The AFL and the tiger repelling rock

[Old Spice]

Just filling in that 'fans' survey, they don't even give an option to say that you oppose capping interchanges. An utter joke, although you can ignore that question and fill in the comments box.

Good question, the answer is that I have no idea what the problem is. Not sure if the AFL have any idea either. I know what the answer is though, the answer is 42. Now we just have to build a computer to tell us the question....

I seeeee.

 

[Rahingo]

with the increased professionalism of the game has come increased training loads on players bodies.

it will be interesting to see what the injury rates are like next year with one team having a bye each week as well as the mid season break...

i for one like the increased pace in the game. its exciting and i hate to see it go back to stagnant, boring football

 

[Jabso]

What the AFL doesn't want you to know, is that the interchange rules are being whinged about by 15 out of 16 clubs that are upset they can't tag Dane Swan anymore.

As much as I'd like it to be a conspiracy, it's not. It's just incompetence.

I think all but one or two coaches have voiced their opinion against any restrictions.

 

[Spurk]

Just filling in that 'fans' survey, they don't even give an option to say that you oppose capping interchanges. An utter joke, although you can ignore that question and fill in the comments box.



I seeeee.

The way Adrian A is talking, a cap of some description is a done deal.

 

[Simmonds2Hislop]

So Vlad has magical rock that repels Tigers and keeps them from climbing any higher than 9th.


What a ****

 

[Jabso]

Just filling in that 'fans' survey, they don't even give an option to say that you oppose capping interchanges. An utter joke, although you can ignore that question and fill in the comments box.



I seeeee.

Yeah I was not happy about that, this is what I wrote in the comments box, very similar to my OP.

It should not be capped or restricted at all. I am not convinced that the AFL has provided any evidence whatsoever that suggests the increased injuries are attributable towards increased activity on the interchange bench.

All that is shown are are figures that loosely correlate with each other. Correlation does not imply causation. To me this is specious reasoning. Correlation does not always imply causation. With this line of reasoning you could suggest that the increased handball to kick ratio, which positively correlates with the injury increasing is also to blame.

Collingwood have been the innovators of the increased interchanges and are definitely on top of the table for that stat in the last few years. They are also on the bottom of the table for the amount of injuries sustained the last few years.

Additionally it wouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that restricting the interchanges could cause more injuries. You would have tired players unable to be interchanged coming up against fresh players, which would mean the tired player in a collision would have a greater chance of injury.

I am not happy that I don't have an option to pick "no changes".

 

[Ron The Bear]

Some very good posting on this thread.

Just thinking about it i don't really see there being more injuries than any other year

I saw some stats earlier that were saying that injuries certainly have been rising alongside the increase in rotations but what i was wondering is do the afl count things like "general soreness" and players being put down as injured when really they have just been dropped as propper injuries? Seems to me this sort of thing is happening more than it used to be and it might be throwing the statistics off?

I'd like to see the stats for 2010 where there's been no accusations of tanking. It seems as though there have been fewer players finishing the season early to undergo surgery.

 

[GPW1]

will this mean the end of a judd/swan/ablett/whoever firing up in a last quarter comeback and dragging their team over the line? they will be stuffed by the 4th quarter.

or whats to stop a team thats up by 10 goals with 10 mins to go playing kick to kick in the back half cos theyve run out rotations. oh wait, we can bring a "no kicking backwards rule" to fix this.

 

[absfab]

Personally I'd love to see a cap on interchange.

Among other things it would make it far harder to play the shit game of having 36 players following the ball around all day like the under 10s and clogging up the game into an ugly scrum.

And the suggestion that it would take the star's impact out of the game is just silly. They'll do what they've done forever and work their opponent into the ground. And not have to deal with the super heavy tag of having rested players constantly rotated onto them.

 

[Hawkers]

There is no need for a cap on rotations

The best solution is to go back to 2 on the bench, unlimited changes.
The coaches can sort that out themselves.
If there is a problem with too many rotations then it is caused by having too many players on the bench, reduce the players on the bench and then that will reduce the rotations.

If people complain that it disadvantages the team that gets injuries well I say 'boo hoo'. The game was played that way for close to 100 years and it was never a big issue.
Sometimes you win the luck of the draw and sometimes you don't.
It also disadvantages my team if I finish second on the ladder and 14 other teams get a higher draft pick than me

If there must be a subsitute that can be used for injured players then the player coming off injured must miss the next weeks game. Otherwise I feel that the coaches will abuse it.
They'll take a player off late in the 3rd quarter / 4th quarter, say they are injured and put a fresh bloke on.
If they come off injured then they can't play the next game, they can play in reserves if they like but not the first team

 

[Bambino]

Does anyone think that maybe by having a Rules Committee the AFL are forcing changes.
I mean, if you got a job on the Rules Committee and were paid 100k a year (guesswork here for sake or argument) to watch the games and pick up on trends etc and problems with rules, etc.
At the end of the year, Demetriou comes to you and says "So what can we do to improve the game" and you reply "Nothing mate, everything is A-OK. The game evolves and these little problems like high interchange rates will correct itself just like flooding did"
More than likely you would be looked on like a moron or incompetent as you have done your work but suggested to do nothing and gotten paid for it (I think you would be a genius).

In short, by having a Rules Commitee they probably feel obligated to change a few thigns a year to show they are doing something.

 

[gbatman]

Capping rotations may increase fatigue, cramping and hence muscle tears. It will make the game more contested and physical and more crash and bash, the game was sped up to reduce flooding and it worked, capping the interchanges will slow the game and increase flooding.

Why can't the AFL just leave the game alone, this is bad for the game, it's not broken and doesn't need fixing.

 

[The Harry Factor]

If Vlad and AA are so convinced that there is a correlation between high rotations and injuries why don't they end the debate by providing the data to verify their claim.

Surely by comparing the number of players injured during matches over the past few seasons as the average number of interchanges per match has risen will prove or disprove the relationship.

Or what about comparing the teams with the highest average interchanges against those with the lowest? The injury report on the HUN website today has one Hawthorn player and three Collingwood players listed as injured. Two teams with a high number of interchanges per game with the least number of injured players

 

[Spurk]

There is no need for a cap on rotations

The best solution is to go back to 2 on the bench, unlimited changes.
The coaches can sort that out themselves.
If there is a problem with too many rotations then it is caused by having too many players on the bench, reduce the players on the bench and then that will reduce the rotations.

If people complain that it disadvantages the team that gets injuries well I say 'boo hoo'. The game was played that way for close to 100 years and it was never a big issue.
Sometimes you win the luck of the draw and sometimes you don't.
It also disadvantages my team if I finish second on the ladder and 14 other teams get a higher draft pick than me

If there must be a subsitute that can be used for injured players then the player coming off injured must miss the next weeks game. Otherwise I feel that the coaches will abuse it.
They'll take a player off late in the 3rd quarter / 4th quarter, say they are injured and put a fresh bloke on.
If they come off injured then they can't play the next game, they can play in reserves if they like but not the first team

Yeah, substitutes has it's issues. Too much exploitable pawn nonsense will occur.

I think 80 rotations will be brought in and don't really understand why so many are alarmed by it.

Capping to 40 would make a difference. 80 is still close to 1 a minute.

Coaches will bitch about any 'coaching restriction' which this rule will be.

All it's doing is making sure these defensive, tightrope walking control freaks don't keep turning this tap on, until the game is flooded.

80 caps will be such a non issue when introduced, where rotations are heading down many dodgy avenues.

 

[Old Spice]

Personally I'd love to see a cap on interchange.

Among other things it would make it far harder to play the shit game of having 36 players following the ball around all day like the under 10s and clogging up the game into an ugly scrum.

And the suggestion that it would take the star's impact out of the game is just silly. They'll do what they've done forever and work their opponent into the ground. And not have to deal with the super heavy tag of having rested players constantly rotated onto them.

Why would capping interchanges stop flooding? I seem to recall this pre high-rotations. You'd still have flooding, but you'd also have sloppy play.

All a cap would do is to slow everything down and increase the likeliehood of soft tissue strain and injury. This is the worst science since the Catholic Church V Galileo, but this time there should be no excuses.

The fact is that its a brain fart coming out of a redundant committe well passed its used-by-date.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

I think 80 rotations will be brought in and don't really understand why so many are alarmed by it.

Because it's change for the sake of change, and it's being justified by the AFL using false logic that it will reduce injuries. They're simply saying there are more rotations and also more injuries, so one must be causing the other. However, if you look closer, you'll see that it's not the teams with the high rotations that have the high numbers of injuries. The AFL are completely ignoring this.

This is a worry. Why would they lie about their reasons for wanting to cap interchange, and what are the real reasons they want this cap? What's their real agenda?

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Hawthorn made a decision in Round 8 to increase their rotations, and they've noted that they're having their best run of injuries for YEARS.

You do the math.

 

[shintemaster]

with the increased professionalism of the game has come increased training loads on players bodies.

it will be interesting to see what the injury rates are like next year with one team having a bye each week as well as the mid season break...

i for one like the increased pace in the game. its exciting and i hate to see it go back to stagnant, boring football

Agree. I'm also interested to see how they manage the bye. IMHO there should be multiple teams on any given week who are then scheduled to play one of their own group after the break. With a simple rolling bye then a team could potentially travel from say WA to TAS one week and then return home to face a team that has had a week off. I would assume the AFL would try and reduce the chances of this sort of thing however it's better if the whole thing is transparent.

I'm far from convinced of the relationship between interchange numbers and injuries although I'm not fundamentally opposed to the concept of having some sort of limit on interchanges, not sure where we should set this though and don't think there's been all that much thought put into it as yet.. I'm also a little bit uncomfortable witht the current trend we're seeing where players are magically appearing off the bench in close proximity to the play ie a player has completely broken free from the opposition, is running down the wing and suddenly a player comes onto the field. I'm assuming in these situations that obviously another player has gone off previously and they are yet to send a replacement on however it just rubs me the wrong way. Players shouldn't have to worry about being tackled off the interchange IMHO.

 

[Zahki]

Hawthorn made a decision in Round 8 to increase their rotations, and they've noted that they're having their best run of injuries for YEARS.

You do the math.

Yeah I'm wondering how having more players on the sidelines injured is supposed to improve the spectacle of the game myself, but I'm sure the AFL have thought this through and it is in no way a kneejerk reaction to an imaginary issue.

 

[rickyp]

Can anyone locate a list of the total injuries per club? I'd be very interested to see how it stacks up against the total interchanges per club. As has already been stated, the pies have the most interchanges and the least injuries, I'd like to see if this is the same for all clubs.

 

[absfab]

Hawthorn made a decision in Round 8 to increase their rotations, and they've noted that they're having their best run of injuries for YEARS.

You do the math.

Tiger repelling rock right there.

 

[Pie eyed]

Can anyone locate a list of the total injuries per club? I'd be very interested to see how it stacks up against the total interchanges per club. As has already been stated, the pies have the most interchanges and the least injuries, I'd like to see if this is the same for all clubs.

I would be interested in how many involve that "fabulous" ice skating rink Etihad?

 

[Pie eyed]

If Vlad and AA are so convinced that there is a correlation between high rotations and injuries why don't they end the debate by providing the data to verify their claim.

Surely by comparing the number of players injured during matches over the past few seasons as the average number of interchanges per match has risen will prove or disprove the relationship.

Or what about comparing the teams with the highest average interchanges against those with the lowest? The injury report on the HUN website today has one Hawthorn player and three Collingwood players listed as injured. Two teams with a high number of interchanges per game with the least number of injured players

Hear Hear!
I think it is because their evidence is actually anecdotal and nothing more than opinion. They have no data which supports the claims. If the data did fit it would have been published months ago when the issue was raised.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Tiger repelling rock right there.

Actually, if "Rotations cause injuries" is the tiger repelling rock, then high rotations without injury would be a tiger happily sitting right next to the rock, a rock that is supposed to repel tigers.

 

[Collingwould]

Capping rotations may increase fatigue, cramping and hence muscle tears. It will make the game more contested and physical and more crash and bash, the game was sped up to reduce flooding and it worked, capping the interchanges will slow the game and increase flooding.

Why can't the AFL just leave the game alone, this is bad for the game, it's not broken and doesn't need fixing.

this is a great thread and this one of the better posts, highlighting the cause and affect philosophy of what might happen with introducing a change to combat a perceived issue. Well I believe it's a perceived issue.

The game has evolved itself over the years and the fans have with it. If the AFL game shows weren't so obsessed with copious amounts of statistics would we really know or care that much.

To say high rotations alone is causing injuries surely is just saying there's nothing else that could possibly be causing these injuries.......seen Shaun Higgins kicking ball at Etihad this year?