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

[Orange]

Substitue Malthouse

 

[crownie]

also takes away the unpredictablity of the game.

what if the next time Melbourne play Geelong and they get to a 4 goal lead early and Geelong get a few injuries then Geelong can just replace them and get the usual easy victory.

 

[telsor]

Sure...18 players, 2 interchange, 2 subs, who can be used once per game..

 

[snrub]

Only if we can make it retrospective and replay the second half of Saturday's game.

 

[Happy_Neale]

Hate the idea. Another aspect that isn't discussed is the youngsters which would (probably) be used as these substitutes. Take Hawthorn for example - they have a long injury list. If they suddenly have to name 23 or 24 players a week, chances are a youngster is going to get a game before they are ready, and we have all seen the effects this can have on young players.

Have also hear the notion of capping interchanges. This probably makes more sense than having a sub, as it means rotations can't be used to the other coaches advantage if you sustain an injury, however I hate this idea too.

They have already changed the game enough for my lifetime. Leave it alone

 

[Happy_Neale]

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

Wouldn't that just make them an interchange?

 

[TheFridge]

Wasn't the extension of the two man interchange for four made for this reason?

Coaches would simply always use the substitute late in the game as a "super sub" type addition to the mix.

Cue to the first time that a team then has a serious injuries minutes after the super sub has been used and the inevitable post match press conference at which the coach in question starts the call for a second substitute....

 

[ANGEL DARK]

It should be left alone.If teams suffer multiple injuries in a game its just bad luck and you just have to be able to cope with it.
It doesnt happen often enough for a change to be warranted and 4 on the interhange bench is plenty

 

[Wallaby]

Considering that Aussie Rules had NO reserves up until WW2, then only one,and now has 4 with unlimited substitution, what are the next steps?

It will happen – Soccer used to only have 11+1 sub – now they have up to 6 subs on the bench (although they don’t have interchange yet), Rugby used to be substitute allowed only when the injury was confirmed by a doctor (plenty of tries were scored when player x was on the sideline with the doctor saying 'it could be broken, I'll think about it' – now they have up to 6 on the bench – all available for interchange. We are already experimenting with 6-8 interchange in the pre-season. At least NRL has a limit on total interchange numbers.

And, of course, all yank sports have at least a complete reserve team on
the sidelines. I think we’ll be 6 on the bench within a year or two.

Personally, I hate it. I approve of injury substitutions (I don’t want the
game ruined by a team playing one short due to bad luck), but that’s it. You go off - you're off.

 

[marcus1232]

I just think you can only play with the cards u have been dealt.
If u get injuries Suck it up and get on with it. Its bad luck it happens to all teams

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Why dont we go the whole nine yards and have a Gridiron-style bench.

The whole list on the sidelines to pick and choose from.

Injuries are part of the game and thats what the interchange used to be for anyway.

 

[GV Baron]

Wouldn't that just make them an interchange?

not quite - interchange means you can come and go. substitution means you are taken out of the game and cannot return. like what was trialled in the pre-season cup this year.

 

[falcons2]

If done correctly, I dont object.
Substitutes can only occur before half time. Player subbed off cannot play the following week. What if it rains in the first half of the GF and your top heavy????
Subbed players can be examined by opposition. If injury is extremely minor it goes to AFL doctors. Teams faking subs lose the game...blah blah blah... Too many hidden consequences.
Interstate travel, players ready but then not playing that weekend at all..

Now I object Too easy to rort, to many other consequences

Deliberate rushed rule, against at first, but its a beauty. Last line of defence now a very exciting place every time.

Beware of rule changes...always hidden problems

 

[peternorth]

assume in the future we have:

4 interchange
2 substitutes

2 players subbed off. 2 players subbed on.

then both of the subbed on players get injured.

what then? more subs????

leave it the way it is

 

[Luc]

Injuries are part of the game and thats what the interchange used to be for anyway.

The problem is that that is not how they are used anymore.

The gradual evolution of the interchange bench has fundamentally changed the way that the game is played, and moved too much power to the coaches box. The coaches love the fact that they now have more control over rotations and match-ups.

If you look at the modern game it is a constant mass of players that moves up and down the ground. This is only sustainable with the modern interchange bench allowing all players to get a breather.

Rugby league has moved back from an unlimited interchange bench for the same reasons that we should look at doing this: it has reduced injuries, and slows the game down, allowing more space for players to show off their skills.

I would much prefer the number of interchange players to be reduced, with the addition of substitutions that can be used as required. Something like a 2/4 intechange/substitution split should bring things back to how they were in the 80s.

 

[scottydeewah]

I agree with whoever made the comment about it making Legends of the game. Someone should start a thread about teams winning with no bench and injured players staying on the park to deliver the goods. I know the Cats have been good enough to win a number of games in the last couple of years with 1 or less fit players on the pine. Makes those wins pretty special for the boys!

 

[ANGEL DARK]

You can almost guarentee that if extra subs are introduced into the game coaches will take full advantage and milk the system for all that its worth.
I can just see coaches faking a players injury during a game and subbing on a fresh player in an effort to keep their team fresh for the remainder of the game and youll find that every team will sub players onto the ground even when their players arnt injured making a mockery out of the rule.
FFS just leave it as it is.

 

[Crows Feet]

What if the opposing team gets a free shot at goal from the interchange violation dot? Would nay-sayers consider it then?

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

The problem is that that is not how they are used anymore.

The gradual evolution of the interchange bench has fundamentally changed the way that the game is played, and moved too much power to the coaches box. The coaches love the fact that they now have more control over rotations and match-ups.

If you look at the modern game it is a constant mass of players that moves up and down the ground. This is only sustainable with the modern interchange bench allowing all players to get a breather.

Rugby league has moved back from an unlimited interchange bench for the same reasons that we should look at doing this: it has reduced injuries, and slows the game down, allowing more space for players to show off their skills.

I would much prefer the number of interchange players to be reduced, with the addition of substitutions that can be used as required. Something like a 2/4 intechange/substitution split should bring things back to how they were in the 80s.

Thats the point I was getting at.

If the interchange was capped, say at 10 a half, we may see a drop off in the 'zone' like tactics that a lot of clubs use as the players would not be able to run as hard for as long.

Fitness would be a weapon rather than players comming off the bench in spurts of 5 and 6 minutes.

 

[polly63]

Good case for a sub where a player is injured as a result of intentional foul play, eg Hall on Staker, Solomon on Ling. Problem may arise in determining what is intentional V reckless but that could be done on the basis of whether the ump reports the offender.

Would also require an independent doctor to rule that the victim was in no state to return to the field (or by agreement between the two team docs).

 

[ANGEL DARK]

Thats the point I was getting at.

If the interchange was capped, say at 10 a half, we may see a drop off in the 'zone' like tactics that a lot of clubs use as the players would not be able to run as hard for as long.

Fitness would be a weapon rather than players comming off the bench in spurts of 5 and 6 minutes.

I cant understand why you would want clubs to drop off in zone like tactics anyway as it keeps the ball moving for a team who zone well as opposed to just kicking it to a pack of players which often creates scrappy football with the chances of too many stoppages and ball ups
The problem with capping the interchanges every quarter or every half is that players will still be forced to push themselves into exhaustion therefore increasing the risk of injuries particularly soft tissue types.
There are plenty of injuries in the game as it is now even with high numbers of rotations so limiting interchanges would increase the number of injuries two fold and it would shorten players careers as well

 

[shanyOz]

There is no reason for a substitution player in afl - theres a bench for this.

But.... if a substitution player was allowed, it would have to be a player, not players. That would rule out the chance of bringing on a defender if another defender was getting a bath

Whats next? Timeouts? Red Cards?

 

[mulz]

There is no reason for a substitution player in afl - theres a bench for this.

But.... if a substitution player was allowed, it would have to be a player, not players. That would rule out the chance of bringing on a defender if another defender was getting a bath

Whats next? Timeouts? Red Cards?

spot on
if all your bench is injured then unlucky, toughen up and try to get your team over the line for a legendary win.

 

[jim boy]

I reckon its a great idea. Footy had subsitutes for 30 years or more and it worked fine. Of course coaches will use it tactically and why not? If you don't like that idea then Carlton should give the 1970 premiership cup to Collingwood, which was won largley thanks to Ted Hopkins coming on as a subsitute in a tactical move.

When Substitutes were replaced by the bench, the bench remained little different from the substitutes as coaches benched poor performing players rather than using it as tactic. Some players would sit out the entire match on the bench.

But in the last 10 to 15 years, the bench has become a high-rotation recovery tool, which it was not really intended to be. Footy should be a game of 18 players on the field, not 22 players on and off the field. As such the impact on the course of a game of an injury compared to even 15 years ago is immense as there is nobody to replace the inured. Using subsititutes makes a big difference in how the game gets played out.

I'm happy to reduce the bech to let in a substitute or two.

Another couple of advantages is that it will let older players play longer - James Hird may have played another season or two if he was required for only half a match at a time. It also allows coaches to blood youngsters for a quarter or two without impacting the overall match.

 

[damochandler]

i doubt all the clubs will vote yes for this. it only seems to pop it's head up when a team has no men on their bench after they have just flogged. they will keep trialing it through the preseason though and that's where it should stay. because of the heat at that time of year