SA Footy

brod wrote:

carey wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:Gee the Roos made hard work of it today.

I'm waiting for Geelong to do the same

Cats by 104 points.

How bad is Schoenmakers

Runs around like a baby giraffe

Welcome back the great man!

North coach Brad Scott complains about not being able to replace a player through the blood rule because he'd already used up his 90 interchanges...

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-10/b ... stmatch-r3

Has he considered the concept of saving a few interchanges up his sleeve to allow for these things?

westozfalcon wrote:North coach Brad Scott complains about not being able to replace a player through the blood rule because he'd already used up his 90 interchanges...

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-04-10/b ... stmatch-r3

Has he considered the concept of saving a few interchanges up his sleeve to allow for these things?

I thought he had a fair point.

They had used their 90 rotations, and then petrie gets the blood rule. They can replace petrie without penalty. But if he tries to come back on the ground they had to use a rotation. Would have thought maybe they could put petrie back on and take his replacement off without penalty, basically back as it was before the blood rule

He absolutely has a point. Coaches shouldn't keep a change or two up their sleeve and they shouldn't need to. Does beg the question of whether ANY blood rule interchange should count. It is after all an umpire forced change, not one the coaches select. My inclination is they should all be free.

Nope coaches should allow for it, leave a couple up their sleeve. No different to the sub rule, coaches would run the gauntlet if they were trailing and sub early in the 3rd and if they got an injury after that bad luck

Tough one .. I like Graham's suggestion of Blood Rules not counting as a rotation, but then even that could be open to abuse. I guess at the end of the day, the rules apply to both competing clubs going into a game, so that might negate Scott's (which aren't unreasonable) concerns.

Can they not just get the trainer to take the bloke off behind the goals or out away from the play and patch him up?

We certainly don't want to go down this road :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodgate

JK wrote:Tough one .. I like Graham's suggestion of Blood Rules not counting as a rotation, but then even that could be open to abuse. I guess at the end of the day, the rules apply to both competing clubs going into a game, so that might negate Scott's (which aren't unreasonable) concerns.

I thought about that and I don't see how it would be abused. Just to come off they'd have to break some pretty serious rules that could lead to suspensions (or worse if the club is involved). Would hardly be worth it IMHO.

daysofourlives wrote:Nope coaches should allow for it, leave a couple up their sleeve. No different to the sub rule, coaches would run the gauntlet if they were trailing and sub early in the 3rd and if they got an injury after that bad luck

A coach gets 90 interchanges a game. They should be able to choose when and who they apply to. Vastly different to the sub rule, which worked so well they scrapped it. Don't we all want to see teams at their best, especially when the game comes down to the wire? Imagine a coach being asked why he held a couple rotations up his sleeve when he could have given some players a break to be fresher for the last 5 minutes and he replied that he needed to keep a couple up his sleeve in case there was a blood rule. What a farce!

Grahaml wrote:

JK wrote:Tough one .. I like Graham's suggestion of Blood Rules not counting as a rotation, but then even that could be open to abuse. I guess at the end of the day, the rules apply to both competing clubs going into a game, so that might negate Scott's (which aren't unreasonable) concerns.

I thought about that and I don't see how it would be abused. Just to come off they'd have to break some pretty serious rules that could lead to suspensions (or worse if the club is involved). Would hardly be worth it IMHO.

Yeah you'd think the AFL would be able to stress any abuse of it would result in severe penalty, pretty easily.l

The fact that it was Brad Scott "whinging" again & not a Clarkson or a Beveridge suggesting it, also would play a part in people's opinions on this.

Spargo wrote:The fact that it was Brad Scott "whinging" again & not a Clarkson or a Beveridge suggesting it, also would play a part in people's opinions on this.

Correct, he does.