Interchange: Q1 (4). Q2 (8). Q3 (12). Q4 (16). Total 40 In-play.

[McCrann]

The original point of the interchange bench was to replace injured players.

It is now being used to combat fatigue. Not the original purpose which allows for the rolling mauls.

So how about structure the interchange bench to reflect the progress of fatigue through a match.

Quarter 1: 4 Interchanges allowed.

You basically won't use the bench except for injuries or a tactical move.

Quarter 2: 8 Interchanges allowed.

More flexibility available particularly as players begin to fatigue approaching half-time.

Quarter 3: 12 Interchanges allowed.

As players fatigue the coaches are given more leeway to make changes in the 'Premiership' Quarter.

Quarter 4: 16 Interchanges allowed.

It's time to win the game and when coaches need the maximum amount of flexibility available to impact the game.

Total: 40 Interchanges in play.
Plus 12 at Quarter breaks. A total of 52 through the game.

Variable interchanges depending on Quarter. There's your solution folks.

 

[Struggle]

Q1 (as many as you want)
Q2 (as many as you want)
Q3 (as many as you want)
Q4 (as many as you want)

 

[Power Raid]

8 interchanges for the whole game is more than enough

 

[McCrann]

Q1 (as many as you want)
Q2 (as many as you want)
Q3 (as many as you want)
Q4 (as many as you want)

8 interchanges for the whole game is more than enough

And there you have it folks. First 2 replies. LOL.

 

[DrEvil_]

This is just stupid.

 

[BattlerGM]

Not a bad idea. Worth trying in the nab cup or whatever it's called.

 

[Pessimistic]

This weekends footy not good enough for you?

 

[Fat Nyfe]

Do you work for the AFL? Nonsense idea

 

[Blackhawk42]

Quarter 1: 4 Interchanges allowed.

You basically won't use the bench except for injuries or a tactical move.

The real issue I have with this are the 4 blokes who start on the bench do the entire warm up, the pre-game pump up and everything else... to not being guaranteed any decent game time when the footy is hot at the beginning. Cameron Mooney's 1999 premiership medal comes with a huge * next to it because of how limited the interchange was used back in the day.
If it NEEDS to be adjusted again (which I don't believe it does), it can only be to around 60 at the VERY LEAST.
The fact that it was reeled in a few years ago and the congestion issue is worse than it's ever been should be evidence that an interchange cap really isn't necessary.

 

[Dazzler9]

Said this in another thread, will repeat here.

4 subs. No interchange. At all.

 

[halalsnackpack]

Said this in another thread, will repeat here.

4 subs. No interchange. At all.

This.

 

[mxett]

I like it. IMO interchanges should be used for team balance or injury replacement. Using interchanges to rest players regularly allows players the energy required to follow the ball and congest the contest. This is not needed. In fact it is not preferred

 

[Dazzler9]

The real issue I have with this are the 4 blokes who start on the bench do the entire warm up, the pre-game pump up and everything else... to not being guaranteed any decent game time when the footy is hot at the beginning. Cameron Mooney's 1999 premiership medal comes with a huge * next to it because of how limited the interchange was used back in the day.
If it NEEDS to be adjusted again (which I don't believe it does), it can only be to around 60 at the VERY LEAST.
The fact that it was reeled in a few years ago and the congestion issue is worse than it's ever been should be evidence that an interchange cap really isn't necessary.

I'd argue the rotation cap has not been reduced enough to curb the increased congestion we have seen. Pare it right back to 40 and we will marvel at the difference to the game without f**king with all the rules.

Or just do what I said a few posts above. 4 subs, no interchange.

 

[docko911]

4 on the bench and 3 emergencies that can be used if there is a game ending injury or concussion.

No rotation limit, let the game evolve on its own.

Richmond v Collingwood was a great game, and games like this will only get better as teams get better at high pressure high intensity game style.

Anybody who wants kick mark kick mark kick goal can go back to the school oval and play markers up... the contest is the best part of footy when the game is fast paced.

 

[Hoops]

4 quarter by quarter substitutes. Which ive been advocating for quite a while.
You go off, you stay of for the rest of the quarter

 

[ossie_21]

Yep, get rid of the interchange altogether or have a very limited number.

Nothing more I’d like to see on my Saturday afternoons than shit skills and slow play.

 

[Blackhawk42]

Or just do what I said a few posts above. 4 subs, no interchange.

Out of curiosity, do you play football currently or have any idea of the physical demand of the sport at the highest level?
That could never work currently. Unless you just want more athletes being drafted over footballers.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

Q1 (as many as you want)
Q2 (as many as you want)
Q3 (as many as you want)
Q4 (as many as you want)

It should never have changed from this.

It was an overreaction to a problem that doesnt really exist.

I have yet to see any evidence anywhere that suggests that cutting down interchanges is, or has been, better for players health or at stopping the contested nature of the game (which I still don't agree is even a problem).

My predictions for what happens when you drastically cut interchanges will be:
1. Eithet blowouts, or coaches flooding the defence when their players tire.
2. A proportionate increase in soft tissue injuries when fatigued players are expected to keep up the same pace that we have seen over the last 10-15 years.

 

[Dazzler9]

Out of curiosity, do you play football currently or have any idea of the physical demand of the sport at the highest level?
That could never work currently. Unless you just want more athletes being drafted over footballers.

I'm 40. No footy playing for me these days.

I would argue - and am open to debate - that you would get less athletes being drafted over footballers. Players would need to learn to pace themselves over the full course of the game, be more judicious in their positioning around the ground, rather than sprinting from contest to contest and then going off for a breather.

Just my two cents and I certainly don't know it all. Happy to hear alternative viewpoints.

 

[mxett]

Richmond v Collingwood was a great game, and games like this will only get better as teams get better at high pressure high intensity game style.

high pressure equals mistakes and turnovers. Both teams applying constant high pressure equals turnover city. No thanks, I'm not interested in watching mistake-ball

 

[Blackhawk42]

I'm 40. No footy playing for me these days.

I would argue - and am open to debate - that you would get less athletes being drafted over footballers. Players would need to learn to pace themselves over the full course of the game, be more judicious in their positioning around the ground, rather than sprinting from contest to contest and then going off for a breather.

Just my two cents and I certainly don't know it all. Happy to hear alternative viewpoints.

Unfortunately that 'not just sprinting from contest to contest' thing is a worse image for the game though in my opinion. The one thing that players have drilled into them now is that they cannot pick and choose a contest. Simply, when it's your turn to go you go. The 90's was great and all, but I sometimes find myself watching highlights and laughing at the inept defensive efforts that were quite often on display in comparison to football now. If I go to a game live, i'd rather know my boys are going to try their hardest at every contest. These days, when a player is easily brushed aside or doesn't offer a real defensive effort, it stands out like dogs balls. It's the main reason why people are saying it looks like Dusty just can't be bothered half the time this season. Not trying to lay tackles, not pushing back hard when the ball isn't in the Tigers possession etc.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

I'm 40. No footy playing for me these days.

I would argue - and am open to debate - that you would get less athletes being drafted over footballers. Players would need to learn to pace themselves over the full course of the game, be more judicious in their positioning around the ground, rather than sprinting from contest to contest and then going off for a breather.

Just my two cents and I certainly don't know it all. Happy to hear alternative viewpoints.

I reckon it would be the complete opposite.

Guys who dont have the endurance to play out 4 quarters will never get a game.
Guys who can run all day will be at a premium.

 

[Dazzler9]

I reckon it would be the complete opposite.

Guys who dont have the endurance to play out 4 quarters will never get a game.
Guys who can run all day will be at a premium.

That was how footy was until the early to mid-2000s though. Those who couldn't run all day took a breather in a forward pocket.

I certainly don't yearn for pre-2000s footy as some sort of golden era. Those days were a helluva lot less skilful than we get now (just look at the Top5 moments on the AFL website for some of the legends of the game, and it's the sort of stuff you see every game in the modern era). But I definitely get frustrated with all the congestion.

 

[TiggerMan22]

Its like you want Supercoach ruined

 

[Dez!]

Said this in another thread, will repeat here.

4 subs. No interchange. At all.

And I assume this was said in another thread as well, will repeat here.

Shit idea.