What are your thoughts on allowing a substitution for each team in a match?

[Power King]

I've now heard Mick Malthouse and Brad Sewell both publicly support the notion of allowing teams to have one or more substitutions (ie take off one player permanently and put on a completely new player onto the park) in a match in order to allow injured players to be replaced.

Personally, I am against this for two reasons:

1. If a team makes a substitution (as opposed to a a mere interchange), it gives that team an advantage (over a team of 22 players that hasn't made a substitution and has no injuries) because it is a completely new player with fresh legs stepping onto the pitch. This could be crucial if say it's a 4th quarter and the player substituted on is a game-breaker. You may say that the team with an injury is at a disadvantage by not being allowed to make a substitution, but I'm of the belief that injuries are an unfortunate part of the game.

following on from this...

2. There is nothing to stop clubs from pretending a player is injured when he is instead just having a shocker of a match, and so the team wants to substitute him on in order to have a better performance from 1 of the 22? Individuals do make a difference.

Your thoughts Big Footy.

 

[JeffDunne]

Injuries are part of the game.

That is all.

 

[Cuzz09]

No!

Injuries happen - you deal with them if you are unlucky enough to have a bad day.

Bad rule.

 

[Bone71]

I've now heard Mick Malthouse and Brad Sewell both publicly support the notion of allowing teams to have one or more substitutions (ie take off one player permanently and put on a completely new player onto the park) in a match in order to allow injured players to be replaced.

No probs............as long as they only have 3 regular interchange players

 

[PumpyChowdown]

No.....

 

[Cleavy]

Unnecessary.

 

[BrunoV]

That god I actually heard someone rubbish this idea publicly. They asked Jason Dunstal on MMM this afternoon and he was emphaically against it.

I have heard Kevin Bartlett argue for it on SEN and I am not trying to make a point by saying that I don't understand the reasoning behind wanting substitutes. I especially don't understand why the AFL is concerned with helping the coaches in this situation either. If a side can't win a game with a man down that is the coaches problem. They created it, let them fix it.

The idea was given publicity by a coach (Malthouse) who is a notorious sore looser in post-match press conferences. The fact that this seems to have serious weight astounds me when it main support has an incredible vested interest in supporting the idea every time he has done so (Collingwood has just lost a game a player down and he is trying to defelct criticism from team performance or himself - which is not a problem but it becomes a problem when this would be the impetous for probably the worst rule change of the lot).

Knee jerk has prooven itself to be the worst possible motivation for making rule changes, as has been proven by past rule changes.

There are so many problems created for the spirit and culture of the game (this was the jist of Dunstall's argument) but the rest of you can deal with those issues...

 

[flamethrower]

I've now heard Mick Malthouse and Brad Sewell both publicly support the notion of allowing teams to have one or more substitutions (ie take off one player permanently and put on a completely new player onto the park) in a match in order to allow injured players to be replaced.

Personally, I am against this for two reasons:

1. If a team makes a substitution (as opposed to a a mere interchange), it gives that team an advantage (over a team of 22 players that hasn't made a substitution and has no injuries) because it is a completely new player with fresh legs stepping onto the pitch. This could be crucial if say it's a 4th quarter and the player substituted on is a game-breaker. You may say that the team with an injury is at a disadvantage by not being allowed to make a substitution, but I'm of the belief that injuries are an unfortunate part of the game.

following on from this...

2. There is nothing to stop clubs from pretending a player is injured when he is instead just having a shocker of a match, and so the team wants to substitute him on in order to have a better performance from 1 of the 22? Individuals do make a difference.
Your thoughts Big Footy.

Easiest way to stop this is to have a clause that any player who is substituted because of injury must also miss the next game.

 

[Nasma]

Easiest way to stop this is to have a clause that any player who is substituted because of injury must also miss the next game.

Or allow the other team to substitute as well if they want to.

Myself, I'd rather keep the rules as they are

 

[Smoky]

Easiest way to stop this is to have a clause that any player who is substituted because of injury must also miss the next game.

Also I think it should only be allowed in the first 3 Quarters. Too much advantage to have fresh legs in the last quarter

 

[Crows Feet]

No probs............as long as they only have 3 regular interchange players

Easiest way to stop this is to have a clause that any player who is substituted because of injury must also miss the next game.

I don't mind the rule if it follows these sort of regulations. I would suggest if they bring it in then the substituted player shouldn't be able to play for the next 2 weeks and that the club should face a massive fine if they name him.

 

[AG]

No, it will only make the game faster again and anomalies are what make sport unpredictable and entertaining.
Also injuries are part of creating the legends of our game. Brereton made a fashion out of having to go back on to the field injured because they had no fit players left.

 

[Invigoration]

Easiest way to stop this is to have a clause that any player who is substituted because of injury must also miss the next game.

Soccer pitch is thatta way ---->

 

[PHX]

I'm on the side that it's easy to be exploited so it would essentially mean teams have 23 each week because if a player is stuffed or playing shit or you need a better balance and the 23rd man delivers it there is no way you aren't going to make something up and not get him out there.

Leave it as it is.,

 

[paulige]

After losing Drummound on the weekend at such an early stage of the game, this at the moment sounds great to me..

But some good points have been made above, but what if they simply extended the bench to 5-6 players, so that an injury wouldn't have such a large impact on a team?

 

[Link_Wray]

I don't mind the rule if it follows these sort of regulations. I would suggest if they bring it in then the substituted player shouldn't be able to play for the next 2 weeks and that the club should face a massive fine if they name him.

Obvious question would be what happens in a Grand Final?
Besides, some players will recover from a game-ending injury quickly, why penalise them for that?

As for being able to bring a player in if the other team brings in a player for someone injured...just seems like it would turn into a 5th player on the bench

 

[damochandler]

no.

it's funny when ever you hear coaches push for it. is when they dont haven any players on the bench and they just got beaten. leave it the way it is now. also no linitations on how many changes

 

[Kram]

I think it's a good idea.

 

[hellfire]

The only problem I have with it is that if the substitutes don't play, it means they wouldn't be playing footy that week [assuming the reserves have already played]. This could slow the development of fringe youngsters.

 

[stanley86]

i have no problem with it, and i dont care if the player is injured or not, as long as it is done before half time
after half time it brings in too much of an advantage in the case of fresh legs
i suppose as a coach then you take a risk, if a player is just having a crab of a game then the can be taken out of the game, but who knows, they could come to life in the 2nd half and you wouldn't know and the bloke you bring on might be just as crabby or get injured etc, makes it a gamble

 

[Selective Retention]

I'm on the side that it's easy to be exploited so it would essentially mean teams have 23 each week because if a player is stuffed or playing shit or you need a better balance and the 23rd man delivers it there is no way you aren't going to make something up and not get him out there.

Leave it as it is.,

Geelong would be a good example.

2008 grand final, forward line not functioning. Lonergan can't get near it. Sub him off and bring on Gamble. Completely changes the structure of the forward line. He misses the first game of the new season, who cares!

 

[crownie]

i am really against a substitute and wonder why this was not brought up when Hawthorn won the flag last season with only 20 fit at the end of the game.

it would need some extra rules to avoid it being exploited and some that have been mentioned already are not to bad.

- can only use the sub in the first half.

- the player subbed cannot play next week, but i think it should be harsher.

but it must be use for only covering a injury, not because someone is having a bad game.

 

[theyellowsash]

no

bad luck, suck it up.

was a total farce during the pre season cup.

 

[pie_town]

I don't mind the rule if it follows these sort of regulations. I would suggest if they bring it in then the substituted player shouldn't be able to play for the next 2 weeks and that the club should face a massive fine if they name him.

I'd agree with it if they did this - would take the ambiguity out of having doctor's assessments of players etc. during the game. Incentive would be less to use rule simply for advantage. Also - it needs to be more games for finals.

 

[GV Baron]

if a substitute is allowed it should be allowed for ANY reason, tactical or injury. simple as that.