SA Footy

For those who dont know the AFL have no put in place a 3 man interchange with a substitute.

The 3 players can rotate whenever needed but if you interchnage a player for a sub the player that came off can't return to the field. Whats everyones thought's?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

I can see potential confusion arising about whether it was the "sub' that came on or not and who was the designated sub at the start of the game.
Why complicate it - if anything just restrict the number of rotations per quarter.

absolute joke

I'd prefer to see a rule that a player needs to spend a certain length of time off once he comes off, such as 5 minutes, perhaps with the provision of an exception if they were to replace a blood rule or stretcher case.

Ahh the GAYFL at it again...

Why? Leave it alone.

"The use of interchange has created more congestion, more stoppages, more defensive pressure and has contributed to a drop in disposal efficiency," Anderson said.

This guy is a clown, he's an absolute clown.

The AFL is barely hanging on.

Righto, when do we start following Korfball, Quichey?

NFC wrote:

"The use of interchange has created more congestion, more stoppages, more defensive pressure and has contributed to a drop in disposal efficiency," Anderson said.

This guy is a clown, he's an absolute clown.

The AFL is barely hanging on.

I might have mentioned this before but to be expected when you put a lawyer who has never played the game in such a role.

dedja wrote:

NFC wrote:

"The use of interchange has created more congestion, more stoppages, more defensive pressure and has contributed to a drop in disposal efficiency," Anderson said.

This guy is a clown, he's an absolute clown.

The AFL is barely hanging on.

I might have mentioned this before but to be expected when you put a lawyer who has never played the game in such a role.

Still, the rule change wasn't just down to Adrian Anderson.
It was recommended by the laws committee which Anderson chairs and it includes Kevin Bartlett, Luke Darcy, Andrew McKay, Leigh Matthews, Matthew Pavlich, Luke Power, Rowan Sawers and Michael Sexton.

Anderson mightn't have played the game but there's a few blokes there who have!

The level of interchanging in matches is getting out of hand and it's not in the spirit of the game. Anything which will curtail this trend is a good move.

No knee jerk reactions.. no siree.

mighty hounds wrote:For those who dont know the AFL have no put in place a 3 man interchange with a substitute.

The 3 players can rotate whenever needed but if you interchnage a player for a sub the player that came off can't return to the field. Whats everyones thought's?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/ ... fault.aspx

Bull Sh!t, an absolute joke. I wish they could just leave the game and rules alone and just let it flow for once.

AA up to at least last year played Ammo's in Melbourne.

He is just the spokesperson for this so dont blame him.

What I dont understand is they changed the holding the ball rule to reduce stoppages and make the game faster yet now its too fast and they want to change the amount of interchanges? The rules changes are getting tweaked all the time and I cant see it stopping at this rate.

I dont see the problem with the number of interchanges, they better not bring this rule into the SANFL

Dutchy wrote:AA up to at least last year played Ammo's in Melbourne.

He is just the spokesperson for this so dont blame him.

What I dont understand is they changed the holding the ball rule to reduce stoppages and make the game faster yet now its too fast and they want to change the amount of interchanges? The rules changes are getting tweaked all the time and I cant see it stopping at this rate.

I dont see the problem with the number of interchanges, they better not bring this rule into the SANFL

I have been saying that for years, same as the rule allowing players to kick out straight away after a point had been scored

Do we want to see players coming on and off anymore than they do?

I support the idea of holding a bench player back solely for injury. Injury cover was the original reason the coaches wanted extra players. Now the coaches (not the AFL) have exploited the 4 man interchange bench to such an extreme that the game has turned into 22 rapidly rotating players v 22 rapidly rotating players. The team that loses 1-2 players to injury now loses most of the time.

Dane Swan won a heap of awards this year on the back of playing only 80 minutes out of 120 (my guess) and bolting as fast as he could for those 80 minutes.

A lot of us complain about the spectacle a lot of games turn into these days but we don't often look at why. We blame Adrian Anderson and ignore what our coaches are doing in the background. These rotations are keeping the players fresher and faster and now you see crowds of players around every contest.

Will cutting back 1 player from the rotations stop the problem? We'll see.

Hondo wrote:Do we want to see players coming on and off anymore than they do?

I support the idea of holding a bench player back solely for injury. Injury cover was the original reason the coaches wanted extra players. Now the coaches (not the AFL) have exploited the 4 man interchange bench to such an extreme that the game has turned into 22 rapidly rotating players v 22 rapidly rotating players. The team that loses 1-2 players to injury now loses most of the time.

Dane Swan won a heap of awards this year on the back of playing only 80 minutes out of 120 (my guess) and bolting as fast as he could for those 80 minutes.

A lot of us complain about the spectacle a lot of games turn into these days but we don't often look at why. We blame Adrian Anderson and ignore what our coaches are doing in the background. These rotations are keeping the players fresher and faster and now you see crowds of players around every contest.

Will cutting back 1 player from the rotations stop the problem? We'll see.

Do you actually notice how many interchanges are made during a game, does it ruin your football experience even when watching on t.v

whufc wrote:Do you actually notice how many interchanges are made during a game, does it ruin your football experience even when watching on t.v

It's not the interchanges that ruin the spectacle, it's what these rotations allow the coaches to do with the players.

Do you notice how many players are within a 20m radius of every stoppage? How many times does it seem every player on the field bar 2 are on one side of the field?

How do you think the players are able to run that far?

Rotations.

whufc wrote:Do you actually notice how many interchanges are made during a game, does it ruin your football experience even when watching on t.v

Nah, just sh1ts me when I read the paper and it has now become a conversation topic like stat.

Reducing the number of interchange players will result in a higher level of fatigue among players. Fatigued players results in a drop in disposal efficiency (which they are apparently trying to counter with this rule, go figure that one out ).

Also, coaches will begin to employ tactics to conserve player stamina, which means we will see the game slow down and a return to the dominance of possession/tempo footy, which we all agree can be incredibly boring.

Just as Collingwood were forcing a change in tactics to agressive, attacking and generally exciting football (to which more coaches would have moved their game plans toward), we have this non-sensical rule that will prohibit the development of a game plan that could produce watchable games of footy.

Ridiculous move by the AFL, just doesn't make any sense.

Why...?

One day some player will have a heart attack