4 man interchange bench for SANFL

[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.

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

No drama's mate, was probably just the way I read it, my issue isn't with the the actual interchange numbers anyway, I don't think anyone (pre-game) gains any advantage whether it be 3 or 4.

Im usually anti-change just by nature (not the greatest quality I know) and TB does raise a good point, but I can see us moving to 4 in the not too distant future anyway I'd imagine (prob as early as next year), although the Salary Cap would need to be adjusted accordingly (1 additional league payment per week) I think and I'm not sure the AFL will be too pleased about that.

[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.

Because he MALfunctions in front of a computer I've cut and pasted this from a PM'd from MAL at his request...

DICTIONARY DEFINTION
_____________________

ELUCIDATED
= to make clear, to free from obscurity, to explain

And I thought T80 was referring to a girl I once dated called Lucy ...

T80 we both agree on this point then

In the days before the interchange with 20 players
The only time a side clearly gets an advantage is if a 3rd player is severely injured
Otherwise it was 18 v 18 on the field if only 2 or less get injured
Sure in the last 5-15 minutes of a game the side with no injuries can afford the fresh interchange player and have an advantage of sorts in that period

In todays footy if a player is injured and unable to play its almost an immediate advantage as it becomes 22 v 21
The rotations can speed up the advantage and prosper or disadvantage a side as early as say about 1/2 time

Anyhows what the AFL needs to ELUCIDATE [I love that word now] is to view how often players in the last 10 years have been injured and incapacitated and how often an interchange was required in the recovery process.
I would say approx 12 times a game ???

I REITERATE
12 INTERCHANGES IS SUFFICE
That way its used for injured players and not as a chess tactic to win a game of footy

[mal]

Just to ELUCIDATE what Tassie did on my behalf :
I was meaning to Quote a T80 post but sent it to T80 as a Private message instead by mistake.
Tassie was kind enough to post this inforMALity for me.

[TigerBoss]

Just to ELUCIDATE what Tassie did on my behalf :
I was meaning to Quote a T80 post but sent it to T80 as a Private message instead by mistake.
Tassie was kind enough to post this inforMALity for me.

So one could assume you have engaged in some MALpractice of the use of quotes and PM functionalities?

[spell_check]

More interchange players = more rotations = more running = more flooding.

You add another player in there, then when 3 or 4 gets injured during a match, then there will be calls to make it 5 interchange players...

[Blue Boy]

I went with the 4 ont the bench !!!

[Adelaide Hawk]

More interchange players = more rotations = more running = more flooding.

You add another player in there, then when 3 or 4 gets injured during a match, then there will be calls to make it 5 interchange players...

This is it Spelly. Coaches "say" they want more interchanges because of injuries, but they really want them for rotations.

The injury argument simply doesn't stack up. You have 21 players, 1 gets injured, you're down 20 fit players to 21. You have 22 players, 1 gets injured, you're down 21 fit players to 22.

No matter how many interchange you introduce, you will still be in the red the moment someone gets injured.

For SANFL to remain some semblance of footy the way it should be played, it's important we don't extend the interchange. Leave it the way it is. Coaches are ruining the game.

[JK]

Coaches are ruining the game.

Dunno that I agree with that mate ... They might use rules in ways they weren't intended, but they still remain within the confines of the laws (by the letter).

[Adelaide Hawk]

Coaches are ruining the game.

Dunno that I agree with that mate ... They might use rules in ways they weren't intended, but they still remain within the confines of the laws (by the letter).

I would think just about every major change to rules, as well as the way the game is played, can be attributed to coaches imposing their will in order to gain success.

[JK]

Coaches are ruining the game.

Dunno that I agree with that mate ... They might use rules in ways they weren't intended, but they still remain within the confines of the laws (by the letter).

I would think just about every major change to rules, as well as the way the game is played, can be attributed to coaches imposing their will in order to gain success.

No question they push for them mate, but what does that say about the spine of the rulemakers themselves, who at the end of the day, are the ones that decide the direction of the game?

[Hondo]

Coaches have the incentive to push the boundaries to get whatever edge they can. Coaches exploiting the rules lead to out-of-bounds-on-the full, the 50m penalty, the diving on the ball rule.

Plus most of the tactics people dislike in the modern game are nothing to do with rule changes - flooding, keepings off, time-wasting. Hey, its the coaches that pushed for the extra interchange players! This forces us to look at possibly more rule changes ...

That's not to say administrators escape "blame" - the rushed behind seems to be exploited more since they allowed immediate play-on from points, for example.

So I'd lay more blame (if that's the right word) for changes to the game on the coaches than the administrators. Altho I see it more as natural evolution which every sport has to go through. The essence of the game always stays the same tho which is why I still love it!
______________________________________________

BACK ON TOPIC - I was interested to hear Rodney Eade's view on rotations. He said the coaches have found that there is, in fact, a glass ceiling on the number of rotations in a game. They have found around 80-90 is the optimal number. Above that, it becomes counter-productive because the players spend too much time leaving and entering the ground, lose the flow of the game and the match-up changes take up too much coaching time.

So I don't think from here that increasing the interchange players will increase rotations and we might actually find it does nothing more than provide the injury back-up. To me, a couple of spare players for injury back-up (once the injured player leaves he cannot come back), seems the fairest solution. Teams shouldn't win because they have been luckier on the injury front IMO.

[Wedgie]

I can handle going to a 4 person bench BUT I think the idea of trialling it in the finals is ludicrious, trial it in practise games maybe.

[CENTURION]

I think that ALL players, bar one per side, should start on the interchange & when a side kicks a goal, one more from that side is allowed onto the oval! WHAT A CONCEPT!!

[mal]

INTERCHANGE = JOKE

Wont be long b4 we have 4 on the field and 18 on the bench ....

[Adelaide Hawk]

Is there some unwritten rule in football that we aren't allowed to go for 12 months without having to change something?

[CENTURION]

Is there some unwritten rule in football that we aren't allowed to go for 12 months without having to change something?

I think that we should vote to change the name from foortball, to football!

[CENTURION]

You are quick, Adelaide Hawk!

[Adelaide Hawk]

Is there some unwritten rule in football that we aren't allowed to go for 12 months without having to change something?

I think that we should vote to change the name from foortball, to football!

Huh?

[CENTURION]

Is there some unwritten rule in football that we aren't allowed to go for 12 months without having to change something?

I think that we should vote to change the name from foortball, to football!

Huh?

I'm not pissed but I could have SWORN that you typed foortball! Looks like I've got 'em again!!

[Big Phil]

Getting this back on track...

AH, the SANFL doesn't have to change a rule every 12 months but when the need arises it should be addressed and seriously considered. I think having a 4th interchange player is something that has to be seriously considered and I really hope it comes into fruition in 2009 and beyond...