- Aug 1, 2008
- 15,149
- 25,675
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Banned
- #26
What happened for a 100 years they go off and stay offSo what happens when someone is injured?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What happened for a 100 years they go off and stay offSo what happens when someone is injured?
Agreed - but the previous poster said interchange only at a stop in play.What happened for a 100 years they go off and stay off
So what happens when someone is injured?
Hate it when a team makes an interchange and someone comes off the bench and is suddenly free and open on the wing at the exact right time as the ball is in the right area, leaving a free runner open on the wing.
Or a team kicks to a free player, only for someone to come off the bench and intercept. Happens every now and then and absolutely should not be allowed.
Interchanges should only be allowed at a stoppage. We have plenty of stoppages, so shouldn't really make a huge impact but will stop substitutes sneaking on at opportune times.
I would consider a back to the future move - no interchange whatsoever
2-4 reserves to cover injuries, fatigue etc
Many of the worst aspects of our game correlate directly with the introduction of interchange: the flood, huge packs repeated stoppages, hard tags with a relay of players coming fresh off the bench , zones with no positional one on one play.
The removal of the interchange offers numerous obvious and worthy improvements, the only down side is the perceived reduction in running speed (which would be imperciptable and is patently unfair)
- reduces the danger of serious injuries because collisions would occur at a slower speed
- increases positional play as players would be incapable of continuously covering both ends of the ground
- more space for the most talented to execute kicking and evasive skills
- reduction in current pack and spread method
- tips the scale towards football talent and away from pure athletes
- reinforces that any type of body size or shape can play the game at the highest level
- tips the scale towards endurance players and away from the current burst players
- encourages one on one contests
- increase in goal scoring because negative and defensive tactics would be less effective
- provdes our umpires a fraction more time to make better decisions
- reduces effectiveness of hard tags as fatigue increases
- reduces effectiveness of teams heavily reliant on team defense and complex negative coaching strategies
- passes Parkins test to increase unpredictability and enjoyment of the game
- extends longevity of older star players because of reduction in high impact
- tips the scale towards key forwards because of greater space and less effective defensive zones
- welcome back lockett and Dunstall types
- welcome back wingers like Robbie Flower, Doug Hawkins, Keith Greig
- tips the spectacle to great players and away from great coaching set-ups
- rewards the fittest and hardest workers
- in game coaching and tutoring becomes more difficult - advantages the smarter and more instinctive player
- less tackles, less stoppages
- less secondary and tertiary stoppages
- much more high kicks to one on one contests as players fatigue and resort to bail out kicks
- star players stay on the ground all the time, resting up forward not on the bench
...
There are many many more advantages
The one thing we lose is the current entirely unfair burst thru a pack by a fresh player being chased forlornly by exhausted players. Speed is relative and if everyone slows down the actual slower running speed is imperciptable to the naked eye but crucial in mitigating serious injuries.
The question we need to ask ourselves is why did we introduce the interchange in the first place?
It was not there for a 100 years. It was something Kevin Sheedy and other coaches wanted and if your a coach I can understand why you would want it. As custodians of the game our principle focus must not be to enable coaches to manipulate results - our responsibility is to make the game more enjoyable to watch and to play. To encourage skill and enable all body types to play this once great game.
If you want a coaches game their is grid iron - it is all about coaches
And we have and are copying grid iron with all of these line coaches
The removal of the interchange will not be the end of line coaches but it will make their job significantly more difficult. It will make all these defensive set-ups much less effective and empower the more skilful players.
Their is no logical purpose for interchange
Substitutes/ reserves meet the requirement to cover injuries and in the event of few or no injuries enable the coaches to make some tactical adjustments. Surely that is sufficient.
GIVE US BACK OUR GAME - at the minute it is dying
There were always dull games and great games as there is today.
But there were not always so many games which are entirely unwatchable -if not for the closeness of the scores or the significance of the result - too many games are unwatchable repeated stoppages, repeated tackle after tackle and goals are scored because of errors not because of great skill.
A pox on the AFL
I would consider a back to the future move - no interchange whatsoever
2-4 reserves to cover injuries, fatigue etc
Many of the worst aspects of our game correlate directly with the introduction of interchange: the flood, huge packs repeated stoppages, hard tags with a relay of players coming fresh off the bench , zones with no positional one on one play.
The removal of the interchange offers numerous obvious and worthy improvements, the only down side is the perceived reduction in running speed (which would be imperciptable and is patently unfair)
- reduces the danger of serious injuries because collisions would occur at a slower speed
- increases positional play as players would be incapable of continuously covering both ends of the ground
- more space for the most talented to execute kicking and evasive skills
- reduction in current pack and spread method
- tips the scale towards football talent and away from pure athletes
- reinforces that any type of body size or shape can play the game at the highest level
- tips the scale towards endurance players and away from the current burst players
- encourages one on one contests
- increase in goal scoring because negative and defensive tactics would be less effective
- provdes our umpires a fraction more time to make better decisions
- reduces effectiveness of hard tags as fatigue increases
- reduces effectiveness of teams heavily reliant on team defense and complex negative coaching strategies
- passes Parkins test to increase unpredictability and enjoyment of the game
- extends longevity of older star players because of reduction in high impact
- tips the scale towards key forwards because of greater space and less effective defensive zones
- welcome back lockett and Dunstall types
- welcome back wingers like Robbie Flower, Doug Hawkins, Keith Greig
- tips the spectacle to great players and away from great coaching set-ups
- rewards the fittest and hardest workers
- in game coaching and tutoring becomes more difficult - advantages the smarter and more instinctive player
- less tackles, less stoppages
- less secondary and tertiary stoppages
- much more high kicks to one on one contests as players fatigue and resort to bail out kicks
- star players stay on the ground all the time, resting up forward not on the bench
...
There are many many more advantages
The one thing we lose is the current entirely unfair burst thru a pack by a fresh player being chased forlornly by exhausted players. Speed is relative and if everyone slows down the actual slower running speed is imperciptable to the naked eye but crucial in mitigating serious injuries.
The question we need to ask ourselves is why did we introduce the interchange in the first place?
It was not there for a 100 years. It was something Kevin Sheedy and other coaches wanted and if your a coach I can understand why you would want it. As custodians of the game our principle focus must not be to enable coaches to manipulate results - our responsibility is to make the game more enjoyable to watch and to play. To encourage skill and enable all body types to play this once great game.
If you want a coaches game their is grid iron - it is all about coaches
And we have and are copying grid iron with all of these line coaches
The removal of the interchange will not be the end of line coaches but it will make their job significantly more difficult. It will make all these defensive set-ups much less effective and empower the more skilful players.
Their is no logical purpose for interchange
Substitutes/ reserves meet the requirement to cover injuries and in the event of few or no injuries enable the coaches to make some tactical adjustments. Surely that is sufficient.
GIVE US BACK OUR GAME - at the minute it is dying
There were always dull games and great games as there is today.
But there were not always so many games which are entirely unwatchable -if not for the closeness of the scores or the significance of the result - too many games are unwatchable repeated stoppages, repeated tackle after tackle and goals are scored because of errors not because of great skill.
A pox on the AFL
First question ; can anyone name another sport with interchange when the i/c can be effected @ any time ??? In basketball where the idea came from i/c can only occur during a stop.
suggest the same rule apply in afl (ie start of 1/4's, after goals).... removes the need for any other i/c rules.
why? concerned abt players coming off the bench when players on the ground are not expecting ... one day there will be a serious injury !!!
So you then have players faking injuries and getting stretchered off so they can have fresh legs come onto the ground. This is the problem with all rule changes, especially knee jerk ones. New things start happening which is worst than the initial problem. Look at the interchange line debacle of a few years ago or score review system now.good question ... they can be subbed with the same stretcher rule applying
So you then have players faking injuries and getting stretchered off so they can have fresh legs come onto the ground. This is the problem with all rule changes, especially knee jerk ones. New things start happening which is worst than the initial problem. Look at the interchange line debacle of a few years ago or score review system now.
The real pox on the AFL is the belief that continual rule changes attempting to "fix" the game will actually fix the game. All the rule changes aimed at speeding the game up, slowing it down, reducing congestion etc. have only increased what they've tried to remedy.
The game evolves. Leave it be, and it will sort itself out
On a wet cold day at scg you could 20 minutes with no score
Silly idea
Maybe just an idea .....we should have simple rule all players can only come off 3 times in a game
Each player is listed to how many times he can come off
That's 66 subs plus qtr time changes
Then again some players might struggle to count to 3 lol ......
Look I firmly believe we need to lower the subs number to around 60
The best footy in the last 30 years was played from about 96-97 to about 2006
We would have seen about that many subs back in that time or less ...not sure ..if someone can be bothered finding it go for it ...
120 is way too many per game I think it leads to mauls, we need players fatigued ...which means mids resting in fwd pockets or a mid going to defames .....
I think it would give lesser teams a chance also ....fatigue lowers skill level a smidgen so if a team is super fit yet isn't as skilled with less subs it might actually be able to compete better ....which equals closer games
60 subs is about right
Now someone said before we would see more athletes being drafted over skill players if we reduce the subs...
Umm hello we have already been seeing that for ages ...Greg Williams wouldn't get drafted now nor would Tony locket ....skilled players will always get picked up .....20 brilliant possessions is always better than 35 meaningless ones which we see a lot now
Yeah I agree as I was writing it I corrected myself as you can seeWell done .. Add more sub roles !!!!!
Keep it simple
That is only a small part of it, but I like the idea of going back to that rule. We could then get rid of this stupid deliberate rushed behind rule. Rushing a behind used to be a genuine tactic to use when you were in trouble. Allowing the quick kick-in had changed it to an attacking manouver, necessatating the deliberate rule.High interchange started when they introduced the quick kick-in
Why not just go back to the old rule?
That's the pointThat is only a small part of it, but I like the idea of going back to that rule. We could then get rid of this stupid deliberate rushed behind rule. Rushing a behind used to be a genuine tactic to use when you were in trouble. Allowing the quick kick-in had changed it to an attacking manouver, necessatating the deliberate rule.