Would have liked it to go down to 60-odd, maybe it will be progressively lowered.
Rotations down to 90, sub gone in 2016
- Thread starter Daniltchenko You Beauty
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Would have liked it to go down to 60-odd, maybe it will be progressively lowered.
The Falcon Strike
Hall of Famer
A change heading in the right direction IMO - but still 30 interchange too many
With 90 - the interchange number is actually closer to 106
As you can make 4 during each of the breaks taking it up to 102.
In addition you can then make another 4 at the end of the game, just that the player coming off can't go back on.
With 90 - the interchange number is actually closer to 106
As you can make 4 during each of the breaks taking it up to 102.
In addition you can then make another 4 at the end of the game, just that the player coming off can't go back on.
vonn
Bigfooty Legend
10k Posts
Pokemon is Life
Meet-Up Master
Pantskyle
Podcaster
WCE Wings Guernsey
Casey Tutungi Future Fund
- Sep 29, 2008
- 20,495
- 12,339
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Fantastic - I hate it when the AFL over complicates things! Thank god this is so simple and easy to follow.
- Banned
- #5
This math doesn't check out.
The four coming off towards the end still need to be replaced with four going on. So that means you need to make four subs which come out of the 90.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Can't we just make that the rule now? The sub rule is the WORST rule ever introduced in AFL football
- Sep 7, 2009
- 5,880
- 5,959
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Real Madrid, Man City, GS Warriors
The sub rule was stupid.
Goodbye dumbest rule in the history of the league
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Was a silly overreaction to clubs getting an injury or two.
The Falcon Strike
Hall of Famer
Brentmeister
Club Legend
I seem to remember a big Brad Scott whinge being one of the major factors in the introduction of the sub rule.
ManWithNoName
TheBrownDog
Shame. Always liked the sub rule.
The interesting thing about 90 is it works out about 1 rest per player a quarter.
Now if you leave your back 4 defenders mainly in place and resting as the ball goes forward it's still 18 players for 22.5 rotations a quarter.
I don't think we will see 2 ruckman or 3 tall forwards come back in to fashion with a cap at 90.
The conflicting thing is that more players will have to stay in positions to rest up, yet players will also have to become more multi-positional in order to rotate between spots.
Now if you leave your back 4 defenders mainly in place and resting as the ball goes forward it's still 18 players for 22.5 rotations a quarter.
I don't think we will see 2 ruckman or 3 tall forwards come back in to fashion with a cap at 90.
The conflicting thing is that more players will have to stay in positions to rest up, yet players will also have to become more multi-positional in order to rotate between spots.
Probably one for the "unpopular opinions in AFL thread", but I really liked the sub-rule- particularly in relation to concussions and teams not being penalised for showing precaution toward injured players.
One only needs to watch one of these three videos, to see the amount of stress footballers are put through to perform without being 100%, physically or mentally. I feel like the sub-rule went a way toward avoiding these scenarios.
One only needs to watch one of these three videos, to see the amount of stress footballers are put through to perform without being 100%, physically or mentally. I feel like the sub-rule went a way toward avoiding these scenarios.
Plus 18 subs made at the start of the game. That takes it to 120 (same as this year). Plus another 18 at the end of the game when the players come off = 138!! That's a ludicrous amount of subs allowed.
00Stinger
100 - 7
It will result in many more lob sided smashing imo.
And if your not an athlete you will be weeded out of the game pretty quick
Pretty much all the non-athletes were weeded out years ago.
If the results is more high scoring footy, less rolling mauls and more 1 on 1 contests in the forward line it's going to be brilliant for footy.
The amount of smashing's will still be lower than 2012-2013 when GC and GWS were full of 18 year olds
As long as the sub is gone I'm all for it.
- Apr 27, 2014
- 1,739
- 2,918
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Arsenal
The sub was a brainless idiotic rule and I am glad it is gone. And I am glad rotations have been lowered.
I still want to see all out of bounds be free kicks.
I still want to see all out of bounds be free kicks.
Bad luck if you lose a player in Q1 now, as it will be 21 v 22 for the remainder of the game, results proved that before the sub was introduced that if a team lost a player early to injury that they faced an uphill battle to even remain competitive.
This was one of the main reasons of introducing the sub, to retain equality in the number of players that can be rotated onto the ground, as part of the live team.
This was one of the main reasons of introducing the sub, to retain equality in the number of players that can be rotated onto the ground, as part of the live team.
Similar threads
