4 man interchange bench for SANFL

[Wedgie]

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.

Exactly, the game's changing, and when 1 club has it happen twice in 3 games its pretty obvious to all and sundry that its a more common occurance these days in the past.
I was undecided about this previous but having witnessed it twice in 3 games and knowing what the duty of care laws in regard to employers are like these days its an absolute no brainer.
Must come in otherwise someone's going to get their arse sued off, that's a worse case scenario, best case scenario is that a better side on the daywill lose a few games this year, possibly an important match.
Don't agree with Jarman on too many things but its an obvious rule change for the SANFL now. No arguments about it.

[Big Phil]

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.

Exactly, the game's changing, and when 1 club has it happen twice in 3 games its pretty obvious to all and sundry that its a more common occurance these days in the past.
I was undecided about this previous but having witnessed it twice in 3 games and knowing what the duty of care laws in regard to employers are like these days its an absolute no brainer.
Must come in otherwise someone's going to get their arse sued off, that's a worse case scenario, best case scenario is that a better side on the daywill lose a few games this year, possibly an important match.
Don't agree with Jarman on too many things but its an obvious rule change for the SANFL now. No arguments about it.

Well Wedgie,

It is good to witness that you haven finally seen the light and come on board the bandwagon mate !!!

The most important question is though....

Did you cast your "YES" vote on the poll ???

GO U DOGGIES...

Big Phil...

[Wedgie]

Think I voted no, can I change it?

[johntheclaret]

Voted Yes after todays wipe out. Twice in 3 games we have been undermanned through injuries.

North should be allowed a 6 man interchange, to cover for the three injuries we get each week

[rod_rooster]

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.

Exactly, the game's changing, and when 1 club has it happen twice in 3 games its pretty obvious to all and sundry that its a more common occurance these days in the past.
I was undecided about this previous but having witnessed it twice in 3 games and knowing what the duty of care laws in regard to employers are like these days its an absolute no brainer.
Must come in otherwise someone's going to get their arse sued off, that's a worse case scenario, best case scenario is that a better side on the day will lose a few games this year, possibly an important match.
Don't agree with Jarman on too many things but its an obvious rule change for the SANFL now. No arguments about it.

Happened today

[johntheclaret]

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.

Exactly, the game's changing, and when 1 club has it happen twice in 3 games its pretty obvious to all and sundry that its a more common occurance these days in the past.
I was undecided about this previous but having witnessed it twice in 3 games and knowing what the duty of care laws in regard to employers are like these days its an absolute no brainer.
Must come in otherwise someone's going to get their arse sued off, that's a worse case scenario, best case scenario is that a better side on the day will lose a few games this year, possibly an important match.
Don't agree with Jarman on too many things but its an obvious rule change for the SANFL now. No arguments about it.

Happened today

I guess on that basis, and BTW I agree with you, the better side did lose today, but for the wrong reasons. We had the injuries and they didn't, so a 4 man i/c would make a bigger mockery of the result than it already was.

[Wedgie]

Port will be asking for no bench after today!

[oldfella]

I voted no.

As many have noted above the increase in the AFL has not resolved the lack of fit player issue rather seems to have compounded it.


I believe;

1. limit number of interchanges per quarter to 15-20
(A) Blood rule interchange excluded and free replacement.
(B) Stretcher case interchange excluded and free replacement as above however present time limit rules apply except
in last quarter.
(C) Any breech determined to be deliberate tactic - club to lose 1 premiership point.
OOOOOH for the days where ruck man etc rested in the forward pocket.

The game needs slowing down in my opinion.

[Adelaide Hawk]

The game needs slowing down in my opinion.

Best comment I've read so far. We are seeing skills deteriorate in the name of leg speed and it's making the game less attractive to watch IMHO. Too many players hurriedly forcing the ball onto their boot, kicking around corners, etc. More interchange would only serve to exacerbate the situation. Slow it down.

[Big Phil]

DON'T LISTEN TO THEM PEOPLE...

JUST VOTE YES, YES, YES...

WE HAVE TO HAVE IT IN THE SANFL NEXT YEAR, NO QUESTION ABOUT IT...

Big Phil...

[drebin]

I think we should have 4 on the bench to bring us in line with every other State league around the country.

From a North point of view our injury and player management is an area of concern and has been for the past 4 seasons. There are way too many hamstring injuries and so early in the season? Daniel Ward is starting to go the way of Koops - plays a quarter, gets inured and then misses a few and already has "pinged" his hammy in 3 of the 4 games he has got on the park this year! Shannon Motlop with his hammies and ankle is also looking like he will miss more than he plays and let's hope he is not rushed back too early like they did last year.

[CUTTERMAN]

I don't see the problem if you have the 3 rotational, like it is now and one that can only be a straight swap in case of injury, like it used to be. There could be an argument against this for the guy sitting on the bench all day, but you could maybe still do a player swap, eg a fullback is getting towelled up, has 8 goals against him by 1/2 time so you drag him from the game. It would still keep the pace of the game as is but do something to ward against the effects of 2 players out as of injury.

[Hondo]

You can't slow the game down any more than you can make players less strong

Some people I speak to in the fitness area reckon Aussie rules footballers still have a long way to go when it comes to fitness and preparation so its only going to get faster

There will always be a fitter team to emulate, or a better skilled team to beat by being fitter so unless we accept this reality, the same 21 blokes are going to get flogged more and more as time goes on.

Where will it end? How many is enough? Who knows? But why are the SANFL the only major comp in Australia sticking to 3? Why do we want to re-invent the wheel and have a 3 rotation + 1 injury back-up system when no-one else does it that way?

[TroyGFC]

All for it, keep the rules of game standard over all comps.Also gives some players a chance to play league and not dropped once AFL listed players come into side. Scrap 17/19's and make a powerful U18's comp.

[Big Phil]

After the issues Port Magpies had on the weekend against North having to bring Jeremy Clayton back onto the field late with a shoulder injury sustained earlier in the game, it once again begs the question... (I also discussed it on the Port v North review thread and posted a link to here)

SHOULD THE SANFL HAVE A 4 MAN INTERCHANGE BENCH... ???

I've been saying this for the last 3 years and I think the SANFL have just fobbed off suggestions regarding it. Yes, they have polled the clubs regarding the option and I think it was a 4 / 5 split against, but FFS, surely common sense should prevail ??? SURELY...

I say bring it in for season 2009, FOR SURE... Read some of the for and against opinions throughout the post and voice your opinion...

YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES..... Say yes please people....

Big Phil...

[peterg]

It means the under 17s would have to find another 4 kids from somewhere (it is already hard enough to find enough decent players with the schools poaching players all the time) and would make the standard of every grade a bit weaker.

the best player from the Reserves would be sitting on the bench in the League
the 2 best players from the under 19s would be sitting on the bench in the Reserves
the 3 best players from the under 17s would be sitting on the bench in the Under 19s.

Do we really want this

Plus there are the extra costs involved with having extra players, meaning there would be less room in the salary caps to attract players to the SANFL.

This can't be a bad thing .. plus, the "extra costs" would be absorbed by the added numbers coming to the games (isn't that the idea?) .. plus, as it has already been said, it gives more kids more chances of getting a guernsey, and so be exposed to those who might be fishing for other leagues ..

My vote -

[Psyber]

Port will be asking for no bench after today!

Just noticed this - I was away for a while after it was posted.
Port relied heavily on there being no interchange bench back in the 1950's and 1960s, making sure opposing teams never played the match with 18 fit players on the field!

They weren't alone. Whatever team Neil Kerley was coaching at any time used a similar technique.

[Locky]

Big Phil,

I thought the idea of a poll was to gauge the views of the forumites? If each of your posts is going to be used to badger people into voting YES, then what you want is a petition mate.

For my view, Adelaide Hawk has it spot on. I've not seen 1 convincing argument for changing it yet. Only 1 with any credibility is the duty of care thing, but is there any evidence that a bench of 4 provides more care than one of 3? Are there less injuries in the AFL than in the SANFL? There should be, given they're full time athletes with all the best facilities and staff, their bodies should be better prepared. Or like a bigger bench, does this nullify the injury related benefits by speeding up the game?

[Big Phil]

Big Phil,

I thought the idea of a poll was to gauge the views of the forumites? If each of your posts is going to be used to badger people into voting YES, then what you want is a petition mate.

For my view, Adelaide Hawk has it spot on. I've not seen 1 convincing argument for changing it yet. Only 1 with any credibility is the duty of care thing, but is there any evidence that a bench of 4 provides more care than one of 3? Are there less injuries in the AFL than in the SANFL? There should be, given they're full time athletes with all the best facilities and staff, their bodies should be better prepared. Or like a bigger bench, does this nullify the injury related benefits by speeding up the game?

Alright, so I might have been a tad over the top with my push of getting peoples opinion on this which BTW has 57% of votes in favour of it

I understand what you are saying mate, but I just think it seems logical to change to 4. Your opinion of not seeing 1 convincing argument to tilt in favour of changing to 4 is exactly that, your opinion. We are each entitled to one and of course, we are not all going to agree with each other. I think the SANFL will consider it and it's only a matter of time before it comes in, but hey, that's just my opinion...

[holden78]

Should be only 2 on the bench once they are taken off or inj they shouldent come back on.