SA Footy

Is it time to try and cap these somehow?

Has the AFL worked so hard to increase the speed of the game over such a long period of time, that it's now to the point of being dangerous and/or unhealthy?

Was an interesting discussion on "On The Couch" last night, and also managed to catch part of a Ricciutio article yesterday.

Roatation numbers virtually doubled between 2000 and 2005 and in 2010 we are now virtually double the amount again, meaning players are running faster than ever over the course of the game meaning greater penchant for impact and non-impact injury alike.

Does the game need to be slowed down to preserve the players of the game?

- Is there merit in Woosha's suggestion of limiting the number if interchanges per quarter?

- Is there merit in Neil Craigs inference, that leaving injured players on the ground (when there is noone left to replace them) could be an infringement of work place safety responsibility?

- Is there merit in Ricciutio's opinion of restricting the number of I/C changes and a somewhat return to the days of yesteryear by letting players rest in Forward Pockets and the like?

Personally I think the speed of the game creates for some great contested footy, well at ground level anyway (when not stuck in the netball "keepy off" moments), but I also think the footy field is becoming a more dangerous place particularly with the speed at which impact injuries can and do occur.

Is it all just a knee-jerk reaction or is there something in it?

AFL will introduce a law against this very shortly imho.

This is my biggest gripe with the AFL, they changed the rule about kicking out from a behind to speed things up, teams then kept rushing points as a tactic, so intstead of changing the rule back they create a new rule where you cant rush points behind.

This type situation has happened numerous times in the AFL.

I think it has to be done not just for the welfare issue but for the quality of the game.

This theory that the quicker the game is the better football being played works to a point, but passed that point a while back.

I haven't watched to many entertaining games this yr and thats bcos most of them have been scrap fests. Players are so much fitter to chase and harrass that the ball has to be moved so quickly and their skills just arent up to it. Clangers galore, scrappy passages of play, its annoying.

And if players aren't able to rest as much we could get rid of these full ground zones which create boring footy.

I'm just saying.. compare a game from circa 2005, even 2009 to today... I know what I'd rather watch!

I'm not sure what I think on capping rotations. I sort of feel that the game itself should sort that out but I haven't really thought too much about it. Perhaps it could be a per player limit rather than an overall limit.

What I do think might be better is having injury substitution players available where whoever comes off cannot go back on. Whether this be achieved by quarantining 2 of the existing bench or adding 2 more I'm not sure. But forcing injured players on to the field to make up numbers seems pretty stupid and risky when you think about it. The problem is there will be the occasional game where even 6 interchange players wouldn't be enough.

Great post CP

GENERATIONS
Ive watched footy since the 60s
The Interchange rotations in my opinion is making the game less skillfull
Teams are having to produce more athletical players with all the zoning styles
The current crop of football talent appears less skilled than a decade ago

CHAMPS
Champs used to play on the ball and rest usually in a pocket or flank
Importantly they stayed on the ground and this set a better skilled standard
Last Sunday Gary Ablett was rested late in the last qtr until a final burst in the last few minutes
Is this the way footy should be played ?
I hate seeing the best players rested

WHY DID WE
Was the Interchange , and numbers on the bench, mainly brought in originally to rest and recouperate injured players ?
It was surely never brought in to be overused and abused as it has ogred itself into

The AFL has introduced several new rules to stop the zoning gameplans, some are working OK, mostly all as a result of the Interchange ?

CHANGES
The best and most fairest way is to limit interchanges
12 per game is suffice
Thats enough to cover injured players in almost every game played
This I believe will bring in a generation of skillful players, and not the roboticals we are spurning
With only 12 Interchanges, sides with injures would be less disadvantaged than games played now


WORST
The ball is near the wing, an Interchange player runs on the ground and gets a cheap posession, or causes an unfair turnover
OR
A player kicks a great goal, and runs off the field

The concern with the massive numbers of interchange is the stat that was presented some time back which said if you lose one player from your rotation before quarter time, that team's wins only 25% of the time. Given that those stats might be swayed by Melbourne and Richmond playing semi injured/underdone players the past few years, but it's a big stat that the AFL will love to recall at times of great need (ie, when introducing new rules).

I wouldn't be surprised if the AFL come up with a rule to limit the usage and to be honest, I don't think it would take too much away from the game.

Craig interestingly said that he wanted to increase the no of interchange, which will inadvertently increase the no of rotations, thereby possibly decreasing the percentages that that team will lose if that player goes off for the entire game before quarter time.

gadj1976 wrote:The concern with the massive numbers of interchange is the stat that was presented some time back which said if you lose one player from your rotation before quarter time, that team's wins only 25% of the time. Given that those stats might be swayed by Melbourne and Richmond playing semi injured/underdone players the past few years, but it's a big stat that the AFL will love to recall at times of great need (ie, when introducing new rules).

I wouldn't be surprised if the AFL come up with a rule to limit the usage and to be honest, I don't think it would take too much away from the game.

Craig interestingly said that he wanted to increase the no of interchange, which will inadvertently increase the no of rotations, thereby possibly decreasing the percentages that that team will lose if that player goes off for the entire game before quarter time.

Craigs comment ????????????????????

OK if AC + ML + 1 more on the Interchange
If both sdes had 23 players each, AC would still be disadvantaged ?
23 fit ML players vrs 19 or 20 fit AC players is still an advantage for ML ?

I guess if we had 30 players = 12 Interchanges we could offset the advantages then ...

mal wrote:

gadj1976 wrote:The concern with the massive numbers of interchange is the stat that was presented some time back which said if you lose one player from your rotation before quarter time, that team's wins only 25% of the time. Given that those stats might be swayed by Melbourne and Richmond playing semi injured/underdone players the past few years, but it's a big stat that the AFL will love to recall at times of great need (ie, when introducing new rules).

I wouldn't be surprised if the AFL come up with a rule to limit the usage and to be honest, I don't think it would take too much away from the game.

Craig interestingly said that he wanted to increase the no of interchange, which will inadvertently increase the no of rotations, thereby possibly decreasing the percentages that that team will lose if that player goes off for the entire game before quarter time.

Craigs comment ????????????????????

OK if AC + ML + 1 more on the Interchange
If both sdes had 23 players each, AC would still be disadvantaged ?
23 fit ML players vrs 19 or 20 fit AC players is still an advantage for ML ?

I guess if we had 30 players = 12 Interchanges we could offset the advantages then ...

Agreed Mal, I was saying if they go off in the first term the team losing the player has less chance of winning. If there were 10 on the bench, then the rotations may drop by 1/10th instead of the current situation, 1/4.

I think that like anything the interchange bench has been exploited to get every advantage to win the game. Its important to remember that the Interchange bench existed first and foremost for injured players to come off and be substituted for another player and the size of the bench was increased because of to many players being injured and not so that AFL coaches could use the bench to back up Zoning type game plans or whatever.

I feel that it is against the spirit of the game to use the interchange bench for constant rotations and I feel that it is in a situation now where it has decreased the quality of the game as a result. I think the best way to fix the problem is for a rule to be created simply to say that if a player is taken off then that player cannot come back onto the ground for the rest of the quarter. That way the bench can go back to being an actual interchange bench for injury and the game can be played as it was intended.

Rugby League have capped interchanges and that seems to work fairly well

Sure players get tired, but thats all part of the game.

Interesting to see Adrian Andersons comments on the AFL website today stressing that the AFL has been trying to make the game more free flowing and not necessarily quicker as the media has always portrayed. This comment to me suggests the AFL is starting to get worried at the amount of interchanges and the scrapfets zonal games which are being played.
Bring on open forward lines and one on one football.

If interchanges were capped perhaps teams would be less likely to take name players with doubtful fitness into a game and that may be a good thing.
If it slowed the game down, because players "rested" in pockets on field more, that would possibly reduce the severity of impact injuries.
It may kill off the "zoning" style of play, and the push for choosing super-athleticism over football talent.
It all sounds good to me....

I agree Psyber. The thought of players staying out their longer makes me think that football smarts will be more of an asset than just pure aerobic ability, which seems to be high on the list of a recruiters needs.

As much as I hate to think back to the 1997 AFL GF, Darren Jarman's last quarter heroics were not on the back of being supremely fit but based on his uncanny ability to read the play and execute his skills under pressure even when fatuiged. Something the St.Kilda players on the day were unable to do.

Tired players make mistakes, tired players with good skills would make less and very good players regardless of how fatuiged they are will still execute the skills.

I would cap the changes per quarter and not for the entire game. If the cap was how many changes to be made per game you thin kthe coaches would hold back until the third or fourth quarters and have some sort of frantic shuffle go on to try and catch the opposition off guard, who in turn would be doing the same thing.

Yep, a cap is a good idea, I'd be all for it.

I also like the idea of maybe splitting the bench with 2 spots for regular interchange and 2 spots strickly reserved as injury substitutes.

If someone gets carted off the ground with an injury an 'injury sub' takes their place. If the injured player ends up coming back on, then the 'injury sub' resumes his permanent position on the bench unless needed again.

If you wanted the interchange to be only used for injuries you could simply state that anyone who is subbed off isn't allowed back on the field for the rest of the game. If you wanted to give the coaches a bit more flexibility you could make it quarter by quarter giving a maximum of four interchanges per quarter. (Blood rule substitutions shouldn't count as one of the four though). If you're not flooding, zoning etc, surely four/quarter is enough.

hondo71 wrote:I'm not sure what I think on capping rotations. I sort of feel that the game itself should sort that out but I haven't really thought too much about it. Perhaps it could be a per player limit rather than an overall limit.

What I do think might be better is having injury substitution players available where whoever comes off cannot go back on. Whether this be achieved by quarantining 2 of the existing bench or adding 2 more I'm not sure. But forcing injured players on to the field to make up numbers seems pretty stupid and risky when you think about it. The problem is there will be the occasional game where even 6 interchange players wouldn't be enough.

Thats a good point Hondo, cause you have defenders who hardly come off and then you have midfielders that change every 2 mins, one extreme to the other. The AFL should look at it that way if they want to have less interchanges made.

Mop Up wrote:Rugby League have capped interchanges and that seems to work fairly well

Sure players get tired, but thats all part of the game.

Interesting to see Adrian Andersons comments on the AFL website today stressing that the AFL has been trying to make the game more free flowing and not necessarily quicker as the media has always portrayed. This comment to me suggests the AFL is starting to get worried at the amount of interchanges and the scrapfets zonal games which are being played.
Bring on open forward lines and one on one football.

He has absolutly no idea anyway, how is he going to make a decision on it

I think the number of interchange players should be extended to 6 but teams should only be allowed to make interchanges when a goal is scored (by either team).

The only exception would be where a player leaves the field injured or is directed to by an umpire under the blood rule. Then he can be replaced. However if a player leaves the field 'injured' he can't come back on to the field.

Bomber Thompson said that perhaps curators should put more water into the oval which would slow down the game, but would that then create more rotations??

It used to be teams of 20
18 on the field
2 on the bench who were called reserves
Maximum of 2 interchanges per game
Football survived for about 100 years doing that

If a team had 2 severe injuries and used both reserves then it almost became an advantage fitness wise to have the 2 reserves on the field who had played less game time


Players had to be field smart
Players had to budget to get thru a whole game
Onballers were rested in set positions
Ruckman generally forward pocket
Rovers usually forward pocket
Ruck Rovers half forward, and at times back pocket
Good players on the ground all of the game barring substitution

Footballers usually beat thier opponents becoz they could mark kick and handball better
These skills went a long way to deciding which team would win
Courage and hardness at the ball was also a skill of sorts
At times a lesser skilled player could equal or surpass a skilled footballer
But generally speaking the best skilled sides would win most games
Occasionally a fitter team would win a game

What we have now is a blight of the way footy was played
The skilled sides will still win a majority of games
But more games are won coz of fitness issues than ever b4

SUMMARY
The downside of the 18 + 2 reserves was if you had 3 injuries u were severley disadvantaged
Hence the 4 players on the bench was prob the main reason it was introduced
If it stayed like that, it was the best and fairest solution
But it didnt
Sides are exploiting the free Interchanging of players
From what Ive seen over the years to the detriment of what I consider the finest game in the world

Interesting article from Aker touching on this subject

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl ... 5856173313