4 man interchange bench for SANFL

[Blue Boy]

I voted yes !!!

[Sojourner]

I voted No,

IMO the interchange system is being abused in the AFL with far to many changes during the quarter, it would appear that the interchange has become a strong point of coaching tactics through rotation of players. Yet the interchange was never meant for that purpose, rather for the replacement of injured players during the game and I feel it should be left alone. One of the key things that attracts people to the SANFL is that it has a lot less of the things that people dont like watching in the AFL - flooding, high interchanging and runners being constantly on the ground. If we change the number on the bench, that is only going to make those problems occur in our competition and the AFL can keep those IMO!

[MightyEagles]

Just for the fun of it, I voted Yes and No.

[Pseudo]

My point, a couple of years ago, was that if we claim to be the 2nd best comp in Australia (which I have no doubt we are) then we need to keep up with the AFL in the important areas.

The above presupposes that the AFL is worth keeping up with. I say not. A lot of what the AFL does is good for the AFL but bad for football. A lot of what the AFL does is even bad for the AFL. I hope the SANFL never mutates to the point where it jumps wherever the AFL tells it.

And I vote NO to the 4 man interchange. 3 is plenty; a good coach can cover injuries and maintain freshness through rotation from a 3 man bench.

If you bring in 4 men, how long until we hear an argument for 5 men, and then 6? Slowly the game will evolve into something more like Gridiron, where a side comprises a specialist offensive and defensive team.

[Big Phil]

Well, firstly it was good to see the question said I could choose up to 2 options in a "Yes' "No' question

I'm in favour, having seen the number of games where a team has 2 injured players in the first quarter and no flexibility for the rest of the game.

For Mister Smarty Pants "RedandBlack" I have added an undecided option to the poll...

When I changed it, after about 30 votes, it was neck and neck (16 YES and 14 NO I think ? )

Keep up the good opinions people, it's making for interesting reading, if noithing else...

Big Phil...

[Big Phil]

I certainly don't think it's about the SANFL keeping up with the AFL, at all...

In fact I think the SANFL is better than the national comp and I would rather go watvh my beloved Doggies play any day than see an AFL game.

I think the relevance of me putting the poll up is more about player safety and protection...

Although not extremely frequent, we have seen in recent times where coaches have had no choice but to send an unfit man back out onto the ground, only to put them at risk of making the injury worse. What if it was toward the end of the season and one of your teams superstar, gunn player(s) had a slightly rolled ankle had to sit the rest of the game off, icing it to get it right for next week, and more importantly the up coming final series. All of a sudden, bang, in the blink of an eye there has been a heavy collision, another player has come off with concusion and then at the next contenst one of your injury prone veterans jaggs a hamstring.

Now all of a sudden, the gunn player with a slightly rolled ankle has to come back on. Okay you stick him in the pocket, hopefully out of harms way, with the ankle restrapped 3 times over it is cutting circulation to his toes !! But he has to go at the next contest he rolls over on it again and has now done severe ligament damage. Well, it now looks like a 1 week injury has turned into a month on the sidelines and IF you make it, your SUPERSTAR is going to miss the Grand Final... Think about that people....

Now I know that is very hyperthetical, but it could, and probably has, happened before. Hence a 4 man intercange policy would lessen the chances of this happening. I'm ALL FOR IT and really hope the SANFL at least take a REAL, SERIOUS look at it for next season ???

GO U DOGGIES...

Big Phil...

[Hazydog]

Money doesnt seem to be an issue with any Clubs at present so I'm sure they could afford an extra match payment each week.

It makes sense to me if it can help avoid the situation of not having fit men on the bench as happened in Round 1.

[Adelaide Hawk]

People just keep tinkering with the game don't they? I started following Aussie Rules in the mid 60s and it was a great game ... nothing wrong with it, and yet they continued to make changes.

"Nothing wrong with learning from other sports" people continued to claim. Aussie Rules has stolen from just about every other sport and has developed a thing named "AFL", a mongrel game that is cleverly marketed, otherwise people really couldn't give a stuff about it.

I just want to know what other sport has "learned from Aussie Rules". My guess is none. This would indicate that other sports are happy with their game. Soccer, Test cricket, basketball, golf, tennis, etc, etc, with a few rule changes along the way are still basically the same game they were back in the 60s. Aussie Rules isn't.

Leave the damned game alone before it's completely stuffed!!

[JK]

People just keep tinkering with the game don't they? I started following Aussie Rules in the mid 60s and it was a great game ... nothing wrong with it, and yet they continued to make changes.

"Nothing wrong with learning from other sports" people continued to claim. Aussie Rules has stolen from just about every other sport and has developed a thing named "AFL", a mongrel game that is cleverly marketed, otherwise people really couldn't give a stuff about it.

I just want to know what other sport has "learned from Aussie Rules". My guess is none. This would indicate that other sports are happy with their game. Soccer, Test cricket, basketball, golf, tennis, etc, etc, with a few rule changes along the way are still basically the same game they were back in the 60s. Aussie Rules isn't.

Leave the damned game alone before it's completely stuffed!!

I agree with you wholeheartedly AH ... Problem is that changes will be required as a result of previous (mostly unnecessary) changes that noone is likely to go back and undo

[redandblack]

Well, firstly it was good to see the question said I could choose up to 2 options in a "Yes' "No' question

I'm in favour, having seen the number of games where a team has 2 injured players in the first quarter and no flexibility for the rest of the game.

For Mister Smarty Pants "RedandBlack" I have added an undecided option to the poll...

When I changed it, after about 30 votes, it was neck and neck (16 YES and 14 NO I think ? )

Keep up the good opinions people, it's making for interesting reading, if noithing else...

Big Phil...

Great work, Mr Phil, but now I can select up to 3 options.

(Mr Smarty Pants - redandblack)

[smac]

And now you can only select one.

[Big Phil]

Well, firstly it was good to see the question said I could choose up to 2 options in a "Yes' "No' question

I'm in favour, having seen the number of games where a team has 2 injured players in the first quarter and no flexibility for the rest of the game.

For Mister Smarty Pants "RedandBlack" I have added an undecided option to the poll...

When I changed it, after about 30 votes, it was neck and neck (16 YES and 14 NO I think ? )

Keep up the good opinions people, it's making for interesting reading, if noithing else...

Big Phil...

Great work, Mr Phil, but now I can select up to 3 options.

(Mr Smarty Pants - redandblack)

Ha Ha BLOODY Ha RedandBlack !!!

Mr Big Phil...

[Thiele]

Voted yes

[Dog_ger]

I voted no.

I would like to see the interchange bench back to 2.

[Aerie]

Squawk and Sojourner have summed up what I think about having 4 interchange. I think these issues have potential to greater problems to the game than the player welfare argument for another man. I vote no.

[spell_check]

Pop quiz ... when did we go to 3?

1995.

And I also voted no, basically for the reasons already mentioned. And talking about changing the rules back to what they were, I suggest we go back to 25 minutes plus time on.

[Ian]

a good coach can cover injuries and maintain freshness through rotation from a 3 man bench.

A hammy in the first minute of play, then a concusion 1/2 way through the 1/4, followed by a broken collar bone in the 2nd, what @#%&ing difference will the abilty of the coach have on covering those

[smac]

Better preparing players for footy would help with the hammy and teaching players how to present themselves properly to a contest will go a long way to preventing the other 2 (big hobby horse of mine the last one... Not enough done in this area through ALL levels of footy, IMO).

Sometimes you are just unlucky though - if you have 10 on the bench, you could get 11 injuries in the game!

[spell_check]

Sometimes you are just unlucky though - if you have 10 on the bench, you could get 11 injuries in the game!

Which is when these sorts of discussions happen. If there was 5 injuries and we had 4 on the bench at the time, the same talk will happen to increase - ala the AFL.

[Pseudo]

a good coach can cover injuries and maintain freshness through rotation from a 3 man bench.

A hammy in the first minute of play, then a concusion 1/2 way through the 1/4, followed by a broken collar bone in the 2nd, what @#%&ing difference will the abilty of the coach have on covering those

... but in the other 99% of matches?