SA Footy

A few years in now and it comes under scrutiny on a regular basis, what's your take on it?

Get rid of it, I dont know anyone that likes the rule. The clubs dont like it, get rid of it FFS!

In the minortity, but I actually don't mind it, though can understand the players not liking it.

Perhaps get rid of it and make it that if a player comes off he has to spend at least a certain amount of time, maybe 2-3 minutes of actual playing time, or 4 or 5 minutes of clock time, on the bench.

I think it creates more injuries.

The original reason for bringing it in was because the coaches wanted the impact of an early injury to be negated (ie, the reduction from 22 to 21). The stats backed it up at the time if I recall correctly.

So there was validity in having it. However, it's terrible for the players and us, wondering why such and such a player has been left on the bench so long - obviously some of that being strategic on the coaches part.

I don't like it, but if it reverts back to 4 on the bench, will the same problems exist? I suspect so.

Scrap it and reduce interchange cap to 80

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-02-24/c ... o-80-walsh

gadj1976 wrote:The original reason for bringing it in was because the coaches wanted the impact of an early injury to be negated (ie, the reduction from 22 to 21). The stats backed it up at the time if I recall correctly.

So there was validity in having it. However, it's terrible for the players and us, wondering why such and such a player has been left on the bench so long - obviously some of that being strategic on the coaches part.

I don't like it, but if it reverts back to 4 on the bench, will the same problems exist? I suspect so.

I think the general public don't like it because of the popularity of fantasy football, how many times do you see someone inherit the vest only to see a team mate injured within minutes, as far as I'm concerned, it wasn't broken at 22, why fix it?
Who cares about rotations etc? AS long as only 22 are on the field at any given time all should be good.

Banker wrote:Scrap it and reduce interchange cap to 80

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-02-24/c ... o-80-walsh

Why do you see a need to reduce the interchange?

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Banker wrote:Scrap it and reduce interchange cap to 80

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-02-24/c ... o-80-walsh

Why do you see a need to reduce the interchange?

because another part of the reason for introducing the sub rule was to slow the game down a little bit, to reduce injury as players arent hitting as hard. Another way they could do this is have the interchange cap, which seems to be working, and so there is less of a need for the sub rule.

One thing which i think could work well is just limiting when interchanges can occur.

Ie you cant run off at any time, it has to be at a stoppage in play, which could be after a goal, or a forward 50 mark for instance. Maybe 50m penalties too. These instances are breaks in the game long enough to get players on and off without affecting the game, and would also introduce a cap in effect.

The problem is in a low scoring arm wrestle this might decrease the chances for interchange to 30 or something, which might be just too low.

Thoughts?

bennymacca wrote:because another part of the reason for introducing the sub rule was to slow the game down a little bit, to reduce injury as players arent hitting as hard. Another way they could do this is have the interchange cap, which seems to be working, and so there is less of a need for the sub rule.

One thing which i think could work well is just limiting when interchanges can occur.

Ie you cant run off at any time, it has to be at a stoppage in play, which could be after a goal, or a forward 50 mark for instance. Maybe 50m penalties too. These instances are breaks in the game long enough to get players on and off without affecting the game, and would also introduce a cap in effect.

The problem is in a low scoring arm wrestle this might decrease the chances for interchange to 30 or something, which might be just too low.

Thoughts?

I think the amount of interchanges per game is ridiculous, especially when you see players running to the bench flapping their arms because no one is ready when they have a scheduled change, there's only 80 minutes "playing" time, wouldn't you prefer to be on the field.
On the same token, I think it also retards teams to some degree with the interchange's as players are out of position and have very limited chance of being involved in the next play.
I don't think it's broken, I don't think it should be capped, just scrap the sub rule and I can get on with life again.

Lightning McQueen wrote:

Banker wrote:Scrap it and reduce interchange cap to 80

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-02-24/c ... o-80-walsh

Why do you see a need to reduce the interchange?

Because the sub rule was created to reduce the impact of injuries on the result.

Statistics proved that teams that sustained a high amount interchange rotations late in the game had an advantage.

The sub rule was a band-aid solution to the root cause of the problem from the ridiculous amount of rotations more akin to Ice Hockey.


Part of the skill & strategy of Australian Rules is resting tired midfielders across the ground and rewarding the highly skilled players that can play multiple positions

Lightning McQueen wrote:

gadj1976 wrote:The original reason for bringing it in was because the coaches wanted the impact of an early injury to be negated (ie, the reduction from 22 to 21). The stats backed it up at the time if I recall correctly.

So there was validity in having it. However, it's terrible for the players and us, wondering why such and such a player has been left on the bench so long - obviously some of that being strategic on the coaches part.

I don't like it, but if it reverts back to 4 on the bench, will the same problems exist? I suspect so.

I think the general public don't like it because of the popularity of fantasy football, how many times do you see someone inherit the vest only to see a team mate injured within minutes, as far as I'm concerned, it wasn't broken at 22, why fix it?
Who cares about rotations etc? AS long as only 22 are on the field at any given time all should be good.

You're more likely to suffer injury in a fatigued state. Reducing rotations will lead to higher incidence of fatigue and therefore higher incidence of injuries.

Get rid of the sub rule, get rid of a rotations cap.

Q. wrote:You're more likely to suffer injury in a fatigued state. Reducing rotations will lead to higher incidence of fatigue and therefore higher incidence of injuries.

Get rid of the sub rule, get rid of a rotations cap.

Not according to the report I read, which formed the basis for all of this. I'll try and find a link

The biggest correlation was speed of player impact which increased in line with the increase in interchanges

Coach Bombay wrote:

Lightning McQueen wrote:

gadj1976 wrote:The original reason for bringing it in was because the coaches wanted the impact of an early injury to be negated (ie, the reduction from 22 to 21). The stats backed it up at the time if I recall correctly.

So there was validity in having it. However, it's terrible for the players and us, wondering why such and such a player has been left on the bench so long - obviously some of that being strategic on the coaches part.

I don't like it, but if it reverts back to 4 on the bench, will the same problems exist? I suspect so.

I think the general public don't like it because of the popularity of fantasy football, how many times do you see someone inherit the vest only to see a team mate injured within minutes, as far as I'm concerned, it wasn't broken at 22, why fix it?
Who cares about rotations etc? AS long as only 22 are on the field at any given time all should be good.

D'oh, was trying to squeeze the post in while someone was standing nest to me waiting for me to go to a meeting!

I know what I meant

I don't mind the idea of subs but I think the rules around it are a bit odd. Plus I can't stand the vest. Doesn't do anything useful and just makes professional athletes look ridiculous.

Personally, I think go back to 22 and perhaps look into the idea of unlimited subs. Sumbit a list of active players to the opposition and match day officials. Any of them can come on to replace a player at any time if needed as the current sub does. Suddenly we never have uneven numbers. Subs should be able to play another game at a lower level though, but the AFL shouldn't have much trouble managing the work load. You're also not going to see wholesale changes made. Hawthorn won't be subbing off Lewis, Hodge and Mitchell at 3/4 time to get some more run from a fringe player.

Grahaml wrote:I don't mind the idea of subs but I think the rules around it are a bit odd. Plus I can't stand the vest. Doesn't do anything useful and just makes professional athletes look ridiculous.

Personally, I think go back to 22 and perhaps look into the idea of unlimited subs. Sumbit a list of active players to the opposition and match day officials. Any of them can come on to replace a player at any time if needed as the current sub does. Suddenly we never have uneven numbers. Subs should be able to play another game at a lower level though, but the AFL shouldn't have much trouble managing the work load. You're also not going to see wholesale changes made. Hawthorn won't be subbing off Lewis, Hodge and Mitchell at 3/4 time to get some more run from a fringe player.

no, but they might sub off the bottom half of their team.

i really dont like that idea - would turn into NFL pretty quickly

Couldnt care less, dont care if a team makes 1000 interchanges or none, Never gone home from the footy and said "Gee, Hawthorn make a lot of interchanges". Could have 10 on the bench for all i care. As long as we dont stop the game to make changes teams can make as many interchanges as they want

beef wrote:Couldnt care less, dont care if a team makes 1000 interchanges or none, Never gone home from the footy and said "Gee, Hawthorn make a lot of interchanges". Could have 10 on the bench for all i care. As long as we dont stop the game to make changes teams can make as many interchanges as they want

I thought you'd have no beef.

Was speaking to an AFL captain recently and he was all for playing games every 5 days and taking the season out to 34 games with the possibilty of an increase in the team lists on game day. He thought this would slow the game down too. I dont mind it, I reckon the stars of the comp would play every game and just be rested in the 2nd halves of insignificant games already won.