SA Footy

North Melbourne coach Brad Scott is off the mark in his documented criticism of the new 1-substitute/3- interchange system.

Scott clearly made a tactical stuff-up against Western Bulldogs on the weekend by substituting a fit player early in the piece. He then whinges about his limited interchange options when a few of his players get injuries later in the game.

You'd think that an astute coach wouldn't use up a subsititution unless the player coming off was too injured to play any further part in the game. The only exception to this would perhaps be late in the last quarter when you know for sure that you won't need the subbed player again.

I am not convinced on the rule yet however I agree on not having much sympathy for a coach that uses it to sub out a fit player when the intention of the rule is that it be an injury related subsititution,

I think some coaches will try to play the odds, use it to bring on the fresh player even if there hasn't been an injury and hope for no injuries after that.

I wonder if the intention was that it be an injury trade that the coaches shouldn't even be allowed to touch it unless the injured player is ruled out of the game by an independent doctor. Maybe that's overkill? I guess if the coach rolls the dice he rolls the dice.

I agree, he made a mistake, but the sub rule still seems a bit superfluous.

It's a trial game so it's about getting game time into the players, so the sub would have been for that reason.

The entire rule is a joke, keep the game as is and leave the bloody thing alone. 4 man bench was good in mine. The game would have changed as it always does, and the rotations would have dropped eventually IMO

Hopefully this rule will only last this season,but Scott has cracked the sads due to Kangas injury list throughout pre season,really battling to field a reasonable side,taking his frustration out on others.

Scott screwed up and is looking for someone else to blame, but the rule in general is rubbish and will hopefully disappear after this year. What happens when two players get injured? Coaches will still complain, it wasn't broke IMO so they didn't need to try fix anything.

havent read so much uninformed crap for so long
sub out fritto who was playing only first trial at half time all three injuries happened after half time
every coach has basically done the same thing every coach has complained about it and put on your coaches hat for a second and you would agree this is the most rediculous change to the game we have ever seen
if mick malthouse,ross lyon or one of the more well known coaches had said it you would all be agreeing
liked his idea of three interchanges and three subs with subs only to be used for injuries
i dont know why we have had to keep stuffing around with our great game
some people at the afl just need to do something so they look like their is a reason for their jobs

Just another ($$bonus$$ ) for Demetriou.

It just amuses me that coaches complain about rule changes when it's their fault the change was introduced in the first place.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:It just amuses me that coaches complain about rule changes when it's their fault the change was introduced in the first place.

Why is it their fault? They didn't give approval to the afl to make this change. The coaches simply made many rotations. The afl executive just can't keep their hands off our game and leave it how it was

CoverKing wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:It just amuses me that coaches complain about rule changes when it's their fault the change was introduced in the first place.

Why is it their fault? They didn't give approval to the afl to make this change. The coaches simply made many rotations. The afl executive just can't keep their hands off our game and leave it how it was

It's the coaches who can't leave the game alone, always looking for ways to exploit existing playing conditions, abusing them until the authorities have to step in. The coaches are mostly to blame for the crap spectacle that still passes as Australian Rules Football.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:

CoverKing wrote:

Adelaide Hawk wrote:It just amuses me that coaches complain about rule changes when it's their fault the change was introduced in the first place.

Why is it their fault? They didn't give approval to the afl to make this change. The coaches simply made many rotations. The afl executive just can't keep their hands off our game and leave it how it was

It's the coaches who can't leave the game alone, always looking for ways to exploit existing playing conditions, abusing them until the authorities have to step in. The coaches are mostly to blame for the crap spectacle that still passes as Australian Rules Football.

LOL, yeah the dumb bastards ... trying to find ways to win games.

The way it is with coaches making 120 + interchanges a game is a farce and it needs to be reigned in. The game was never meant to be played that way. It was about your best 18 players grinding it out in man on man duels over four quarters.

There needs to be a cap on interchanges and the substitute move is a good start.

Bring some more strategy into the game and force the coach and his army of laptop computer-equipped support staff to think a bit more before blindly bringing blokes on and off the ground.

If the game slows down that's not necessarily a bad thing. In fact it will probably make for a much better spectacle.

thats where the cats went wrong last year

didnt make enough interchanges each quarter

Anderson raised the possibility of 2 subs with the club captains on Thursday, if the new single sub rule wasn't effective.

It didn't go well for him:

In a combative meeting, the captains challenged the new rule and, in particular, the way it had been introduced without trial.

Essendon captain Jobe Watson queried Anderson about not doing appropriate due diligence before making the change. When Anderson protested that the use through the NAB Cup of a bench of six players including two substitutes was a suitable trial, Watson interjected that that was "bullshit". Watson, Chris Judd, Nick Riewoldt, Nick Maxwell, Cameron Ling, Matthew Pavlich, and Adam Goodes were the most vocal in condemning the new rule and raised the idea that far from preventing injuries, the change was likely to lead to more fatigue injuries.