SA Footy

Now we have seen it for a few weeks what are peoples thoughts on this rule??
I for one absolutely love the rule.This year we have seen some cracker games with pleny on long kicks to 1 on 1 contests. Big tick to the AFL with ths one I reckon!

I'm with you LK .. Generally I hate the tinkering with rules, but Im enjoying AFL footy more this year than any I can remember in recent times.

The footy has been more watchable so far this season, and some people feel it's a bi-product of the new system. If that's true, then it has my vote.

We are seeing more "true footy" being played in my opinion. The AFL created rules to speed the game up to prevent flooding and now maybe they have found a balance.......
Football to watch was fantastic through the 90's and rules such as this brings back more 1 on 1 contests and smart footballers will be rewarded once again.....but players will be unable to flood due to fatigue.

Flooding was becoming redundant anyway and was always going to be coached out of the game. I hate the sub rule because I hate seeing turnovers as a result of fatigue and players missing shots on goal because they're too tired.

In the end, all we are seeing is more interchanges and soon we will see stars of the game being rested against bottom sides because of 'general soreness'.

The sub is a good idea, but only if it is included with four other interchange players.

Quichey wrote:Flooding was becoming redundant anyway and was always going to be coached out of the game. I hate the sub rule because I hate seeing turnovers as a result of fatigue and players missing shots on goal because they're too tired.

In the end, all we are seeing is more interchanges and soon we will see stars of the game being rested against bottom sides because of 'general soreness'.

The sub is a good idea, but only if it is included with four other interchange players.

I agree Q, the sub rule is a good idea but IMO it should be the four interchange players plus the one sub.

My observation is that the quality of the game has improved with the new rule and I do feel its made it a better game to watch. I would favour it being extended simply because the bench is meant for injured players not for rotation game plans. As with anything more rounds of footy will test how it develops, yet it looks like its achieved what it set out to do so far.

Sojourner wrote:My observation is that the quality of the game has improved with the new rule and I do feel its made it a better game to watch. I would favour it being extended simply because the bench is meant for injured players not for rotation game plans. As with anything more rounds of footy will test how it develops, yet it looks like its achieved what it set out to do so far.

Where is this a rule?

Would love to see a stat on what the average winning margin is this year ?? Take out the Gold Coast games. Also in comparison to previous years...

Sub rule has been great. The one new rule that has worked.

I initially was supportive of the rule then I cooled on it but now I am a supporter of it subject to seeing how it goes for the rest of the season. It takes away the disadvantage of the early match ending injury and it has slowed the game down. I also like the intrigue of who will be the sub and when will they come on. I don't know why this intrigue appeals to me.

It causes mayhem for my Supercoach team though!

Hondo wrote:I initially was supportive of the rule then I cooled on it but now I am a supporter of it subject to seeing how it goes for the rest of the season. It takes away the disadvantage of the early match ending injury and it has slowed the game down. I also like the intrigue of who will be the sub and when will they come on. I don't know why this intrigue appeals to me.

It causes mayhem for my Supercoach team though!

Couldnt have said it better myself