Time for the AFL to cap interchanges

[JR78]

There's no doubt the sub rule was introduced to lower interchanges and slow the game down. I think it worked for a while as players fatigued towards the end of each quarter, play opened up and scoring became easier.

This year it appears that interchanges have again gone through the roof and upwards of 150 per team is not uncommon. We are seeing some matches where all 26 players are within 60 metres of the ball and it's like under 9's on a Sunday.

In 2003 teams averaged 20 a game and I don't think the game has improved by having 130 more a game. The AFL needs to limit interchanges to an amount per quarter or a limit per game.
20 per quarter or 75-80 a game would be enough.

If the current practice continues, any team that has 2-3 serious injuries in a first quarter of a grand final cannot win. Limiting interchange can reduce this somewhat.

We are talking about full time professionally paid athletes and there's no reason as to why they cannot stay out there longer. It will also open play up and lead to more scoring once players get fatigued. The game is being overun by sports science madness and new age coaches who are better suited on 'the big bang theory' than football.

 

[Clark G]

The AFL will introduce a 2 interchange-2 sub system before capping interchanges, it has already been flagged. Whatever the AFL decides to do must be trialled in the pre-season comp first.

 

[jonbe54]

There's no doubt the sub rule was introduced to lower interchanges and slow the game down. I think it worked for a while as players fatigued towards the end of each quarter, play opened up and scoring became easier.

This year it appears that interchanges have again gone through the roof and upwards of 150 per team is not uncommon. We are seeing some matches where all 26 players are within 60 metres of the ball and it's like under 9's on a Sunday.

In 2003 teams averaged 20 a game and I don't think the game has improved by having 130 more a game. The AFL needs to limit interchanges to an amount per quarter or a limit per game.
20 per quarter or 75-80 a game would be enough.

If the current practice continues, any team that has 2-3 serious injuries in a first quarter of a grand final cannot win. Limiting interchange can reduce this somewhat.

We are talking about full time professionally paid athletes and there's no reason as to why they cannot stay out there longer. It will also open play up and lead to more scoring once players get fatigued. The game is being overun by sports science madness and new age coaches who are better suited on 'the big bang theory' than football.

Losing 2-3 players to serious injuries in first quarter of GF and you think limiting interchange will give a team some chance of winning??

Jeezuz does your mum know you're at the computer

 

[Black Diamond]

This year it appears that interchanges have again gone through the roof and upwards of 150 per team is not uncommon. We are seeing some matches where all 26 players are within 60 metres of the ball and it's like under 9's on a Sunday.

So what? It's the current trend and it will turn around soon enough.

In 2003 teams averaged 20 a game and I don't think the game has improved by having 130 more a game. The AFL needs to limit interchanges to an amount per quarter or a limit per game.
20 per quarter or 75-80 a game would be enough.

Yeah, they need to do it. Don't concern yourself with evidence or any real arguments.

If the current practice continues, any team that has 2-3 serious injuries in a first quarter of a grand final cannot win. Limiting interchange can reduce this somewhat.

FFS how often does this happen?

We are talking about full time professionally paid athletes and there's no reason as to why they cannot stay out there longer. It will also open play up and lead to more scoring once players get fatigued. The game is being overun by sports science madness and new age coaches who are better suited on 'the big bang theory' than football.

If you make players stay out there even longer you will only encourage the recruitment of 'athletes' rather than footballers, because it will be athletes who can still run in the fourth quarter. It won't necessarily mean there is more space. You could well see teams chip it around even more, desperate to control the tempo when they're tired.

Overall, lets just stop worrying about this. There is nothing wrong with the game. It's a sport, and like almost every game on the planet it will evolve.

 

[Username_lost]

Please just leave it up to evolution and inspired innovation. The rules comittee just needs to back the fkoff.

 

[Canberra_Giant]

I think it's better to cap it. I think footy should be decided by the better team, not who uses the interchange better.

 

[JR78]

Yeah, they need to do it. Don't concern yourself with evidence or any real arguments.


Don't blow a head gasket.

My evidence was watching the AFL back before we had 150 interchanges 10 years ago. You didn't have a TV back then?? The game has improved has it?

Although I must admit I was lucky enough to see the 3 games last Sunday being Melb v Carlton, Kangaroos/Brisbane and Freo v Eagles. Yeah it's just a trend....

Why was the sub rule introduced again? Remind me.

 

[Username_lost]

I think it's better to cap it. I think footy should be decided by the better team, not who uses the interchange better.

Capping it will not reduce the importance of who uses the interchange better. It could increase it. Imagine how wisely you would need to manage your interchanges to get the most out of your team.

 

[jonbe54]

I think it's better to cap it. I think footy should be decided by the better team, not who uses the interchange better.

Yeah and while we're at it how about limiting development and fitness staff, training facilities and anything else that could possibly allow a better run orginazation the edge that they have worked so hard for?????

Because life is about striving and if you continue to sanitize football you will wind up with a sterile, pointless and boring hulk of what was once a game of passion and courage.

 

[Black Diamond]

I think it's better to cap it. I think footy should be decided by the better team, not who uses the interchange better.

Using the interchange is a tactic like any other. What other tactics should be stopped?

 

[Upgrayedd]

*cue hawthorn fan reminissing about 2008*

in 2008 we lost Young/Croad in the first half and had 2 healthy players on the bench, didnt stop us from winning it in the third.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Quick!! Change the rules!

 

[Black Diamond]

Yeah, they need to do it. Don't concern yourself with evidence or any real arguments.


Don't blow a head gasket.

My evidence was watching the AFL back before we had 150 interchanges 10 years ago. You didn't have a TV back then?? The game has improved has it?

Although I must admit I was lucky enough to see the 3 games last Sunday being Melb v Carlton, Kangaroos/Brisbane and Freo v Eagles. Yeah it's just a trend....

Why was the sub rule introduced again? Remind me.

The game is way better now than 10 years ago. Just have a look at the skills on display each week. Just look at some of the finals series we've seen from 2005 to now.

Why was the sub rule introduced? Because ********s want to manipulate the game. It was a stupid decision.

 

[Fire Storm]

The amount of interchanges used in the AFL is the biggest joke of all.

 

[jonbe54]

The amount of interchanges used in the AFL is the biggest joke of all.

No the amount of interchanges allows for the gut running courage of. . .

Oh yeah I'm replying to a Carlton supporter who would know nothing of gut running courage. . .

Carry on then

 

[Username_lost]

The amount of interchanges used in the AFL is the biggest joke of all.

Then why are you not laughing.

 

[Fire Storm]

Weird responses....


Anyway...


Watching 36 players in a scrum scrambling over the ball like a rolling maul is terrible and not how footy should be played. Les interchanges.....no......a LOT less interchanges would mean more open play......more one on one contests.

I mean geez, there was a whole thread with most of you guys complaining about how boring the football is!

What happened to athleticism? Running at 100% a few times per quarter then going off aint showing courage or athleticism.


Being deep in the 4th quarter having played the last 60 mins or more and giving 100% no matter how tired is courage.



150+ changes per game is a joke. Hell, even Jamal Idris the big fatty could probably get a game based on that.

 

[JR78]

The game is way better now than 10 years ago. Just have a look at the skills on display each week. Just look at some of the finals series we've seen from 2005 to now.

Why was the sub rule introduced? Because ********s want to manipulate the game. It was a stupid decision.

Absolute rubbish. It has turned into super fit athletes gut running and playing keepings off down each wing. Where does courage or skill come into that? The game's best and most exciting forward has even been turned into a midfielder.

Which finals series were you referring to? The 2005-2006 Eagles and Swans grand finals with ball up after ball up. Rivetting.

Believe it or not but the AFL see 150+ interchanges as a blight on the game.

 

[Black Diamond]

Absolute rubbish. It has turned into super fit athletes gut running and playing keepings off down each wing. Where does courage or skill come into that? The game's best and most exciting forward has even been turned into a midfielder.

Yep, and if you cap rotations it will become an athletes game. Could Brett Kirk run for 4 quarters? Franklin may be in the midfield, but this is the mistake of a coach instead of a problem with the game.

Which finals series were you referring to? The 2005-2006 Eagles and Swans grand finals with ball up after ball up. Rivetting.

Each finals series from 2004 on with exception of last year has thrown up several very high quality matches. You'll find most posters agree. 2006 in particular had superb clashes in each week of the finals.

Believe it or not but the AFL see 150+ interchanges as a blight on the game.

Um, yeah, I do believe they believe it. I just don't agree with them.

 

[jonbe54]

Absolute rubbish. It has turned into super fit athletes gut running and playing keepings off down each wing. Where does courage or skill come into that? The game's best and most exciting forward has even been turned into a midfielder.

Which finals series were you referring to? The 2005-2006 Eagles and Swans grand finals with ball up after ball up. Rivetting.

Believe it or not but the AFL see 150+ interchanges as a blight on the game.

Where does courage and skill come into that??

Have you ever sprinted the length of a footy field time and time again over a 2 hour period?

Do you have any conception of the courage it takes to run flat out for 80 meters to help a team mate when your lungs are already burning and legs wobbly from previous efforts?

Do you have any idea how long and hard they train to acheive such aerobic endurance? The dedication and focus required to achieve the physical standards they set themselves?

I doubt it, neither do I but I'm bloody sure I'm not going to sit around as an armchair expert decrying the courage and dedication it demands to acheive such feats.

 

[JR78]

Where does courage and skill come into that??

Have you ever sprinted the length of a footy field time and time again over a 2 hour period?

Do you have any conception of the courage it takes to run flat out for 80 meters to help a team mate when your lungs are already burning and legs wobbly from previous efforts?

Do you have any idea how long and hard they train to acheive such aerobic endurance? The dedication and focus required to achieve the physical standards they set themselves?

I doubt it, neither do I but I'm bloody sure I'm not going to sit around as an armchair expert decrying the courage and dedication it demands to acheive such feats.

Then run to the bench for a 4 minute rest? Then miss the following week with 'general soreness'? Remind me when the Olympics arrive to give the marathon a miss and only watch the sprints...

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Please just leave it up to evolution and inspired innovation. The rules comittee just needs to back the fkoff.

It was amusing and disturbing listening to 3AW a week or two ago. They opened with the story of the netball girls who lifted each other up to block their opponent's shot.

Dwayne and Gerard launched into the familiar discussion of how many ways they could change the rule to put a stop to it.

They had a netballer on - cant recall her name - and asked her what netball should do and what rules they should bring in to stop this awful tactic.

Her response was that they don't like changing rules in their sport at the drop of a hat, that the game will evolve and that it is up to teams to try and come up with a way of combatting it. It was such a refreshing comment which I think was actually a veiled dig at the AFL but in true AFL-cheerleader style, the boys completely ignored it.

I hate the rules committee more than anything else in this game.

 

[Pie eyed]

There's no doubt the sub rule was introduced to lower interchanges and slow the game down. I think it worked for a while as players fatigued towards the end of each quarter, play opened up and scoring became easier.

This year it appears that interchanges have again gone through the roof and upwards of 150 per team is not uncommon. We are seeing some matches where all 26 players are within 60 metres of the ball and it's like under 9's on a Sunday.

In 2003 teams averaged 20 a game and I don't think the game has improved by having 130 more a game. The AFL needs to limit interchanges to an amount per quarter or a limit per game.
20 per quarter or 75-80 a game would be enough.

If the current practice continues, any team that has 2-3 serious injuries in a first quarter of a grand final cannot win. Limiting interchange can reduce this somewhat.

We are talking about full time professionally paid athletes and there's no reason as to why they cannot stay out there longer. It will also open play up and lead to more scoring once players get fatigued. The game is being overun by sports science madness and new age coaches who are better suited on 'the big bang theory' than football.

I would much prefer they cap stupid rule changes to 1 per decade.

There seems to be no point in the game now where any of these changes can be assessed in isolation. Change for change sake seems the norm.

 

[greennick]

I actually really like the sub rule. Though I would prefer two subs, 3 interchange.

I would also prefer teams to have to announce the subs in their team list.

 

[rickyp]

Some people need to stop living in the past, the game is evolving! It's never going to be like it was in the 80s, or the 90s, or the 2000s. One thing is for certain however, and that is that with every decade that passes, there will be a new group who whinge about how the game was much better 'in the old days'. Yep.