Why on earth does the AFL want to limit the number of interchanges?

[Power King]

Who gives a ____.

Are we trying to take out the influence of a coach's tactics?

What disadvantage does it provide, given that there are still the same number of players on each team?

In my opinion, it does not affect the game in ANY negative way, and is amazes me that the AFL would want to change something just because they can, when in reality, there is absolutely no need to.

I needed to rant lol.

However, if anyone is in support of having a limited number, I would like to read your argument.

edit: and yeah this has prob been done before but I'm not going to search 10 pages deep to find a related thread.

 

[magilla]

Cause Leigh Matthew's mentioned it.

 

[western dog]

I personally think this is a good move by the AFL. I would much rather a game where players are competing one on one for the majority in their respective positions ie. Carey V Jackovich or Hird V Voss rather than watch a talent like Black, Cooney, Judd V 8 rotating midfielders. The way it is going there is no chance the quality player will ever come out on top as they are challenged with fresh legs whenever they start to gain some asendency. My thoughts.

 

[fightingdreamer88]

An excellent point was made by...I think it was Jason Dunstall: The interchange numbers are not going to keep spiraling out of control, because eventually it will get to a point where it's just a constant interchange with no one actually doing anything on the field. By nature the interchanges limit themselves.

It will regulate itself, of that I have no doubt.

 

[Hawkers Hero]

I personally think this is a good move by the AFL. I would much rather a game where players are competing one on one for the majority in their respective positions ie. Carey V Jackovich or Hird V Voss rather than watch a talent like Black, Cooney, Judd V 8 rotating midfielders. The way it is going there is no chance the quality player will ever come out on top as they are challenged with fresh legs whenever they start to gain some asendency. My thoughts.

I agree with what your saying but to include Cooney with those two names at this stage is a bit rich IMO (even if Judd is about as good as a VFL footballer ATM)

Heard a good point on AFL teams/Footy Show (cant remember which) that Collingwood had something like 110 interchanges in 108 mins of footy - one of the talking heads brought up that its almost at the stage where the Pies were playing with 17 men.

While im not a fan of more intervention, 110 changes is obcene and is tto much. To be honest I think a limit of say 80 changes not including injuries/blood rule would be more than enough for most teams.

 

[MarkT]

Why?

It is very simple. Because some journos highlighted the issue over the last couple of years and there has been some vocal opposition. The AFL often react knee jerk to mostly irrelevant things. The bigger issues like tanking impact competition engineering so they aren’t touched.

 

[MarkT]

It will regulate itself, of that I have no doubt.

Just about every issue is in the same boat. The game usually finds a way to overcome itself. If flooding was a problem because Sydney won a flag then now it isn’t because Geelong did. If Brisbane’s killer bodies ramped up weight training, the ramp up of the running game slowed weight gain down.

The problem is when you appoint a rules committee they do things. The solution is pretty simple/. Axe the rules committee and the game will take care of itself. If you want review have a 3 or 5 year widespread review by a panel including players and coaches.

The AFL is a massive organisation that has to continually justify is massive budget. Reduce the AFL, give more money to the clubs and let them look after themselves more. At least they care what they do with the money.

 

[crisco]

agree with the thread starter, limiting the interchange numbers would devalue the quality of the game and ouput of the palyers, leave it as is

 

[Subprime]

Nick Maxwell looks at the OH&S angle of rotations at:

http://afl.com.au/tabid/208/Default.aspx?newsid=57339


MUCH has been written recently about the number of rotations through the interchange clubs are now using.

A lot of the focus is on my club Collingwood because of the record numbers we have achieved in the past 12 months. Before you make up your own opinion, consider the research conducted by the Magpies.

Sports science director David Buttifant has been researching this for the past three years. In that time he has found that through increased rotations, collision injuries have decreased, despite what the AFL predicted by a quickening of the game.

In 2005, Collingwood had an average of 28 rotations per game with 19 collision injuries. A year later and the club had an average of 43 rotations per game with 18 collision injuries. Last year we had only nine collision injuries as the average of rotations crept up to 60.

In the same period, soft tissue injuries have not increased as some expected. On a more technical basis, there was also no increase in mean distances covered by players during the season, no changes in average speed during the season and no changes in work-to-rest ratio.

Of course these figures are only three-years-old and only cover one club, but observers can see why Collingwood are looking to increase rotations for the benefit of its players.

Buttifant believes that limiting the number of interchange a club may use could influence the health and well being of players, as well as their longevity in the game.

Brisbane star Luke Power has called for limits to the interchange so we can go back to the great 'one-on-one match-ups between the like of Buckley and Voss or Hird and Buckley'.

I argue that they barely played on each other. Collingwood tagged Hird and Essendon tagged Buckley.

What mass rotations do allow, however, is for a tagged player such as Chris Judd, to lose his ‘tagger’. Instead of seeing the champion midfielders of the game get scragged all day, we will instead see them displaying the flair and skill that has made them the champions they are.

The game will become more free-flowing, with the ball moving too quickly up and down the ground for flooding to be a factor, with only players who are fit and firing running around. They can give their burst, and then recover, then go again.

Some people have also argued that there will be less contested possession because of increased rotation. Although we’re only two weeks in, the stats say otherwise. Collingwood has had the most rotations and, guess what, they also lead the league in contested possession. Whether that holds up for the remainder of the season, only time will tell.

Arguably the greatest player in the games history Leigh Matthews, said that he 'likes the free-flowing, vibrant game it (mass rotation) has created, but there is less on-on-one contests' – the last point I have already proposed.

And it seems a free-flowing game into which AFL is currently evolving is also what the fans want. AFL Chairman Mike Fitzpatrick even sent a text message to Brisbane Lions chairman Tony Kelly stating what a great game the Collingwood versus Brisbane Lions game was on the weekend – a game that produced a record amount of interchange rotations.

Last year game attendances increased to over seven million, while total club memberships have continued to increase over the past five years – more evidence to show how the game’s popularity is ever increasing as it continues to evolve.

The bottom line is, yes the game is getting quicker, maybe in part to the increase in interchange rotations. The current data available suggests that this may decrease collision related injuries and enhance the quality of the game for spectators.

This warrants further investigation before any rules are amended, as hasty changes may be detrimental to our great game.

At this stage, no one knows for sure if interchange rotations will or will not be beneficial to the game and the players. I’m hoping we can be certain rules need changing before any changes are made – let’s take out the guesswork.

 

[Plogs]

Attrition.

 

[Jezza U Beauty]

Reducing the number of interchanges that can be made would be a good thing IMO.

Footy used to be 18 vs 18, with 2 reserves to cover injuries. You used to see genuine contests between player X and player Y. Now it's end-to-end rotational basketball.

And the poster above that mentioned about flooding being gone - rubbish. In the saints vs blues game last week there were numerous times when there wasn't one saint in thier fwd half - they were all back there plugging holes so Fev and Edwards had nowhere to lead. Reducing the interchanges would prevent this kind of crap because players would need to conserve a bit of energy and wouldn't have the fitness to run from one of the ground to the other all night.

 

[Forrest Gump]

The biggest problem with the game today is that uncontested, running possession football is boring to watch.
More interchange players would make this worse.
A disaster waiting to happen...

 

[Adrian Shelton]

Just go back to 2 man interchange

 

[Lazyboy]

It allows 4 quarters of high intensity football. Way better to watch.

Only the dhead AFL would try and intervene.

 

[ArachniX]

One of the things I like about limiting the interchange is so that I can watch the teams best players at all times. There are quite a few times when I am at a game, or watching on tv and the ball might be kicked into the backline and you expect, say Scarlett to come over the top and spoil, but he is not there, or u watch a kick into the forward line and expect to see Mooney and he is not there. Or like Ottens in the preliminary final last year.

Whether a game is high intensity to the end or not I think is irrelevant if the scores are close. Its great to see 2 sides battling it out at the end whether they are fresh or absolutely stuffed. I think with not limiting the interchange bench we start to see some games decided by fitness and rotation tactics rather than by better football (I know fitness is a part of football). Somewhat like motor racing where often drivers will win due to better pit strategy rather than necessarily being 'faster'.

I can also see that if interchange is not limited, then in the future as they are now, some sides will call for more interchange players, and we will end up with the need for 24 or more players on each side.

In the old days, for instance, a side playing Geelong would have to pick a player to play on Ablett Snr. They would live or die by the decision. Wrong decision Ablett has a day out, happy Geelong fans, a good decision and the other side win and happy fans. These days, and if more interchange players are allowed, a side could pick 3 defenders and rotate them on him. You can't get 3 Ablett Snr's to rotate on those defenders.

I don't know whether limiting the interchange of players is a necessarily a good thing though overall as it has as many negatives as positives.

 

[mango]

how about no limit on the number of interchanges but they can only be made directly after a goal is kicked?

would stop the ever increasing tactic of sneaking a player on just in time to take possession 30m in the clear

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

how about no limit on the number of interchanges but they can only be made directly after a goal is kicked?

would stop the ever increasing tactic of sneaking a player on just in time to take possession 30m in the clear

Now THIS idea I like.

 

[Subprime]

how about no limit on the number of interchanges but they can only be made directly after a goal is kicked?

would stop the ever increasing tactic of sneaking a player on just in time to take possession 30m in the clear

How do you sneak a player on without sneaking another off?

Where's his opponent?

 

[WaltzingMatera]

It's like you know how often when the start of the game there are a lot of packs and a lot of people running down into defense but after half-time when the players are a bit more tired, the game opens up and becomes more of a spectacle. Players are going to conserve their energies more so probably less flooding and less tagging too as coaches will not be able to just rotate their best taggers on one opposition player. The AFL is finally on to a good thing here.

 

[mango]

How do you sneak a player on without sneaking another off?

Where's his opponent?

you tell me, but its become a common occurrence, no?

 

[Hawk-in-syd]

They want to limit the interchange to slow/limit the run of players. This would have the following effect
1. > contested marks (reduce the ability of players to run and create space forcing you to kick to a contest)
2. > the likelyhood of the 100 goal FF. (limit the ability of mids to get back and help in defence)
3. < flooding (see point2)
4. increase the 1 on 1 matchup
5. < uncontested football

The AFL has to find the right balance between high intensity uncontested fast flowing football and the good old fashion one on one contest where the specky was part of the game. I think at the moment its gone to far and we are losing some of the great and unique things that were once part of Aussie rules.

 

[Belnakor]

I doubt it would have any effect on contested marks, less people would be able to get to the contests.

 

[Subprime]

you tell me, but its become a common occurrence, no?

Got me there.

Maybe its the 40m or so between the I/C gates that does it. Could be down to loose checking too I spose.

 

[huggy_b]

Because the AFL didnt get to change any rules lately and they have got itchy fingers. Its like a junkie searching for their next hit....

 

[Bonuspoints]

Because the AFL didnt get to change any rules lately and they have got itchy fingers. Its like a junkie searching for their next hit....

Agree completely with this. The AFL and a number of footy personalties (journo's, commentators, etc) are stuck in this whinge and change mindset. Flooding isn't that as much of an issue now as it was a few years ago. Taggers are being bitched about as much as they used to. The game is faster and still very exciting to watch. You're always going to get dead/shit games. Its going to happen. Was the Collingwood v Lions game boring? Nope. So who cares if theres 100+ interchanges. Players aren't off that long so you're crowd pulling players are still getting good game time.

As for contested possessions those have been falling away for a long time now as players hold the ball for longer waiting for an open option. In the past you'd kick it to a strong marking player and back them to take the mark or make the ball hit the ground for your crummers. They don't do that unless pressed into it and its got nothing to do with the interchange. Its more about the modern play style which is control the footy and minimise risk/turnovers. If anything the interchange allows for fresher players to put more pressure on each other.

And this whole epic champion v champion argument is rubbish. As Maxwell said in that article the top level play makers never really played on each other. They got tagged and who really goes to a game to see a playmaker vs a tagger. This whole issue with the interchange numbers is a massive over reaction in my opinion. 100+ is ridiculous I agree with that, but this is coaches experimenting a bit to find the right amount and right timing. Its not going to be like that every week.