ruckman have been picked because they have added value to their sides. you only have to look at keating to see what a bug guy can bring to a big game when you least expect it.

Harvey and crawford types will always be valuable and are in no danger from being pushed out of the game. I think we need to try and keep the ruck role relevant as it's a big part of the game and provides interest to a lot of supporters and keeps a certain type of athlete in the game.

Already we've seen it go to essentially 14 midfielders in a team, do you really want it go further that way? you might see slow skill-less ruckman reduced but they'll just be replaced with slow skill-less midfielders.

I doubt that will happen, for a start the value of a midfielder with a big engine is diluted if players can rotate on and off the bench whenever they're blown, if a bloke can run hard all day without going off, well, makes it hard to match him up if you can't rotate players, doesn't it?

The point made in the bolded bit was the case when there were vastly fewer interchanges happening, and will be the case going forward under the new rules. I reckon you'll see the generic midfield types make way for your more traditional positional players as there will not be the rolling pack you see now.

 

[Stamos]

Aussie rules has always prided itself on the fact that it's a game that caters to everyone, from you beanpole giant to your midget eye-gouger (bulldogs fans with me?). Those ruckman have been picked because they have added value to their sides. you only have to look at keating to see what a bug guy can bring to a big game when you least expect it.

I totally agree, I just used the above as a response to another poster. Ruckmen are hardly going to become extinct, and I think teams that only take 1 proper ruckman in are going to find themselves in trouble, unless they have a superman at no.1 who can ruck all day.

 

[FAIRANDBALANCED]

I look at this from a different angle than most I guess. I don't see how this makes the game better. I don't see how this makes the game less congested. If anything I think it will make the game more congested. People talk about players not being able to run all day, well what better way to counter that than chucking 1 or 2 players behind the ball and flooding the opposition forward line?? Players are so well coached now that they wont reduce their amount of defensive running, they will reduce their amount of attacking. This will mean there will be less brilliant and quick ball movement through the center of the ground and a lot more chipping across half back. Imagine it, you are stuffed, your team is stuffed, there are four minutes till half time and you're two points up, just chip around the defensive 50. The opposition certainly wont have the energy to try and stop you.

The problem is people think we can go back to the way the game used to be played. Have more one on ones, more positional play. But the only way to do that would be to bring in zoning rules and that is something nobody wants. It is a professional game now. The players are told what they need to do in any given circumstance and are really well drilled, most of the priority when in possession of the ball is on keeping possession. Not kicking to a contest. I thought the new forward press and the new amount of intensity around the ball (example the first 2010 GF) was pushing the game back in the right direction. Players had no time to think about keeping possession, they just slammed it on the boot. This happened BECAUSE there were so many rotations and so the defensive pressure was exemplary. And still we saw the brilliance of Hayes, Goddard and Thomas still able to negotiate this pressure and find effective disposals. It was brilliant to watch. The very best players and the most composed under this pressure came to the fore. Isn't this how we want the game to be played??

As for stopping collision injuries, well, it's a contact sport and I certainly have not noticed a rise in concussions recently and there have been several studies by the clubs that say the same thing.

Overreaction.

 

[Fluro Boots]

I totally agree, I just used the above as a response to another poster. Ruckmen are hardly going to become extinct, and I think teams that only take 1 proper ruckman in are going to find themselves in trouble, unless they have a superman at no.1 who can ruck all day.

good point as well. i also like how the ruck role has been shaken up of late as well trying some different types through there. monsters like Sandi, athletic types like Ryder, even left field choices like Brennan and Brown. In my view it's a position thats been neglected at certain times by certain clubs, not least of all my club.

 

[Underdog]

I look at this from a different angle than most I guess. I don't see how this makes the game better. I don't see how this makes the game less congested. If anything I think it will make the game more congested. People talk about players not being able to run all day, well what better way to counter that than chucking 1 or 2 players behind the ball and flooding the opposition forward line?? Players are so well coached now that they wont reduce their amount of defensive running, they will reduce their amount of attacking. This will mean there will be less brilliant and quick ball movement through the center of the ground and a lot more chipping across half back. Imagine it, you are stuffed, your team is stuffed, there are four minutes till half time and you're two points up, just chip around the defensive 50. The opposition certainly wont have the energy to try and stop you.

The problem is people think we can go back to the way the game used to be played. Have more one on ones, more positional play. But the only way to do that would be to bring in zoning rules and that is something nobody wants. It is a professional game now. The players are told what they need to do in any given circumstance and are really well drilled, most of the priority when in possession of the ball is on keeping possession. Not kicking to a contest. I thought the new forward press and the new amount of intensity around the ball (example the first 2010 GF) was pushing the game back in the right direction. Players had no time to think about keeping possession, they just slammed it on the boot. This happened BECAUSE there were so many rotations and so the defensive pressure was exemplary. And still we saw the brilliance of Hayes, Goddard and Thomas still able to negotiate this pressure and find effective disposals. It was brilliant to watch. The very best players and the most composed under this pressure came to the fore. Isn't this how we want the game to be played??

As for stopping collision injuries, well, it's a contact sport and I certainly have not noticed a rise in concussions recently and there have been several studies by the clubs that say the same thing.

Overreaction.

Excellent post

 

[Stamos]

I look at this from a different angle than most I guess. I don't see how this makes the game better.

Overreaction.

It makes the game better first and foremost because it makes it fairer if a team sustains an injury. Football was originally an 18 vs 18 game, and then a bench was added to cover for injuries. However over the last three years, the game has morphed into a 22 vs 22 game, with no cover for injuries. The change redresses the balance a bit.

The second main reason is that the high number of rotations mean that players will go on for a 7 or 8 minutes, then sprint 100+ meters to the bench for a 2 minute rest. It is a crap part of the game, which has really only happened in the last few years. I've got no problem with the AFL trying to reduce it.

Reducing injuries is a third reason, but the 2 above are sufficient for the change anyway.

 

[McCrann]

Maybe all you numbnuts blaberring about how the game 'used' to be played with no interchange don't understand the fact that it's a DIFFERENT ****ING GAME. It's barely recognisable from 20-30 years ago. The amount players run in one game is many many times that covered by players in games from back then.

18v18 is fine for a semi-pro league played way back when. Today's game has evolved significantly, and as far as I'm concerned it's a stupid rule, and it would be even more stupid to reduce the interchange in favour of subs even further. Players need the rest. Comparing it to soccer is ridiculous. They don't run with the same intensity, have a smaller field to cover and don't have the same physicality to deal with. Plus they don't play for as long. And saying them staying on the field longer will slow them down due to fatigue is more stupidity. Fatigue is one of the primary causes of injury.

In addition to the above, I don't like it for development reasons (Less likelyhood of younger players getting games at AFL level IMO), plus it's likely to confirm the extinction of the second ruckman.

Less younger players getting games? Are you crazy? Plenty of young players get games now - far far more than ever before. You only have to look at the teams down the bottom of the ladder - many of them essentially just play the youngsters for the entire back half of the season.

The average age of an AFL team is a lot lower today than it was 20 years ago so I really don't know what your whinging about mate.

 

[McCrann]

Well said Sirius Black.

What I don't understand with the sub rule is does the sub have to directly replace the player being subbed out.

eg. McEvoy gets a blow to the head and they interchange him off while they assess him. After 10 minutes they decide he should be subbed off. Does he have to go on to the ground again to be officially subbed off or do they just tell the steward that the sub (say Stanley) is coming on and is replacing McEvoy who is still down in the rooms. Obviously another player would have to be interchanged off for the sub to come on.

No of course not, a sub can replace an interchange player - they just have to notify the steward what's going on and take off/ put on the bibs.

 

[rose jam]

I don't see why anyone is complaining about field crowding. Plenty of goals are kicked in open space in fast free flowing passages of play when a defense is broken down and it really gets the crowd going, it's great.

 

[cromaglife]

It makes the game better first and foremost because it makes it fairer if a team sustains an injury. Football was originally an 18 vs 18 game, and then a bench was added to cover for injuries. However over the last three years, the game has morphed into a 22 vs 22 game, with no cover for injuries. The change redresses the balance a bit.

The second main reason is that the high number of rotations mean that players will go on for a 7 or 8 minutes, then sprint 100+ meters to the bench for a 2 minute rest. It is a crap part of the game, which has really only happened in the last few years. I've got no problem with the AFL trying to reduce it.

Reducing injuries is a third reason, but the 2 above are sufficient for the change anyway.

Like "fairandbalanced" said, that won't stop teams zoning or somehow revert to the positional play of decades past. They will still ply the same zoning and forward pressure of last year, it will be just done in a slower fashion. Players defending space and not the man is a concept that took AFL coaches a long time to figure out (compared to soccer & basketball) but they aren't going to change what works because they have less players to rotate. Soccer has a limited subs and still employs zones and basketball has unlimited subs and still employs zones. It's not going anywhere.

 

[Stamos]

Like "fairandbalanced" said, that won't stop teams zoning or somehow revert to the positional play of decades past.

Never said it would. It's still an improvement to the old rule of a 4 man bench with unlimited interchanges.

 

[PieNSauce]

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!