Sub abolished, 90 interchanges for 2016

[fabs33]

cmndstab I thought the purpose of the sub rule was to prevent clubs from gaining an advantage through high rotation numbers against opposition teams that have sustained injuries during a game? Meaning that the shift from the sub rule to an interchange cap is being made for this reason and not because they want more one on one contests.

 

[cmndstab]

cmndstab I thought the purpose of the sub rule was to prevent clubs from gaining an advantage through high rotation numbers against opposition teams that have sustained injuries during a game? Meaning that the shift from the sub rule to an interchange cap is being made for this reason and not because they want more one on one contests.

That was the bullshit reason they gave for introducing the sub rule.

It was clear to all and sundry, though, they that were trying to start scaling back on the interchange bench and it's use as a tactical weapon. That's the actual reason the sub rule was introduced.

 

[fabs33]

That was the bullshit reason they gave for introducing the sub rule.

It was clear to all and sundry, though, they that were trying to start scaling back on the interchange bench and it's use as a tactical weapon. That's the actual reason the sub rule was introduced.

I'll take your word for it as I'm aware that they were already looking into restricting rotations for that reason.

I will say this though; since the introduction of the sub rule I can't remember seeing a team gain a significant advantage from opposition injuries.

 

[Bay62]

Certainly, that's what the AFL bigwigs hope will happen, true.

Just like they hoped that Sydney would use COLA to prop up their lower-paid players instead of spending it on Franklin and Tippett.
Just like they hoped that clubs would avoid tanking to take advantage of the draft system.
Just like they hoped that nobody would match a RFA offer so they could get away with free agency taking so long to kick in.
Just like they hoped that nobody would win a grand final by playing boring, defensive footy.

The fact is the AFL regularly make changes in the hope that coaches and clubs will "do the right thing", rather than actually trying to maximise their chances of winning matches. And inevitably, they are left disappointed and angry when clubs take advantage of the rules.

The AFL has a long history of introducing rule changes designed to fix minor problems that A) don't actually fix the "problem" at all, and B) introduce new problems that are far worse than the original problem was in the first place. Hell, Rohan's broken leg is directly attributable to a string of awful rule changes introduced one after another, each to try to fix the problems introduced by the previous one. We don't like stoppages, so we'll start paying HTB for anyone who gets near the ball. Oh, now players are leading with their head and getting hurt, we'll make the any contact to the head a free kick, even if the player induces it. Oh, now players are sliding in with their feet to avoid the head and players are getting their legs broken. Better introduce another rule preventing that too!

The interchange cap will be no different than the rest. It won't de-clog the game. No coach in the league will accept that they are going to be the side to stop having so many players at every contest, because the very first time they allow that, they'll lose by 20 goals. So coaches will just prioritise endurance athletes over footballers, instead. Or, alternatively, coaches will just resort to massive flooding. You can't make the contest? That's alright, just everyone go sit a kick ahead of play and stifle the game entirely. Great. We'll get uglier football, more stoppages, more fatigue-induced injuries, more sanity-defying ruck infringement free kicks, and more frustration as supporters.


And for what? To stop a few repeat stoppages? I personally think stoppages are great to watch. Watching the engine room mids emerge with the ball, or dish it off cleanly to an outside runner, is actually really exciting.

But no, the AFL thinks that by deliberately fatiguing their primary asset, being the players, literally to the brink of exhaustion, we will somehow revert to footy as it was played in the 80s, with a full forward that never leaves the goal square and 1-on-1 contests around the ground. Because the AFL is run by idealistic idiots who don't seem to realise that the game style they love to watch wasn't shelved decades ago because coaches are jerks, it's because it doesn't win games of football. And short of enforcing a rule that demands 1-on-1 contests all over the ground, no rule change is going to prevent coaches from putting as many players near the ball as humanly possible, at the expense of the spectacle of the game, at the expense of player welfare, at the expense of footy talent.

Well said

As has been said on here before by me and you and others, the AFL's inability to foresee the likely consequences of some of their decisions is startling

 

[Mattrox]

Certainly, that's what the AFL bigwigs hope will happen, true.

Just like they hoped that Sydney would use COLA to prop up their lower-paid players instead of spending it on Franklin and Tippett.
Just like they hoped that clubs would avoid tanking to take advantage of the draft system.
Just like they hoped that nobody would match a RFA offer so they could get away with free agency taking so long to kick in.
Just like they hoped that nobody would win a grand final by playing boring, defensive footy.

The fact is the AFL regularly make changes in the hope that coaches and clubs will "do the right thing", rather than actually trying to maximise their chances of winning matches. And inevitably, they are left disappointed and angry when clubs take advantage of the rules.

The AFL has a long history of introducing rule changes designed to fix minor problems that A) don't actually fix the "problem" at all, and B) introduce new problems that are far worse than the original problem was in the first place. Hell, Rohan's broken leg is directly attributable to a string of awful rule changes introduced one after another, each to try to fix the problems introduced by the previous one. We don't like stoppages, so we'll start paying HTB for anyone who gets near the ball. Oh, now players are leading with their head and getting hurt, we'll make the any contact to the head a free kick, even if the player induces it. Oh, now players are sliding in with their feet to avoid the head and players are getting their legs broken. Better introduce another rule preventing that too!

The interchange cap will be no different than the rest. It won't de-clog the game. No coach in the league will accept that they are going to be the side to stop having so many players at every contest, because the very first time they allow that, they'll lose by 20 goals. So coaches will just prioritise endurance athletes over footballers, instead. Or, alternatively, coaches will just resort to massive flooding. You can't make the contest? That's alright, just everyone go sit a kick ahead of play and stifle the game entirely. Great. We'll get uglier football, more stoppages, more fatigue-induced injuries, more sanity-defying ruck infringement free kicks, and more frustration as supporters.


And for what? To stop a few repeat stoppages? I personally think stoppages are great to watch. Watching the engine room mids emerge with the ball, or dish it off cleanly to an outside runner, is actually really exciting.

But no, the AFL thinks that by deliberately fatiguing their primary asset, being the players, literally to the brink of exhaustion, we will somehow revert to footy as it was played in the 80s, with a full forward that never leaves the goal square and 1-on-1 contests around the ground. Because the AFL is run by idealistic idiots who don't seem to realise that the game style they love to watch wasn't shelved decades ago because coaches are jerks, it's because it doesn't win games of football. And short of enforcing a rule that demands 1-on-1 contests all over the ground, no rule change is going to prevent coaches from putting as many players near the ball as humanly possible, at the expense of the spectacle of the game, at the expense of player welfare, at the expense of footy talent.

Awesome! Needs a double like button.

 

[Vader]

cmndstab I thought the purpose of the sub rule was to prevent clubs from gaining an advantage through high rotation numbers against opposition teams that have sustained injuries during a game? Meaning that the shift from the sub rule to an interchange cap is being made for this reason and not because they want more one on one contests.

It is and it was exceptionally successful in that regard. Unfortunately it had a number of less desirable side effects.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

 

[Redleg Crow]

Woohoo! Signature changed!

 

[cmndstab]

It is and it was exceptionally successful in that regard. Unfortunately it had a number of less desirable side effects.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

Well, at least that puts it ahead of the AFL's usual rule changes which are usually exceptionally unsuccessful in addition to the less desirable side effects.