Toast Mick on Interchange Rule

[Paul.]

The sooner this is changed the better.

Collingwood won, and I'm happy about it. But, I'd prefer a 5 goal win over a team not decimated by injuries in a game over that win.

Mick made another point on it in his post match presser. I agree with him.

If it were my choice, it would be 4 on the bench and 2 subs. I think we should protect our players, and, this is the best way to go.

Thoughts?

 

[Pera]

The substitute rule was brought in due to an increase in soft tissue injuries that were thought to be the direct result of interchanges and an increase in the speed of the game.

This year has proved that no matter what happens, our great game is going to have players getting injured and there is nothing to stop them. Mick said it best on 'On The Couch' earlier in the year, the more you decrease the numbers, the less even it gets.

I'm all for a 4 man bench and 1 substitute.

If we make the GF this year though, how would you like to be starting as the substitute on the biggest day of the year? It just doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Swooop]

Football thesedays is just too big to have injury as an Achilles heel.

With all the rotations nowadays, and a ( medically sensible) tightening of the concussion rule, one team is severely compromised by injury or concussion to 2-3 players.

Despite Essendon playing out of their skins in first qtr and later being five goals up, the game was decided by the 15 minute mark of Q1 with two off.

This is not good enough in this day and age.

Imagine a final, say a GF, why can't both teams have up to three or four subs in case of match ending injury.

One sub can be used for swap re out of form player, other three are purely for a game ending injury, as determined by club Dr.

Does anyone ever want to see a GF result determined by injury...say a team gets a concussion, a hammy and a severe corky in first qtr...especially if some of those injuries are caused by anything deliberate by the opposition.

These days - that pretty much game over.

Sunday...Essendon two off in first qtr ( I know it's only one game and so it's purely anecdotal)

Essendon goals by qtr...8, 3, 2, 1
Collingwood by qtr.........4, 5, 6, 10

What is the argument against extra subs in finals?

By all means three interchange.

Plus two subs in H&A, four subs in finals ( one for form, three for injury)

 

[mattys123]

There is a simple solution to all of this, and I think Swoop is heading in the right direction there, although I can't see 2 different rules being bought in for home and away games and for finals.

Simply put, have 3 interchange, 1 sub who can be used at any point in a game, and at least 1 other, if not 2 others who would be classified as "emergency subs" in that they can only be used in case of an emergency during the game (injury or illness).

We could possibly even get to a point where all 25 named players dress pre game, 22 know they are going to play and the 3 emergencies are only allowed to play, as I said in the case of an emergency.

In the NFL they dress 50+ players per game on each team, and their is cover in every position at least one deep, and in most cases 2-3 deep, why not have something similar in our game, or at least an extension of the numbers who "dress" for the game.

 

[vjknight]

Does anyone ever want to see a GF result determined by injury...say a team gets a concussion, a hammy and a severe corky in first qtr...especially if some of those injuries are caused by anything deliberate by the opposition.

ummmm 1970

 

[sgnl00]

Having 'special emergencies' for injuries is a big grey area that would probably be exploited (cramping, tiny niggles, fake injuries etc.) 4 interchange + 2 sub would be ideal.

 

[Syphoncom]

I'm happy for 3 solutions:

3 Bench, 2 Sub
4 Bench, 1 Sub
4 Bench, 2 Sub

Only thing with introducing 2 Subs though, is that you'll find 2 players being made substitute (perhaps this is better for fringe players) which leads to an additional player not receiving the same amount of game time as they could in the reserves.

Players coming on at the 4th quarter who get perhaps 15 minutes of game time aren't really getting the benefit of a full game.

In regards to the tactics of the substitute, it's not really that interesting, certainly not at the game where you aren't completely aware of those things.

I'd be quite happy if they introduced time periods where substitutes couldn't be used.

An example would be, after the start of play in the 4th quarter, substitutes wouldn't be allowed.

I just don't like the idea of both teams waiting until early in the last quarter, subbing two players off and subbing two players on. Irks me

Let the players who have played the game play it out, and for that reason I'm liking the 1 sub as it is. 4 and 1 Sub would almost completely equalise the game in terms of "fairness".

I think a lot of fans forget that 4 rotations wasn't the norm and is a modern day thing. We dealt with 3 (and worse, but talking recently) quite well, and now 3 and 1 substitute isn't enough. 4, noone hardly talked about. 4 and 1 sub should easily be sufficient.

One last point, on the Essendon game. Much talk about how hard it was for Essendon "2 men down early". I understand they had some niggling injuries and had to play on with those 2 going down early. But at least 1 injury should be covered, that's why we have the substitute. Perhaps they're not like-for-like, I get it. But it seemed as though there was this mammoth difference, when realistically we had 21 players out there + Sinclair. Not as big of a deal as it was made out to be imo.

 

[Swooop]

Having 'special emergencies' for injuries is a big grey area that would probably be exploited (cramping, tiny niggles, fake injuries etc.) 4 interchange + 2 sub would be ideal.

You're right mate, any rule can be exploited.

But would you rather see a poor player be subbed of with a ahem 'groin strain' or would you prefer to see a team lose a PF or GF they should otherwise have won by having three injuries in the first qtr, perhaps two of which were deliberately inflicted by the opposition, who went into the game as underdogs?

Or even like Essendon against us, or when they played Carlton earlier this year, and they ended up drawing a game they'd otherwise have deservedly won by 5 goals plus.

I sure as hell don't want to lose a final like that, and you know, i don't want to win one like that either.

 

[vjknight]

............and you know, i don't want to win one like that either*.

carlton are the exception. happy to crush them under any circumstances.

 

[Bombs Away]

carlton are the exception. happy to crush them under any circumstances.

Have to agree with that

3 on bench and 3 subs is the only way that you can stop games like this. If the games still had a curtain raiser then the subs could come from that.

Injuries on the day or not collingwood would have won, as James Hird said they are more advanced and a better side.

As an essendon supporter I just wonder how good our side could be with the injuries before the game, our KPP and mids are all watching the game

 

[Bay Pie]

Having 'special emergencies' for injuries is a big grey area that would probably be exploited (cramping, tiny niggles, fake injuries etc.) 4 interchange + 2 sub would be ideal.

Possibly, but a rule can be made that the player who goes off, cannot play the following week. But in that case, we are just creating more rules that don't need to be created.

If the AFL did this purely to reduce injuries they'd have 4 interchange and 1 sub.

Fact is they made the change to stop the congestion, create more contests and get players to fatigue more to force the game to open up. The sub rule has done that, but to the detriment of the players who now need to be rested throughout the season to ensure they are fresh enough for the finals.

Geelong and us are easily in the best position for this.

4 interchanges and 1 sub would be best but the AFL won't change it because the congestion will start again.

 

[PieBeast]

I for the life of me can't work out what all this fuss is about.
As long as its equal for every club (which it is) I don't see any issues with a current rule. Teams have been losing games due to injury for over a hundred years.
Whether this rule was necessary is another story.

 

[Paul.]

Adrian Anderson seems to think Mick isn't very good at maths.

He thinks the rule won't change, and, that the current rule assisted Essendon, as it was still 3 vs 2 on the interchange as opposed to 4 vs 2.

That's all well and good, however, I'd like to see my fav players last 300 games considering the intensity is going up by PROTECTING them, rotating them, ensuring there are replacements.

 

[dylan123]

Mick has been saying it all this year as well as last year (along with a few other coaches) and I think all of us supporters agree with him but unfortunately those that need to agree to make a change seem to make up new stats to support their rules...

 

[Jedi01]

In the NFL they dress 50+ players per game on each team, and their is cover in every position at least one deep, and in most cases 2-3 deep, why not have something similar in our game, or at least an extension of the numbers who "dress" for the game.

This will never happen. How do you expect to develop players if they are sitting on the pine every week? Who exactly would be playing in the VFL team?

You're right mate, any rule can be exploited.

But would you rather see a poor player be subbed of with a ahem 'groin strain' or would you prefer to see a team lose a PF or GF they should otherwise have won by having three injuries in the first qtr, perhaps two of which were deliberately inflicted by the opposition, who went into the game as underdogs?

How would it have been any different last year if Essendon had lost 2 players through injury? It is just part of the game and unusual to see so many in one game.

Further if a team sets out to 'deliberately' injury opposition players, the amount of Subs would theoretically not matter.

Increasing the amount of subs for 'game ending injuries' will lead to serious cheating and not worth while implementing just in case one day some year is some final someone gets a few injuries in the first qtr.

 

[Quicky]

AFL chief Adrian Anderson queries Mick Malthouse's logic on sub rule

"Great coach, Mick, but it doesn't make sense in my mind. I don't think there is logic there in terms of what Mick is saying," he said.

AFL chief Adrian Anderson queries Mick Malthouse's logic on sub rule

Anderson you nuffie!!

 

[mattys123]

The problem with the current interchange rule, and the defense that little AA keeps coming up with, is that it only covers one injury.

Once you get more then one injury, you are ****ed.

The AFL bring out the stats stating that teams that have had one injury early on in a game have been better off this year then last, well of course they have, but what about the teams who have had 2-3 injuries in the first half of the game? Are they better off? **** NO.

The AFL rushed in a rule to cut down interchanges, that's all, and now they continually try and defend it.

I can't wait for AA to be be pulled aside and told that "his rule" will be changed at seasons end.

 

[PieBeast]

AFL chief Adrian Anderson queries Mick Malthouse's logic on sub rule



AFL chief Adrian Anderson queries Mick Malthouse's logic on sub rule

Anderson you nuffie!!

And what exactly is incorrect in Andersons claims?

 

[Swooop]

In fairness to Anderson, MM does not articulate particularly clearly sometimes.
In fact, there aren't many speakers I find more confusing to listen to, TBH.

In the article, if MM is paraphrased correctly, he asks for four or five on the interchange bench to offset the disadvantage of injured players, like Essendon on Sunday.

Anderson correctly points out, with sub rule it became 3 Coll interchange v 2 Ess interchange on the bench ( though he omits we still had a fresh sub to inject into the game, where they didn't) but without the sub, he points out it would have been 4 v 2 on the bench.
ie the sub rule offset Essendon's disadvantage.

Where I think MM confuses people is that he shouldn't be saying we need 5 on the interchange bench, because Anderson will say , well it wouldhave been 5 v 3 so just as unfair.

MM needs to say, we need more subs, not we need more interchange.

If it was three interchange and three subs, then Essendon would not have been severely disadvantaged ( MM is 100% right there, there were seriously disadvantaged) as they were on Sunday.

Had we been able to inject three subs late-ish in the game, to their only one remaining sub...slight advantage to us; but that advantage can be further negated by having three subs, one for form, two just purely for game ending injury.

 

[mdc]

The injury sub just isn't practical, unless there was some sort of rule where the subbed-off player has to miss next week's match. Otherwise we'd be seeing a lot of injuries lasting exactly one quarter.

 

[PieBeast]

3 interchange players + 3 subs??? Just so no team isn't disadvantaged due to injury???
Whats next? Playing one short when we face some injury-depleted side like Hawks earlier in the year???
This is a brutal sport not some hank-panky, fair for everyone at all times, friendly competition.

This year has been full of cringe-worthy statements by MM: give ANZAC game to others, how he feels for Brad Scott, the Footy Show debacle, constant whinging about the sub rule for no reason that culminated in AA thoroughly pointing out the short-comings of his thinking.
I wonder what other facepalming pearlers he has in store for us.....

 

[Pie eyed]

I think Mick gripe with the new set-up is it cuts down rotations which leads to more injuries. He is using the occurrences on Sunday to highlight his continued discontent.
You could say he's using the wrong issue to get the right message out, not unlike the AFL using the blatant rubbish of wanting to limit injury to bring the change about in the first place when it was clearly to influence outcomes of matches.

 

[carnthepies19]

Was it not fine before the sub rule was put in place? With 3 on the interchange bench, then each player has to spend more minutes on the ground causing more cramps/soreness to the players, which also effects their decision making and fatigue levels. I don't think it was thought out very well by the AFL. If the bench was 4 players and 1 sub then it would be fine, but all of the teams managed last year and years before that so why is it any different now? If anything, the game is becoming quicker, meaning we need to either get more bench players or keep it at 4, not decrease the amount.

 

[TheFreshBanana]

In fairness to Anderson, MM does not articulate particularly clearly sometimes.
In fact, there aren't many speakers I find more confusing to listen to, TBH.

In the article, if MM is paraphrased correctly, he asks for four or five on the interchange bench to offset the disadvantage of injured players, like Essendon on Sunday.

Anderson correctly points out, with sub rule it became 3 Coll interchange v 2 Ess interchange on the bench ( though he omits we still had a fresh sub to inject into the game, where they didn't) but without the sub, he points out it would have been 4 v 2 on the bench.
ie the sub rule offset Essendon's disadvantage.

Where I think MM confuses people is that he shouldn't be saying we need 5 on the interchange bench, because Anderson will say , well it wouldhave been 5 v 3 so just as unfair.

MM needs to say, we need more subs, not we need more interchange.

If it was three interchange and three subs, then Essendon would not have been severely disadvantaged ( MM is 100% right there, there were seriously disadvantaged) as they were on Sunday.

Had we been able to inject three subs late-ish in the game, to their only one remaining sub...slight advantage to us; but that advantage can be further negated by having three subs, one for form, two just purely for game ending injury.

What Mick means, is that a 5 v 4 interchange bench is less damaging than a 4 v 3 or a 3 v 2.

Because in a 5 v 4, theres only so many players you can put out on the ground. The other team may have 1 more player to rest but all in all, the fatigue is a lot less compared to if you have a 4 v 3.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQJda7aoYHA[/YOUTUBE]

Watch that, Mick explains it at the 5 minute mark.

 

[sports_shooter]

The substitute rule was brought in due to an increase in soft tissue injuries that were thought to be the direct result of interchanges and an increase in the speed of the game.

This year has proved that no matter what happens, our great game is going to have players getting injured and there is nothing to stop them. Mick said it best on 'On The Couch' earlier in the year, the more you decrease the numbers, the less even it gets.

I'm all for a 4 man bench and 1 substitute.

If we make the GF this year though, how would you like to be starting as the substitute on the biggest day of the year? It just doesn't sit well with me.

the is dumb.
The so called reason why they changed it was because of soft tissue injuries, yet Collingwood has led the interchanges since 2007 and between the end of 07 & the start of the year we had 1 soft tissue injury due to running. Nick Maxwell last year.
The league then says they want to make the game fairer if you lose a player.
Why should clubs like Collingwood who pump millions into their football departments and trying to work out how they can get the most out of their players cop a rule that rewards the clubs who don't care about fitness? (North, Port, Sydney, Hawthorn, St. Kilda).
Yes I felt for Essendon on Sunday, they weren't due to fitness, but bad luck.
This is where the rule should be used.
I say they need to go back to 4 on the bench, 1 sub, the person who the sub replaces cannot play the following round.
There for clubs must use it simply for INJURED players.
That will even the game up a bit, it would have meant Collingwood would have had 4 on the bench, Essendon 3 and able to cope a bit better.