4 man interchange bench for SANFL

[Big Phil]

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

What's the logic behind that holden78, doesn't make sense...

As if a team will take the field with 16 or 17 men against 18. With the fast pace of today's game, the amount of rotations used by coaches on the field and incorporating the bench, it seems common sense and logical to have 4 on the bench. But again, that's just IMHO

[holden78]

Thats how it used to be if the players cant hack it bad luck , but i suppose they could play footy back then and wanted to play for the jumper now they miss games with a slight calf ,hammy or split webbing between their fingers ,talk abt soft . Years gone by they would come back on lets sort out the ones who love the jumper , not just wimp out !!!!!!!!!!

[Punk Rooster]

Thats how it used to be if the players cant hack it bad luck , but i suppose they could play footy back then and wanted to play for the jumper now they miss games with a slight calf ,hammy or split webbing between their fingers ,talk abt soft . Years gone by they would come back on lets sort out the ones who love the jumper , not just wimp out !!!!!!!!!!

what a dumb post- carrying injury/sickness into a game is selfish.
I'd rather have a fully fit side than heroes declaring themselves fit when they are not.

[holden78]

They are not bringing injury in to the game they get injured during the game

[Psyber]

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

What's the logic behind that holden78, doesn't make sense...

As if a team will take the field with 16 or 17 men against 18. With the fast pace of today's game, the amount of rotations used by coaches on the field and incorporating the bench, it seems common sense and logical to have 4 on the bench. But again, that's just IMHO

That is how it was in the 1950s and 1960s before the interchange was introduced. There were two "reserves" and once a man went off he couldn't come back on, so teams played with injured men and made their injuries worse. The most violent team won - the system was skewed toward brutality not skill.

As I've said before in other threads, if you value violence over skill give them swords and brass knuckles.

[Big Phil]

Interesting to read in today's Advertiser this particular topic was brought back to life with Sturt's coach Rick MacGowan suggesting that the SANFL should perhaps trial the extra man on the bench for the finals series. I think it is a great idea, obviously, and I was happy to read the SANFL will be discussing it at an upcoming meeting, suggesting they are considering submitting the change to the comission. It's then up to the comission to decide of the change is worth it and make a decision from there and I think that they will make the right one.

I think it will be great to have 4 on the bench for the finals but more importantly in season 2009. Just think that a player who might have played a bit of league throughout the year but gets dropped due to AFL players coming back in, would be abloe to play in the finals and possibly win a premiership medallion. Also would be handy for coaches from a physical point of view with the finals always being a bit tougher and harder so the riskj of injury increases. I hope the SANFL see the light and we have 4 on the bench in season 2009 like all other state league cpmpetitions.

[CUTTERMAN]

Read that too BP, not sure I agree about the finals as a test though, maybe pick a few rounds in the year to test it out before using it in the finals. Needs to be done though.

[Thiele]

Gee West could of use the 4 man bench the other week against the Eagles

[Big Phil]

Gee West could of use the 4 man bench the other week against the Eagles

Yeah, think the article mentioned that Thiele...

To me, it seems simple logic to change to 4 on the bench, should have been done years ago...

[Mark_Beswick]

I'm a no...

1. Extra interchange usually benefits the top sides
2. More interchange is counter intuative with regards to injuries. Recent research suggests that players run harder at the end of the games due to higher rotations and collisions are greater when bodies are most tired hence more injuries are actually sustained over the course of a year
3. More interchange and rotations allows for more flooding owing to players running greater distances to help out their defences. I would like to see 2 interchange
4. Another option is 3 interchange and one reserve. The designated reserves replacemet cannot re-enter the arena if a team runs ot of players owing to injuries. This same concept could be used for 2 interchange and a 21st and 22nd man.

Thats my 2 xents worth in a cash economy that has no such teder these days!

[JK]

Interesting to read in today's Advertiser this particular topic was brought back to life with Sturt's coach Rick MacGowan suggesting that the SANFL should perhaps trial the extra man on the bench for the finals series. I think it is a great idea, obviously, and I was happy to read the SANFL will be discussing it at an upcoming meeting, suggesting they are considering submitting the change to the comission. It's then up to the comission to decide of the change is worth it and make a decision from there and I think that they will make the right one.

I'm stunned and have now heard it all ... What does it say about the comp if they are considering trialling a rule change during the most important part of the season?

[mal]

Less interchange = less rotations = less like basketball = more attractive football.

I wish Andrew Jarman would make up his mind. He is always critical of the way footy is played in the AFL (less 1-on-1 contests, etc), and yet he wants more interchange

The thing that makes SANFL enjoyable is the best players are on the park most of the match and that is how I like it. I don't want to watch footy where the hardest working person is the interchange steward.

I pay my money to watch footballers play, not coaches playing chess.

RATING 9.9
Could not agree more

[mal]

4 INTERCHANGE
2 get injured = 22 v 20

6 INTERCHANGE
2 get injured = 24 v 22

8 INTERCHANGE
2 get injured = 26 v 24

My point is as soon as one team has a player who is OUT of the game the other side gains an advantage
This is a greater advantage if 2 or 3 players are OUT of the game


The Interchange once indoctrinated to in theory protect sides from running out of players
BUT
Used thesedays MAINLY to rotate players as a deliberate tactical ploy

SOLUTION
I dont give a rats arse if there are 21/22/23/24/ man teams etc
JUST MAKE THE INTERCHANGE TO 3 PER QUARTER = 12 PER GAME or 12 IN TOTAL IN 4 QTRS.
If a team has 1 or more players injured the other side does not get an overwhelming advantage

EVOLUTION OF AFL FOOTBALL

FOOTBALL
BASKETBALL
CHESS

[am Bays]

If they are worried about replacing injured players have an extra player on the bench but twoa re interchange and twoa re replacements.

That is two interchange players can come and go as they want (As occurs now) but the two replacement palyers once they come on the player they came on for can not come back on again - i.e are for injured players or for a major structural change.

As the insightful MAL so correctly elucidated, increasing the size of the bench wont make one iota of difference to the disadvantage a side has if they cop an injury or two during the game. They are always going to be two players down irrespective if the bench is 3, 4 or 8 persons.

[CUTTERMAN]

I also would prefer 3 on the bench + 1 nominated player which can be used as a direct swap whether it be because of injury or form, but the other player can't come back on. Otherwise the point that Mal makes is the outcome.

[Big Phil]

Interesting to read in today's Advertiser this particular topic was brought back to life with Sturt's coach Rick MacGowan suggesting that the SANFL should perhaps trial the extra man on the bench for the finals series. I think it is a great idea, obviously, and I was happy to read the SANFL will be discussing it at an upcoming meeting, suggesting they are considering submitting the change to the comission. It's then up to the comission to decide of the change is worth it and make a decision from there and I think that they will make the right one.

I'm stunned and have now heard it all ... What does it say about the comp if they are considering trialling a rule change during the most important part of the season?

CP, it was just a suggestuion of Rick MacGowan, that's all. I don't think they will trial it, there isn't really anything to trial though IMO, the SANFL are either going to say YES or NO to it. It's not rocket science, I wouldn't think. I reckon they will go with it and change to the 4 but I guess we will just have to wait and see.

[JK]

No worries big Phella, from your post I thought it read as the SANFL were going to consider it's commissioning in trial basis for the finals.

I think most people believe we should be heading that way, so IMHO if they want to "trial" it, do so from the start of next season and roll it back thereafter if required (which I don't think would ever happen in any case), just to make sure the rules/playing conditions are standard for an entire season, that was my only concern with the above.

[TigerBoss]

I voted to keep the number to three...

You know it makes sense...eat lamb.

[Big Phil]

No worries big Phella, from your post I thought it read as the SANFL were going to consider it's commissioning in trial basis for the finals.

I think most people believe we should be heading that way, so IMHO if they want to "trial" it, do so from the start of next season and roll it back thereafter if required (which I don't think would ever happen in any case), just to make sure the rules/playing conditions are standard for an entire season, that was my only concern with the above.

Hey CP,

No worries mate, sorry if it wasn't clear enough in my original post regarding MacGowan's comments. I'm generally a glass half full kind of guy and to me in this instance, I can't really see why some people are against it ? Surely at the end of the day, the positives far outweigh the negatives and I think, like I keep saying, it has to come into effect next season as I reckon it is about 2 or 3 seasons overdue.

Cheers,

BP

[TigerBoss]

I don't want to see the SANFL increase the interchange numbers, simply because I think the spectacle of footy in the AFL has been diminished by clubs over-using interchange rotations...giving SANFL clubs an extra player will only give clubs this ability to increase bench rotations...

Stop changing the game.