News Interchange cap: AFL confirms 120 per game

[manboob]

So it's official: the AFL will introduce an interchange cap of 120 per game for the next two years at least.

I think for the next couple of years it will be of benefit to us. We have the older types who can see out games and all our midfield and running types are proven goal kickers so can rest forward anyhow.

Any thoughts on how, if at all it will impact the cats?
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-27/afl-brings-in-interchange-cap-

 

[Beanstalk]

Geelong have averaged the most interchanges of any side in the competition in the last 8 weeks:

@.FoxFootyAnalyst
Avg rotations past 8 weeks (inc. breaks): Geel 152, Coll 147, Frem 147, Haw 143, GWS 142, Adel 142 .. Rich 127, Syd, 127, NM 125, WC 118
Average interchange rotations per year (All teams) 2003-2013: 27, 30, 37, 47, 59, 80, 92, 117, 119, 131, 133.

 

[Beanstalk]

What happens when a team runs out of rotations with 15 minutes to go in the final quarter?

In other news, the AFL have announced a partnership with Myki to help police rotations:

 

[Nicko29]

What a terrible rule. Absolutely destroys teams who lose 1-2 players early in games to injury. You surely can't have an interchange cap along with a substitute. Wish they would stop changing the game.

 

[Beanstalk]

What a terrible rule. Absolutely destroys teams who lose 1-2 players early in games to injury. You surely can't have an interchange cap along with a substitute. Wish they would stop changing the game.

Exactly! A team that loses two players for the match is completely gone. No chance at all.

The AFL are also reviewing the penalty for interchange infringements - Likely to be just a free kick rather than a free kick and fifty metre penalty.

 

[Menzelevium]

Do those on the rules committee do this so they can justify being on a rules committee in the first place? Just leave the game alone.

 

[winty]

Not only can they rest forward, we can push some back too, as we've had the likes of Corey and Bartel play in defence this season, and guys like Guthrie, Josh Hunt and Mackie could push up into the midfield.

 

[Duskfire]

Geelong will adapt to this like they do every rule change and just use it to their strength.

 

[winty]

What happens when a team runs out of rotations with 15 minutes to go in the final quarter?

In other news, the AFL have announced a partnership with Myki to help police rotations:

Can't see how that'd work. At least once every few weeks the Myki card readers don't work anyway.

 

[Menzelevium]

Can't see how that'd work. At least once every few weeks the Myki card readers don't work anyway.

It fits in well with our other technology of the decision review system then.

 

[SJ]

What happens when a team runs out of rotations with 15 minutes to go in the final quarter?

In other news, the AFL have announced a partnership with Myki to help police rotations:

Why would they do that?

 

[Beanstalk]

Why would they do that?

You can't see that problem arising? A team going too heavy on rotations in the first three quarters and then finding themselves with none late in the game...

 

[SJ]

Do those on the rules committee do this so they can justify being on a rules committee in the first place? Just leave the game alone.

Left it alone at what point?

Pre-1897 where there were no points awarded for a behind?

Pre-1930 when there were no players on the bench at all?

Pre-1969 when there was no free against kicking the ball 'on the full'?

Pre-1978 when the two bench players were one-off substitutes only?

 

[SJ]

You can't see that problem arising? A team going too heavy on rotations in the first three quarters and then finding themselves with none late in the game...

If you know you only have 120 "rotations" then why would you use 120 of them in the first three quarters? Absolute madness.

"Rotations" are the biggest blight on the game. Theoretically (without injury) a game of Australian Football is able to be played with zero rotations.

The quicker the cap comes down to 40 or similar the better.

 

[Beanstalk]

If you know you only have 120 "rotations" then why would you use 120 of them in the first three quarters? Absolute madness.

While I agree that teams would be careful not to let that happen, my question was more literal than hypothetical - What is the penalty for replacing a player with one from the bench once a team has used their 120 rotations? Has anyone heard?

 

[goyoucatters]

If you know you only have 120 "rotations" then why would you use 120 of them in the first three quarters? Absolute madness.

"Rotations" are the biggest blight on the game. Theoretically (without injury) a game of Australian Football is able to be played with zero rotations.

The quicker the cap comes down to 40 or similar the better.

I agree entirely with your position philosophically, SJ.

But the cap won't get down to 40 anytime soon (if ever).

I think the AFL has probably taken the right approach starting at 120. Won't be too many hysterical complaints given the current average numbers and the conversation/analysis can then continue from there.

Wouldn't have thought we'll see a number like 40 or less for many, many years to come, though.

Incremental reductions will be all they ever undertake, I figure.

 

[goyoucatters]

While I agree that teams would be careful not to let that happen, my question was more literal than hypothetical - What is the penalty for replacing a player with one from the bench once a team has used their 120 rotations? Has anyone heard?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-08-27/afl-brings-in-interchange-cap-

The penalty for exceeding the 120 rotations per match would be a free kick and a 50-metre penalty against every additional rotation completed. This is the same penalty as when there were trial interchange caps during the pre-season.​

 

[Beanstalk]

Ouch...

 

[vinum coupe]

The quicker the cap comes down to 40 or similar the better.

Not a chance in hell.

I think 120 is good.

Let's face it they could only reach a certain ceiling anyway. But 120 just places some control.

But I do love the idea that if you break the rule its 50 metres and a free kick from where the ball is.
So theoretically someone may roll the dice when the ball is in the back pocket.

I'd love to see that

 

[manboob]

Gosh would be interesting in a GF if that happened, you are 7 points up with an injured player and the ball is in your forward line... and you need or decide to make a rotation...

 

[Menzelevium]

Left it alone at what point?

Pre-1897 where there were no points awarded for a behind?

Pre-1930 when there were no players on the bench at all?

Pre-1969 when there was no free against kicking the ball 'on the full'?

Pre-1978 when the two bench players were one-off substitutes only?

Pre-1978, because that's where KB seems to want to take it.

You can point out that over time major rule changes have been made, but that just illustrates the point that of late the rules committee have been far too fiddly. Every year we get rule changes that don't seem to be necessary. I support the sliding rule, however horribly it has been implemented, but apart from that rules aren't being changed to avoid injuries. They're being designed to try to speed the sport up, and now it seems like we're heading in the direction where less and less rotations will be allowed. If anything, that can't be good for injuries.

 

[SJ]

Pre-1978, because that's where KB seems to want to take it.

You can point out that over time major rule changes have been made, but that just illustrates the point that of late the rules committee have been far too fiddly. Every year we get rule changes that don't seem to be necessary. I support the sliding rule, however horribly it has been implemented, but apart from that rules aren't being changed to avoid injuries. They're being designed to try to speed the sport up, and now it seems like we're heading in the direction where less and less rotations will be allowed. If anything, that can't be good for injuries.

I don't disagree that there has been too much intervention by the rules committee in the past decade. But the rules have been continually evolving for 155 years. It always makes me laugh when people say "leave the game alone" - a stack of rules have come in which we all now accept as positive. The expanded interchange was a clear negative and this is the first step to restore bench to its original intent.

 

[mcwilrob]

Do those on the rules committee do this so they can justify being on a rules committee in the first place? Just leave the game alone.

This. Exactly. Shame.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

Given the large amount of players we have that can rotate through the midfield, we should be much better off then most sides. On field position rotations will become huge, even thought everybody runs their arses off in today's game, still makes a small difference being a hf flanker to rover. Would think that you would save more rotations for later in games so you can run them out much better. Will also effect per season fitness training slightly you would assume

 

[FredLeDeux]

I support the sliding rule, however horribly it has been implemented, but apart from that rules aren't being changed to avoid injuries. They're being designed to try to speed the sport up, and now it seems like we're heading in the direction where less and less rotations will be allowed. If anything, that can't be good for injuries.

The rationale behind the interchange cap is not to speed the game up, but the exact opposite, namely to slow the game down and hence reduce injuries.