Players tactically waiting to come off the bench - Issue or non-issue?

[im_a_lazy_sod]

This thread needs to back it out a bit

 

[Oxirane]

I think there should be a mandatory 30 second delay between a player coming off the ground and the corresponding fresh player going on. (Or the fresh player must run around the boundary and enter through either goal line.)

 

[Milux]

Really? Do you need it spelled out?

MCG, Hawthorn v Adelaide, 2011

An Adelaide player went off the ground but nobody come on to replace him… I'm not sure if anyone even noticed. Perhaps the Crows ran two players off and only one player came back on ground. For the next 15 or 20 seconds, it was 17 Crows vs 18 Hawks. Hawthorn had possession and switched play across to the open side of the ground (towards the interchange gate)

Someone kicked the ball over to Brendon Whitecross in space - the ball went over his head and Whitecross turned and ran under it, never taking his eye off the ball - he thought he was all alone on the wing, no Crow player within 20 metres of him. What he didn't know was that Adelaide's Brodie Martin had come flying across from the interchange gate and cleaned him up with a brutal hit (part-disguised as a marking attempt)

This is how I remembered the incident. I'm pretty damn sure that's how it happened. There's a 10% chance it was a regulation interchange and not one of these tactical delayed interchanges. But the point still stands. This is the type of shit which can occur.

It's not fair. I can't see why teams (or players) should be allowed to gain an advantage like this through delayed interchanging. This was never in the spirit of the game.

Pritty sure the exact same thing happened to Jordan Lewis in the middle of the ground.

So I take it we should get rid of contested marks?

 

[dickballsack]

No, you think it's all too compiicated because it takes me a few paragraphs to explain it, but the current rules are far more complicated than my suggested remedy. Think about it… The AFL has a guy whose job it is to watch every interchange and make sure nobody breaches the rules. And if there is a breach, he stands on the boundary line and waves a red flag. The game stops. The field umpire runs across and confers with the I/C steward. He then runs back over to where the ball is and awards a free kick and 50m while 50,000 people scratch their heads and ask each other "What's happening?"

We might see one or two of these each year. But for every game, the AFL pays someone to watch over this. It's bullshit. We also have the current situation (outlined in the OP) of teams who exploit the I/C rule as a "surprise tactic" to gain an unfair advantage.

It can all be solved by making each team supply their own official (which they already do anyway) and get these people to physically shepherd their opponent's interchanges - stop opposition players from coming on too soon, or stop the opposition from hiding the replacement player on the bench.

You don't have to be an I/C official. Nobody is asking you do it. Each team already has their own people who could do it.

Why would a team be punished for having one less player in the field ?

 

[Admiral Byng]

No, you think it's all too compiicated because it takes me a few paragraphs to explain it, but the current rules are far more complicated than my suggested remedy. Think about it… The AFL has a guy whose job it is to watch every interchange and make sure nobody breaches the rules. And if there is a breach, he stands on the boundary line and waves a red flag. The game stops. The field umpire runs across and confers with the I/C steward. He then runs back over to where the ball is and awards a free kick and 50m while 50,000 people scratch their heads and ask each other "What's happening?"

We might see one or two of these each year. But for every game, the AFL pays someone to watch over this. It's bullshit. We also have the current situation (outlined in the OP) of teams who exploit the I/C rule as a "surprise tactic" to gain an unfair advantage.

It can all be solved by making each team supply their own official (which they already do anyway) and get these people to physically shepherd their opponent's interchanges - stop opposition players from coming on too soon, or stop the opposition from hiding the replacement player on the bench.

You don't have to be an I/C official. Nobody is asking you do it. Each team already has their own people who could do it.

Nah, you're just getting silly now.

The interchange stewards/reserve umpire are there to observe, not to get involved in physically blocking players coming on or off. It's up to the players/team officials to get it right, and if they don't the observers call the free kick. Calling for them to get up of their fat arses and get involved in the play is just getting silly.

It's a non-issue to start with. Having an extra man on the ground is a problem, having one fewer for a few seconds is no big deal. Players on the interchange wing can just learn to take a quick glance over their shoulder as they run on.

(But I'm off to bed now, no further replies for now)

 

[dickballsack]

Brendon Whitecross was knocked out once running onto a hospital pass and was blindsided by a Crows player who had come flying out of nowhere off the bench.

That was one example of why it shouldn't be allowed.

It's not sporting.

A game shouldn't be decided by sneaky tactics. It's supposed be 18 players pitted against 18 players.

Um that's why it's called a hospital pass, when a team mate pops a high pass over your head and you have to run backwards to get it. It's irrelevant that the bloke that cleaned him up came form he bench. White roses would've done the exact same thing ( run back to mark ) if he was anywhere else on the ground.

 

[Back One Out]

Pritty sure the exact same thing happened to Jordan Lewis in the middle of the ground.

So I take it we should get rid of contested marks?

There is no logical basis for this post.

For starters, it has nothing to do with the Breust example I gave where he was completely blind-sided and unsuspecting. Lewis was hit when he ran across the centre of the ground. He should've been more aware in that situation. Or maybe he was aware of Jarrad Harbrow, but he decided to keep going through with it anyway. He at least would've known it was a possibility that he might get cleaned up.

Secondly, it doesn't address the other issue of teams who gain an advantage. The interchange rule was brought in during the 70's so teams could replace an injured player with a fresh player. It was never intended for teams to score goals through the element of surprise.

 

[Milux]

There is no logical basis for this post.

For starters, it has nothing to do with the Whitecross example I gave where he was completely blind-sided and unsuspecting. Lewis was hit when he ran across the centre of the ground. He should've been more aware in that situation. Or maybe he was aware of Jarrad Harbrow, but he decided to keep going through with it anyway. He at least would've known it was a possibility that he might get cleaned up.

Secondly, it doesn't address the other issue of teams who gain an advantage. The interchange rule was brought in during the 70's so teams could replace an injured player with a fresh player. It was never intended for teams to score goals through the element of surprise.

Are you serious. Read your first point then get back to me. Both where identical apart from what part of the field it happened.

So what if whitecross saw this happening but went threw with it anyways does that mean it's ok.

 

[Back One Out]

Um that's why it's called a hospital pass, when a team mate pops a high pass over your head and you have to run backwards to get it. It's irrelevant that the bloke that cleaned him up came form he bench. White roses would've done the exact same thing ( run back to mark ) if he was anywhere else on the ground.

But if there's no opposition player within his vicinity, then any pass which is directed towards the boundary perimeter suddenly becomes a 'hospital' pass when a bench-warmer comes storming onto the field from out of nowhere.

 

[Portmanteau]

Are you serious. Read your first point then get back to me. Both where identical apart from what part of the field it happened.

So what if whitecross saw this happening but went threw with it anyways does that mean it's ok.

No, comprehension fail in your part. There is only one part of the ground where a player can lie in waiting for to hit an unsuspecting player, when they were not previously on the field. The player who is charging into space is entitled to do so without a player waltzing onto the field a significant time after a teammate has left the field.

Someone who gets lined up in the middle of the field is aware that there could be live players around them.

 

[PenAndPaper]

Whitecross example? Don't you mean Breust?
And the player could take 20 mins for all I care, we will take the extra on field...

 

[Back One Out]

Are you serious. Read your first point then get back to me. Both where identical apart from what part of the field it happened.

So what if whitecross saw this happening but went threw with it anyways does that mean it's ok.

Jesus H Christ.

Lewis was knocked out running onto a hospital pass in the middle of the ground.
a) his teammate should not have kicked that pass and put him in that position. Harbrow was right there at CHB.
b) Lewis should've been more aware of Harbrow (or maybe he was and went for the mark anyway)

Breust had no way of knowing that Brodie Martin was coming at him at 50mph and neither did his team-mate who passed him the ball. Martin sneaked onto the field after a delayed interchange.

And this is just the safety angle… What about the OP's point about teams who score cheap goals (or stop potential goals) because they ambush their opponents?

 

[Rod Stroker]

Silly thread. It's been happening for years and the OP has just noticed it now?

In other news, Michael Jackson died.

 

[Milux]

No, comprehension fail in your part. There is only one part of the ground where a player can lie in waiting for to hit an unsuspecting player, when they were not previously on the field. The player who is charging into space is entitled to do so without a player waltzing onto the field a significant time after a teammate has left the field.

Someone who gets lined up in the middle of the field is aware that there could be live players around them.

Maybe a little on my part. (Am drunk).

But any player running with the flight of the ball is at risk at any stage. If the player coming off the bench goes at the footy and not intentionally snipes the player than it should be fare at any time as per the rules.

 

[Milux]

Jesus H Christ.

Lewis was knocked out running onto a hospital pass in the middle of the ground.
a) his teammate should not have kicked that pass and put him in that position. Harbrow was right there at CHB.
b) Lewis should've been more aware of Harbrow (or maybe he was and went for the mark anyway)

Breust had no way of knowing that Brodie Martin was coming at him at 50mph and neither did his team-mate who passed him the ball.
Martin sneaked onto the field after a delayed interchange.


And this is just the safety angle… What about OP's point about teams who score cheap goals (or stop potential goals) because they ambush their opponents?

I see your point some what.

But if the player is going the ball as they should then there is nothing wrong with it. Players shouldn't be punished for other players not being aware.

 

[dickballsack]

But if there's no opposition player within his vicinity, then any pass which is directed towards the boundary perimeter suddenly becomes a 'hospital' pass when a bench-warmer comes storming onto the field from out of nowhere.

Nope. How do you know there's no opposition player in your vicinity? How many times have you seen an opposition player intercept kicks where players call for a pass thinking theyre open. Any pass anywhere on a footy feild that goes over your head that you need to run backwards for is a hospital pass.

 

[Back One Out]

Silly thread. It's been happening for years and the OP has just noticed it now?

In other news, Michael Jackson died.

True, but it still doesn't make it right, does it?

Besides, it's only been in the last 7 or 8 years that teams have been interchanging their players more than 100 times per game
It's just become more and more commonplace, which ultimately is what leads to all rule changes (or tightening up of grey areas)

 

[on the de goey]

Simple the sub rule needs to be scraped and interchanges down to 60.

If we do this then we will have positional play again instead of seeing 36 players in one half

 

[ManWithNoName]

Silly thread. It's been happening for years and the OP has just noticed it now?

In other news, Michael Jackson died.

It's happening more and more often recently. As I said. If you'd actually read it.

 

[blitzer]

I don't have a problem with the tactic. Its a double edged sword at best. If you choose to hold a player on the bench - you are playing a man down. There is a decent chance you will be scored against because of the additional lose man the opposition have. Also its not like the players can come from anywhere - they still need to come from the interchange gate (I presume all the players know where that is) - so they can just be a bit cautious around that area.

Also teams would know which opposition clubs use this tactic and would hopefully coach their players to be aware of it. I feel this fits under the category of evolving tactics of AFL much like the various defensive tactics like the press that have evolved in recent years. "Not in the spirit of footy" - doesn't really mean much, everyone views footy differently.

 

[Back One Out]

Whitecross example? Don't you mean Breust?
And the player could take 20 mins for all I care, we will take the extra on field...

fixed.

When I watched Essendon flog Hawthorn by 7 goals at Etihad in 2009, I sat right near the I/C gate and I remember being impressed by the Bombers' tactical advantage of continually-delayed interchanges. Their players were sneaking onto the field at opportune moments, catching our boys off guard and tearing us to pieces. I wasn't whinging about it. I thought, "Shit. Well done, Matty Knights.."

Since then however, I've seen a number of teams use the same tactic (far more gratuitously) where I just thought, "Pfft… That's sly… That's not fair..." Not just Hawthorn games. Games where I've been neutral. I don't like it. Like I said earlier: it's not in the spirit of the game. It's not sporting. It's more like guerrilla warfare. Then I saw Breust get knocked out in that 2012 game and I thought, "That's f**ked…"

 

[Back One Out]

This thread needs to back it out a bit

Geez, mate. Why be a dick about it? If you don't like the discussion, there are plenty more threads for you to choose from. Threads about Goodes, racism, snipers… It's a legitimate discussion about a sly tactic which crept into the game and has become commonplace

 

[Bard]

I don't see how this could possibly be against the 'spirit of the game'. It's not something morally ambiguous like playing for a free kick because there is a negative impact, you're willingly putting yourself at a disadvantage whilst you're playing 17 v 18, until you pull the trigger for the 'advantage'. That advantage also relies on you a) winning possession in that time, and b) playing the ball down the interchange wing. BOTH of those conditions have to be met for this to even remotely come into play. This is really no different to floating an extra man into defence to tidy up the play and spring forward, you're placing yourself at a disadvantage in the midfield or forward line to allow this to happen.

I get the whole injury point, but that's happened what, once? In how many interchanges that have been made? And if a player is going to make illegal contact they should theoretically receive punishment anyway (I'm not sure if anything happened to the Crows player), in terms of awareness it's no different to running through the guts, you have to have a 360 degree awareness of where players might be coming from. The interchange gate is just another avenue.

The best fix I can think of is extending the area between the boundary and the interchange gate, so that it's more obvious when a player is about to run on so that players have that extra one or two seconds to be able to react.

 

[Mukesh]

Been noticing this more and more lately. A player will come off but the player who's coming back on will not come on straight away. Instead he'll wait until he can run on unnoticed as a free marking target, or to ping a player from behind who had no idea he was there or so forth. Seems clubs, or players, have worked this out and are exploiting it more often.

What are people's thoughts on this? Is it "unfair" and should the player coming on have to come on as soon as the other player comes off? Or is it just something that happens and all fair enough?

Totally agree....its a pretty gutless way of getting a cheap advantage. One day someone is gonna be seriously hurt when a delayed interchange guy come charging onto the ground and cleans up a player who 2 seconds ago thought he had the space to himself. Just insist the oncoming player runs on at the same time as the other guy comes off...

 

[Mukesh]

Silly thread. It's been happening for years and the OP has just noticed it now?

In other news, Michael Jackson died.

Actually Dennis Cometti has been quietly complaining about it for the past 3-4 years....