Matthews: Interchange system ruining football

[Beckers]

Mate, if I seriously thought footy was only ever going to be what you described I might agree with you. But there's no chance of it happening. That horrible uncontested stuff we all hate was part of the process, but it's not the finished product. The game is definitely opening up again and becoming more direct.

Guess I'm just more optimistic than I was a few seasons ago. Although I can understand why a Hawthorn fan might not be. That lazy zone defence stuff you guys play is just painful.

So you are happy for the mids to rotate 10 times a quarter off the bench after running from end to end so they can flood and block space with no real structure what so ever?
Or like the Rucks sitting it out on the pine instead of providing a tall option in the forward pocket?
Or players constantly running off the bench to blind side a contest on the wing?

The game would be much more interesting if the tired legs came into it in the last quarter so players knew they had to conserve energy along the way!! Adds the extra element of endurance to the game!

...and FWIW, the Jordan McMahon run at TD last year against Geelong made me sick to the guts! That is NOT football!!

 

[And_ROOS]

I think maybe things would work if you could have 6 on the bench and you could only swap them once per quarter (6 players can come off for the 6 on the bench and that can happen every quarter if you catch my drift).

That would be wiser as it can still allow for injuries, still allows a fair amount of rotations (could be broken down to 2 fwds, 2 bcks a ruckman and a rover).

But it would effectively end the flood as it is as there is no way the players could run up one end then back down the other over and over every game of the season. Which could bring back long kicking. And contested marking. And speckies. And torps from CHB.

Just a thought. Leigh may be onto something. I remember when certain leagues played with no wings and 3 on the bench...

 

[Beckers]

I think maybe things would work if you could have 6 on the bench and you could only swap them once per quarter (6 players can come off for the 6 on the bench and that can happen every quarter if you catch my drift).

That would be wiser as it can still allow for injuries, still allows a fair amount of rotations (could be broken down to 2 fwds, 2 bcks a ruckman and a rover).

But it would effectively end the flood as it is as there is no way the players could run up one end then back down the other over and over every game of the season. Which could bring back long kicking. And contested marking. And speckies. And torps from CHB.

Just a thought. Leigh may be onto something. I remember when certain leagues played with no wings and 3 on the bench...

Spot on
I think that too many people don't understand how flooding has evolved as a science and why midfield rotations are so important to it being successful!

 

[Brilliant]

Leigh is whinging about injuries, not flooding for starters.

As for flooding, coaches are the ones to blame, not the interchange bench. Coaches would find a way to do it under any system, as it is not the system that encourages it, it is the coaches who encourage it.

And Leigh has a point, the team with injured players get tired as they can't rotate as many players. That's true, but it's also part of the game, live with it and try and overcome it, rest players in the forward line instead of the bench, Stop flooding or pump them full of pain killers Brisbane Lions style.

 

[Pessimistic]

Start with 4 on the bench - unlimited changes in first half.

At half time one player can take no further part in the game. this can be an injured player - hence lessening the advantage to the ohter team.

At 3/4 time another player is not to take any further part in the game.

You could have a 'getout' that either of these players can be used for one substitution each if a player left on the field or bench becomes more injured - hance covering duty of care concerns

 

[refresh]

i believe the game has gone south since the bench was extended to four. To flood over a sustained period you need fresh legs. The four man interchange provides the fresh legs to rotate. We then see the rules committee tinkering with rules ie the kick in, but not addressing the problem. I half agree with Lethal. I would leave the bench as four but have two reserves (ie can't come back on) and two interchange players. Flooding reduces, coaches have to make greater decisions, ruckman rest in the forward pocket. where's the downside

 

[moistie]

I can see where Matthews is coming from, but might removing unlimited interchanges result in players staying in defence as a result - we'd like to think that coaches and players would resort to more matching up and one-on-ones, but maybe they'll just leave players in the back 50 permanently.

They could try that, but you wouldn't get more than eight players in defence, as the team that did would be incapable of scoring late in a game when players are tired.

 

[Banjo]

Mr Matthews is talking a great deal of sense.

Eliminating the Interchange solves many problems
1/. Very difficult to flood
2/. Reduces injuries as players are not able to cause as many "impact" type injuries as they tire
3/. Having 6 reserves will bring about some interesting tactics when trying to win a game, as coaches try to create mismatches.

I would like to add another "left field" suggestion.

Introduce a SHOT clock - give a team that takes possession 60 secs (or 90 - whatever) to have a shot at goal. It could be difficult to determine when a side is in possession, but it can be done. Waterpolo can be similiar (when ball is in dispute - so not impossible to police - by an official, near timekeepers)

If a player is taking a set shot from free or mark - shot clock deosn't apply - as Matthew Lloyd rule applies.

It would at least stop the ball dicking around the place - perhaps have long kicks to a tall forward again (hooray) - and if a game is close - it introduces another aspect - you can no longer "ice the clock". DISCUSS

 

[Osmodiar]

I think its a great idea. better than any other that have been raised to combat flooding. and its not touching our game rules which is even better

 

[Ted Ed Fred]

Sadly I don't think Leigh has thought this through too well

With his 'once you're off you're off for good' no interchange policy would that disadvantage teams with injuries even MORE?

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

 

[Ted Ed Fred]

I remember watching footy years ago when there were less interchanges games always decended into scrappy, frustrating affairs in the 4th quarter once teams ran out of legs. It was a bit different way back in the old days as training was more about endurance, but that meant the players weren't as big and didn't hit as hard

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I do agree with Leigh in some respects. Increasing rest time does allow for flooding and the like to work more effectively. the amount of interchanges that happen these days often makes it hard to keep track of what's happening in the game as well. No sooner do you sort out what the key match-ups are than three people have changed position and two are resting on the bench from each side.

So long as the bech remains large I can't see it doing any harm. The old style one man bench would be no good. With that if you get an injury, you might be able to replace like with like.

Perhaps keep the four man bench, and if subbed off a player can't come back on for the remainder of that quarter. That way coaches do have the flexibility of who to replace an injured polayer with and if someone needs to come off as a precaution early in the game and it turns out they are OK they can go back on later.

Obviously its the type of thing that needs to be trialled at pre-season level first; rather than gimmicky things that nobody wants to introduce like the 9 point supergoal rubbish.

 

[Sir_Adrian84]

I think its a great idea. better than any other that have been raised to combat flooding. and its not touching our game rules which is even better

i agree

 

[moistie]

Sadly I don't think Leigh has thought this through too well

With his 'once you're off you're off for good' no interchange policy would that disadvantage teams with injuries even MORE?

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

It is broke, though. Flooding is a blight on our game. And if a player is genuinely injured then the AFL would not prevent them from coming off the ground and being replaced.

But if a player faked an injury to come off when a team had used all of its interchanges and couldn't verify to an independent medical officer that their injury was genuine or if the independent medical officer determines that the player would have been able to continue playing, then the team could be penalised an interchange the next week. If it became a regular occurence then heavier penalties could be instituted with repeat instances.

 

[G.O.B]

In regards to the liabilty of the AFL if an injured player is required to stay on the ground due to the rules not allowing a replacement, perhaps any precedents in "Soccer" need to be looked at.
An injured player that is removed from the field cannot be replaced if all 3 subs have already been used. There are absolutely no exceptions. The player is either left on the ground or the team plays a player short for the remainder of the game.
Why cant that also happen in AFL without the possibility of lawsuits flying around?
I dont remember any lawsuits in "Soccer" that have been a result of this situation.
Very few lawsuits have occured after many years of "painkillers" and the injured star player that still plays in an important game. Why would this situation allow for many more to occur?

I think that Lethal's article has many valid points and would like to see the possibility looked at more closely to see if it is truly viable.
Nothing more or nothing less at this stage.

 

[JedMack]

Keep it as is. Or change it. Either way I miss the days of full forwards kicking ten a week.

 

[Wildmanwok]

I suggested the return to reserves systems 2 years ago.

I actually suggested it as a way to curtail flooding because a team who consistenly floods will get tired first and be run over the top of.

It means Rucks / Rovers have to stay on the ground and have to "rest" somewhere again. Where has the resting Ruckman in the forward pocket gone?

I know we should not look back but in my view we have lost some of the spirit we had in the game.

There was more analysis 2 years ago as to why, but im too pissed at the moment to go into more detail.

 

[Jex]

How 'bout no, Leigh?

 

[spell_check]

Already said it before, maybe 5 interchanges a quarter or 20 in a match. Maximum.

 

[moistie]

I suggested the return to reserves systems 2 years ago.

Who were you posting as Wildmanwok?

 

[Wildmanwok]

Who were you posting as Wildmanwok?

Whispering Wok LOL
Must have been pissed then too!

But I also sent it to AFL house.

 

[moistie]

Whispering Wok LOL
Must have been pissed then too!

But I also sent it to AFL house.

I don't blame you. It would be good to see the game returned to how it is supposed to be played, with one on one contests and not sixteen opposition players sitting in your forward 50.

 

[The Passenger]

I think the biggest problem is that the coach then has the situation where one player is constantly kept out of the team and on the interchange bench playing say 15 minutes a match when he comes on at the end... basically means this guy never plays any footy...

Situation with Chris Whittaker from the Wallabies. Comes on for 5-10 minutes for Gregan per week, but never played club rugby, so over the course of a 3-month perod he'd probably play the equivalent of 1-2 games of rugby....

 

[spell_check]

i believe the game has gone south since the bench was extended to four. To flood over a sustained period you need fresh legs. The four man interchange provides the fresh legs to rotate. We then see the rules committee tinkering with rules ie the kick in, but not addressing the problem. I half agree with Lethal. I would leave the bench as four but have two reserves (ie can't come back on) and two interchange players. Flooding reduces, coaches have to make greater decisions, ruckman rest in the forward pocket. where's the downside

Which is why the SANFL still has three on the interchange only.

 

[weevil]

I have been pushing the limited interchange barrow for a couple of years now. Glad to see the idea starting to gain momentum. It is the answer to flooding.