Should the AFL ditch the sub vest?

[bungwahl]

Personally I think it's one of the worst rule changes in recent memory. The idea is that if a player gets injured and is unable to finish a game, you can replace him with a fit player so your team is not disadvantaged.

Previously we had 4 interchange players, then changed to 3 interchange and one sub. To cover the possibility of a team occasionally missing a player for part of a game, we are taking a player out of every game?

I also think it's detrimental to the younger players who are being thrust in to the green vest because of their speed or impact, then only being given 15-20 mins to prove their worth. In reality, the majority of subs are made within reach of 3/4 time in the hope of gaining an advantage out of some fresh legs.

Is it time for the AFL to end the substitute experiment?

 

[juss]

It's here to stay I reckon, don't think they will change it without strong evidence or a reason to.
To be honest I rarely think about it these days anyway. Don't think its impact has been dramatic, but it does suck for the guy who's a sub.

 

[bungwahl]

It's here to stay I reckon, don't think they will change it without strong evidence or a reason to.
To be honest I rarely think about it these days anyway. Don't think its impact has been dramatic, but it does suck for the guy who's a sub.

Quite possibly right that they won't change it, thought they did implement it without evidence or a legitimate reason I suppose...

 

[timtamWB]

If the sub is used correctly, then it's a great tool. Look at how we used Gia as a sub in 2013: that is exactly how it should be used, and actually helped us win a couple of games, while also not affecting any young players detrimentally.

However I think a lot of coaches are still figuring out how to use it.

 

[Cudi]

Hate it, wish it never come in.

If interchange gets restricted to 20 a quarter than it is pointless.

 

[Kenny_01]

I don't see any reason to remove it.

It adds something different to the game and also makes things more interesting strategically. I think it was been one of the few good rule changes.

It also makes it more of a level playing field if someone gets injured (ie still 21 v 21 rather than 22 v 21).

 

[The Blue Baggers]

the AFL has the ability to make the simple hard

either

all 4 are interchange - no restrictions

or

all 4 are reserves and can only be changed once a quarter

 

[pazza]

No.

Just the rules for it's use must change. Injuries only.

 

[bungwahl]

I don't see any reason to remove it.

It adds something different to the game and also makes things more interesting strategically. I think it was been one of the few good rule changes.

It also makes it more of a level playing field if someone gets injured (ie still 21 v 21 rather than 22 v 21).

I think the way it's used in the majority of games means it adds absolutely nothing, bar making one player wait 3/4 the game before getting a run. It'd be much better to just go back to 4 guys on the bench. Game ending injuries do happen, but in a minority of games. Surely the answer isn't to impact every game just in case there happens to be an injury?

It's the AFL's version of cricket's rotation policy.

 

[jiphoc]

No.

Just the rules for it's use must change. Injuries only.

Too hard to define an injury and judge them.

The sub rule is almost getting vital. The way the modern game is played if a player is injured early the other team is at a massive advantage. The sub rule helps mitigate that advantage. I would leave things exactly as they are now.

 

[pazza]

Too hard to define an injury and judge them.

The sub rule is almost getting vital. The way the modern game is played if a player is injured early the other team is at a massive advantage. The sub rule helps mitigate that advantage. I would leave things exactly as they are now.

Rubbish.

If a player comes off limping, or on a stretcher, or holding their arm in a sling or is dazed to a point that they can't be of any function at all, there's your clear definitions.

 

[TN25]

I think it should stay. No problem with it IMO

 

[jiphoc]

Rubbish.

If a player comes off limping, or on a stretcher, or holding their arm in a sling or is dazed to a point that they can't be of any function at all, there's your clear definitions.

Yea and how long until people start faking injuries or on the other side try hide them until they are seriously injured? A law like that would never work and would lead to disaster and a lot of dishonesty

 

[quotemokc]

Enough of the vest, make the subs sit on the bench shirtless so the women folk can have some more eye candy.