4 man interchange bench for SANFL

[Pseudo]

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.

Exactly. Where do you draw the line? The more you add, the better you can cover a bad run of injuries. However given that 5 injuries in a match is rare, the larger effect of a big interchange bench would be to change the nature of the game.

[Big Phil]

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

You've got me; in games where there are 3 serious injuries in the first half, the coach might have a little bit of trouble plugging the holes. And if that scenario happened more frequently than once in every hundred games or so, your point might even have been valid.

Okay Pseudo, if you say so...

I posted this poll not for the sake of making A POINT and to get the opinion of others on the topic at hand...

NOT to have an already "stated" over exaggerated example criticised and picked apart BUT to simply make a VOTE on the topic...

Keep on putting in the YES votes people, I reckon it is the way to go... I was only looking at Centrals squad released for sundays game against Ricky's Double Blues and was pondering which player(s) would drop to the reserves from the extended interchange... ?

ANSWER - A 4 man interchange bench means that someone else gets a League game and adds that something extra to the game...

GO U DOGGIES...

Big Phil...

[am Bays]

Can we have the option yes but can only be a replacement not interchange. That is the player that comes off can not go back on again.

Given that the argument about the increase is always about what if you get three injuries - very very rare i.e. once a season if that - keep that extra player for injury replacement.

Personally I would like to see two interchange two replacements on the bench - if its going to be increased...

[Tassie Blues]

easy way to fix the under 19 and 17's problem is run an under 18 comp and lay it before the reserves. Have an under 16's come run in conjunction with the schools

[Wedgie]

Exactly. Where do you draw the line? The more you add, the better you can cover a bad run of injuries. However given that 5 injuries in a match is rare, the larger effect of a big interchange bench would be to change the nature of the game.

Exactly, no need to draw the line at 3, might as well as keep going, no line's ever been drawn, no need to start now.
Injuries haven't changed a hell of a lot (could be argued but I doubt thats the case with the increase in the speed of the game) but duty of care was non existent in the past where it is a bigger issue by the day now.

If people are going to make stupid comments and say another interchange player will make the SANFL like the AFL then I say go for it as Geelong play a far better brand of football than any SANFL team Ive ever seen.

[Squawk]

Wont be long and doubles tennis will have an interchange bench in case someone gets injured.

I'm all for giving players a go Big Phil but will selecting another player to go on the bench achieve anything more than can be achieved now? Increasing from 2 to 3 players hasn't meant that coaches are using the 3 spot as a development spot week in and week out.

We use four balls a game - are we gonna start rotating them? Interchanging the balls on a wet and muddy day to keep the game going faster? Extend the breaks to give players more of a rest and allow more TV commercials on the AwFuL networks?

There's been too much meddling with the game in too small a space of time - mostly with commercial interests in mid and I'm always skeptical about player welfare issues with injury during games. Welfare always becomes an issue at State of Origin time but an 80% fit Chris Judd is happy to run around for home and away games.

Coaching panel numbers have also exploded but do we think this has enhanced the game? In fact, I bet that now I think about it this expansion has contributed to player rotations in a big way because many different eyes are monitoring different lines on the field. How many interchanges are generated by the head coach and how many by their assistant coaches?

[Pseudo]

Can we have the option yes but can only be a replacement not interchange. That is the player that comes off can not go back on again.

Given that the argument about the increase is always about what if you get three injuries - very very rare i.e. once a season if that - keep that extra player for injury replacement.

Personally I would like to see two interchange two replacements on the bench - if its going to be increased...

Tassie for the Win! Possibly the most intelligent post on this thread thus far.

Only problem I can think of: If there are no injuries then a replacement player would spend the whole game on the bench. Might even spend the whole game on the bench anyway, if he's brought on to the interchange and then not used. I reckon most players would rather suit up in the reserves than run the risk of spending the whole game on the sidelines. Might not be a huge problem if the emergency players are rotated in and out of the reserves every week, but then you run the risk of having a low-calibre player in the emergency slot when an injury hits.

Nice idea though, worthy of thought.

[JK]

Injuries haven't changed a hell of a lot (could be argued but I doubt thats the case with the increase in the speed of the game) but duty of care was non existent in the past where it is a bigger issue by the day now.

An excellent, excellent point Wedge.

[Hondo]

IIRC the AFL are doing a study currently (via an external expert) on the correlation between the number of interchanges and the injury-rate to see if there's a link either way .... or no link at all maybe!

That was one of the reasons for trialling the interchange limit in the NAB Cup, so they could gather data.

Hopefully it will shed some light because currently everyone guesses and there's schools of thought on both sides (ie, faster bursts cause more injuries or more rests prevent them) that both sound very plausible. But who's right?

[am Bays]

Tassie for the Win! Possibly the most intelligent post on this thread thus far.

Only problem I can think of: If there are no injuries then a replacement player would spend the whole game on the bench. Might even spend the whole game on the bench anyway, if he's brought on to the interchange and then not used. I reckon most players would rather suit up in the reserves than run the risk of spending the whole game on the sidelines. Might not be a huge problem if the emergency players are rotated in and out of the reserves every week, but then you run the risk of having a low-calibre player in the emergency slot when an injury hits.

Nice idea though, worthy of thought.

NAh the idea would be like the old days the two replacement players could come on for tactical or injury purposes but the person they replace could not come back on. A given for an injury replacement but alsao valuable "fresh legs option for teh last 10-15 mins of the last qtr...

The replacement player could be interchanged with one of the two designated interchange players at any one time.

A wise coach wouldn't want to over-commit both replacements early but gives the coach flexibility for major tactical change in a game and injury cover given that the the current coaches are citing injuries as a reason for increasing the "bench".

With respect to the "replacement" players they could be from the reserves game. Rugby League used to have the situation where clubs were allowed four replacement players (not interchange) those players were from the reserves. That is at the end of the game four players were picked to sit on the bench for the A grade.

In my above proposal the use of reserves players to fill the two replacement spots could be considered.

[CUTTERMAN]

Tassie for the Win! Possibly the most intelligent post on this thread thus far.

Only problem I can think of: If there are no injuries then a replacement player would spend the whole game on the bench. Might even spend the whole game on the bench anyway, if he's brought on to the interchange and then not used. I reckon most players would rather suit up in the reserves than run the risk of spending the whole game on the sidelines. Might not be a huge problem if the emergency players are rotated in and out of the reserves every week, but then you run the risk of having a low-calibre player in the emergency slot when an injury hits.

Nice idea though, worthy of thought.

NAh the idea would be like the old days the two replacement players could come on for tactical or injury purposes but the person they replace could not come back on. A given for an injury replacement but alsao valuable "fresh legs option for teh last 10-15 mins of the last qtr...

The replacement player could be interchanged with one of the two designated interchange players at any one time.

A wise coach wouldn't want to over-commit both replacements early but gives the coach flexibility for major tactical change in a game and injury cover given that the the current coaches are citing injuries as a reason for increasing the "bench".

With respect to the "replacement" players they could be from the reserves game. Rugby League used to have the situation where clubs were allowed four replacement players (not interchange) those players were from the reserves. That is at the end of the game four players were picked to sit on the bench for the A grade.

In my above proposal the use of reserves players to fill the two replacement spots could be considered.

I initially thought it should be only used as a replacement for an injured player but you make a good point Pseudo and Tas. I think it should be 3-4 on the bench and one as a replacement player. The bench seriously has to be looked at as 2 injuries in the 1st half of a game can ruin a team with todays rotations. With the danger of giving Bays fans ammo, look at the Glenelg v Sturt game at the Bay late last year, Herring and Thomson both out in the first half.

[Wedgie]

Good to see communication amongst clubs is working well.

North and Glenelg the only clubs to support the concept at SANFL level while Andrew Jarman, Rick Macgowan, Ron Fuller, Jack Cahill and Andrew Collins support the concept with Mark Mickan is against it.

WTF???

Well done to the 2 or 3 clubs that are on the same page as their coach (North, Central and maybe others that weren't mentioned)

[Big Phil]

Good to see communication amongst clubs is working well.

North and Glenelg the only clubs to support the concept at SANFL level while Andrew Jarman, Rick Macgowan, Ron Fuller, Jack Cahill and Andrew Collins support the concept with Mark Mickan is against it.

WTF???

Well done to the 2 or 3 clubs that are on the same page as their coach (North, Central and maybe others that weren't mentioned)

Interesting to see the article on todays Advertiser about the 4 man interchange bench and good to see the majority of coaches support the idea.

Now if they could ALL please log onto this great web site and cast their YES votes, I would greatly appreciate that... !!!

GO U DOGGIES...

Big Phil...

[Wedgie]

I think all talk on the matter from clubs or coaches (and any ensuing rule changes) should be put on hold if a study is being done as Hondo suggested. We are all basically just guessing if its needed or not but I would suspect coaches would have more of an idea than most of us.

[Dog_ger]

After reading the coaches comments in the saturday advertiser, if they are correct?

Give em 4 interchange players at SANFL level.

Why are we the only state that has not followed everyone else and made the rules standard

throughout the country?

[stan]

Although with the extra rotation it will change the game, remember this, the game is changing, its getting faster and better skills are required. This is putting more physical pressure on the players.

[Big Phil]

With the smash and crash style of the Showdown on the weekend, I bet Neil Craig wished he had a 5 man interchange in the AFL...

I really hope the SANFL hierachy take it into seriuos consideration for a 4th interchange player in the SANFL in 2009.

Big Phil...

[Redandblack00]

it has to come in soon.

[Big Phil]

If what I heard is correct about the North v Port game, I reckon this topic deserves another run of debates...

Not yet confirmed, but apparently Jars had to deal with no fit men once again on the interchange at Alberton today ???

If this was the case, no doubt the outspoken Andrew 'Newton' Jarman will be keen to express his desire once again for the SANFL to stop saying they will review it but actually do something about it. Maybe some research or maybe give it a go in the early trial games next year ?

Despite plenty of justified FOR and AGAINST arguments both way, I still find it rediculous that we are the only state league competition in the country (and supposedly the best) that DOESN'T have 4 men available to coaches on the bench ???

I reckon we need to push it even more to see it in the SANFL next year, as proven there are plenty of iffluential people that totally agree with me. The only problem with this though, is that the SANFL hierachy seem oblivious to the need of the extra interchange player. But then again, it is the opinion of many other posters on this forum that think the SANFL aren't up to speed with a lot of topical thigs recently, icluding the tribunal inconsistancies ??? Will be interested to see what happens in 2009 and beyond ?

Big Phil...

[Adelaide Hawk]

The idea of the interchange bench was to take a player off if they were injured, and have the capacity to return him to play if necessary. It was ensure clubs didn't risk further injury by leaving an injured player on the field. The whole idea of the bench is to ensure a team has 18 fit players on the field. Rarely do you ever see a side with more injuries than the bench can handle.

Then coaches decided it would be a good idea to interchange ruckmen on the bench. After that they decided to rotate midfielders for fresh legs. The AFL decided 3 wasn't enough so it was extended to 4. Now they are screaming out for more. The reasons are they want more rotations from the bench. It has meant less 1-on-1 contests, and midfielders don't really know who they are standing these days.

The SANFL have it right. Three players on the bench is plenty. Very rarely does a team ever have more than 3 injured players in a game. The only reason an extra player would be required is to enable coaches to rotate players more often. We don't need this in the SANFL because players are not as fit as those in the AFL and the game is played at a more comfortable pace.

Why do we need an extra interchange? A coach may say, "I had two injured players, so that only left me with one fit player on the Interchange". So what? That means he still has 18 fit players on the field.

They may then say, "But having only 1 fit player on the bench gives me a disadvantage with other teams who have 3". So therefore I ask the question, "How will extending the interchange bench solve this problem?".

If you extend the bench to 4 players, and two of them are injured, that STILL means you are at a disadvantage, only now you have 2 fit players to the opposition team's 4. Extend the bench to 6 players and you still have only 4 to their 6, etc, etc.

Extending the interchange bench gives rise to wanting more because coaches alter their style of coaching. I don't want the SANFL to end up like the AFL. I don't want to see coaches spending their entire time running rotations rather than coach the team. I want to watch football, not coaches playing chess.