Impact of the new interchange rule?

[Barry_Badrinath]

I'm surprised this hasn't been talked about more, but with the interchange limit being cut back to 90, is it going to have an effect on certain clubs?

I originally thought clubs that use a hard running, fast moving game plan would struggle (doggies, port), but so far they've been doing well. It's possible that they could even benefit, because the game will open up late when fatigue sets in, which would suit their game style.

The Ross Lyon game plan could be negatively effected by it too. It's often been criticised for not being sustainable for entire seasons due to its manic pressure, which is only possible with fresh bodies. A reduction in interchanges could hurt Fremantle's ability to apply pressure on the opponent for the entire game.

The greater dependence on fitness could also harm younger clubs who haven't developed the fitness base of their kids, thus stretching the gap between the top and bottom sides.

What do we all think? Will the new interchange limits have an effect on certain clubs, or is the 30 interchange reduction too small to make a difference?

EDIT: One other thought, are we likely to see higher scoring games now? Early evidence would suggest so. From the 7 completed games, the average score is 91.3, and the West Coast/Brisbane match looks like it will be high scoring too (12 goals kicked in the first quarter).

 

[Billy ray]

What happens if a team exceeds it?
How does it actually work in practice?
What if full number used by midway thru final qtr and then an injury happens? Can team get injured player off?

 

[mike123]

I think it will hurt poorly skilled teams

 

[Komrade_Tiger]

What happens if a team exceeds it?

Immediate Free kick and a 50 as well (similar to I/C infringement)

How does it actually work in practice?

club keeps count and AFL keeps official count. AFL tells the steward when they've hit their cap, if they go over same process as I/C infringe

What if full number used by midway thru final qtr and then an injury happens? Can team get injured player off?

Forced I/C such as blood-rule don't count to the total and injuries may come under this

 

[Forward Press]

What happens if a team exceeds it?
How does it actually work in practice?
What if full number used by midway thru final qtr and then an injury happens? Can team get injured player off?

Free kick and 50m penalty. Injury-forced ones are not counted in the cap.

 

[Billy ray]

Thanks guys.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Let's give it more than one unfinished round before we make any conclusions. Signs are positive though, game certainly seems to be opening up a bit.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

teams aren't prepared for it yet. of all the close games in round 1, all the teams that won (north, rich, melb, port) were behind at 3/4 time. in a close contested game no one can sustain a 4 qtr effort yet.

 

[Dustin Credible]

Think it will effect the bigger bodied teams more than harder running sides. Noticeable that a few teams appeared to have slimmed down over the off-season when talk is often about teams getting bigger.

The other rule change that I don't think clubs/players have figured out yet is the deliberate out of bounds. Especially when under pressure in defence the players still instinctually look for the safety of the boundary line.

From the evidence of round 1 I'm liking both rules changes so far.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Spanish_Fly]

On the available evidence so far I think all 3 rule changes have combined to create a faster , higher scoring more free flowing game. I'm sure I heard Gerard Healy say that clearances are down 35%.

I would say that the sides that embrace this run and gun style will florish and those that try to keep to a stoppage based game will struggle. Tempted to put a few sneaky $$ on a Port v Bulldogs GF.

 

[The Swert]

Not sure.

Port were a man down for 3 quarters yet somehow had more legs at the end.

This game is counter-intuitive sometimes.

 

[Milang_Panthers]

On the available evidence so far I think all 3 rule changes have combined to create a faster , higher scoring more free flowing game. I'm sure I heard Gerard Healy say that clearances are down 35%.

I would say that the sides that embrace this run and gun style will florish and those that try to keep to a stoppage based game will struggle. Tempted to put a few sneaky $$ on a Port v Bulldogs GF.

Yeah stoppages down 35%

 

[Joshen]

If you are unfit, you better be versatile.

Big men with huge tanks will be invaluable in the 4th.

Going to suit teams that do their best work running.

 

[shaqsuns]

It needs to be a lot lower like 20 or 30 rotations. The more fatigued players are the more the game will open up, It just makes sense. But one part of the game that use to draw the crowds in were the big snoozers at each end with their one on one battles unfortunately the games has lost that part of game. But it was great to see less stoppages this weekend. Ohhh by the way what ever happened to the dropping the ball rule during a tackle


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Gotta say it certainly didn't detract from the viewing experience at the ground today! Obviously one game isn't enough to make a judgement on, but today seemed a lot more open than most games have been in recent times, and the time on in each quarter wasn't a lot more than the standard "one minute per goal" so the stoppage numbers must have been low.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

i think these rules have basically signed sealed and delivered the flag to hawthorn. there's no way to defend them now. they have the kicking skills to control the tempo and avoiding fatiguing as much as everyone else will.

this port, bulldogs running and taking the game on at every opportunity style is unsustainable for 4 quarters with the current rules.

 

[Blue Heart]

Yeah stoppages down 35%

I hope that trend continues for the rest of the yr.

From my POV all the packs and forced ball ups has been strangling the game and killing it as a spectacle.

 

[the harry]

Is scoring being up a less than a goal per game (prior to the Eagles v Lions match) really significant enough to say rule changes have impacted it? Could it just be some match ups have been conducive to higher scoring? And, in the event it is, is that all people wanted, one more goal per game?

Sample size of seven sucks too.

 

[Jables]

i think these rules have basically signed sealed and delivered the flag to hawthorn. there's no way to defend them now. they have the kicking skills to control the tempo and avoiding fatiguing as much as everyone else will.

this port, bulldogs running and taking the game on at every opportunity style is unsustainable for 4 quarters with the current rules.

It is far too early to judge anything about the interchange rules, besides that endurance suddenly became an even more valuable attribute. Coaches will take half a season to adapt. Bulldogs and Port have had basically the same style for a couple of years anyway.

 

[Quinz]

#samplesize

 

[footyfan1978]

We've seen the impact of the new interchange rule since 1994 of increasing it to 3 players on bench and then 4 in 1997.
It brought flooding, kicking backwards and zoning into vogue as popular coaching tactics to make use of the extra numbers of players you had access to. Went from a game of 18 players on field against each other and positional players important with just two on bench used from time to time and now it really has turned into a more negative game of everyone running up and down the ground at both ends where flooding is the norm as you know with so many interchange players it truly is not 18 v 18 on field but truly 22 v 22 and you simply bring the most fresh 18 on field at any time but keep rotating to make the best of your 22.

Tackles have skyrocketed in numbers and also improved too actually, with the emphasis on it more. Zoning and all negative tactics that reduced the game as a one on one contest have been a by-product. It is not as attractive to watch but still a good game. It gets weird at times when you know if your team gets the ball there is no one to kick to as all 18 players on your team are coached to go down the other end and zone up. Anyway, it is what it is. Interchange caps is not removing the cause of the bigger changes those rules made to the game. Simply should have gone back to 2 on bench for mine. I think 90 rotations is not going to stop what got created by the original massive rule change to interchange bench. Maybe 40 would be more realistic of stopping it being used as a rotation system. To me it was an interchange system before. But with 4 on bench it has become a rotation system. Maybe a cap of 40 or 30 that would make it more an interchange system would force the game to become a lot more pure to it's origins as a positional game most of us grew up with and enjoyed the real contests of one on one way more often.

 

[Sherrinator]

By round 10 some jerk coach will have created a negative tactic and the umps will have changed their interpretation of the rules.

 

[AstroboyUK]

We've seen the impact of the new interchange rule since 1994 of increasing it to 3 players on bench and then 4 in 1997.
It brought flooding, kicking backwards and zoning into vogue as popular coaching tactics to make use of the extra numbers of players you had access to. Went from a game of 18 players on field against each other and positional players important with just two on bench used from time to time and now it really has turned into a more negative game of everyone running up and down the ground at both ends where flooding is the norm as you know with so many interchange players it truly is not 18 v 18 on field but truly 22 v 22 and you simply bring the most fresh 18 on field at any time but keep rotating to make the best of your 22.

Tackles have skyrocketed in numbers and also improved too actually, with the emphasis on it more. Zoning and all negative tactics that reduced the game as a one on one contest have been a by-product. It is not as attractive to watch but still a good game. It gets weird at times when you know if your team gets the ball there is no one to kick to as all 18 players on your team are coached to go down the other end and zone up. Anyway, it is what it is. Interchange caps is not removing the cause of the bigger changes those rules made to the game. Simply should have gone back to 2 on bench for mine. I think 90 rotations is not going to stop what got created by the original massive rule change to interchange bench. Maybe 40 would be more realistic of stopping it being used as a rotation system. To me it was an interchange system before. But with 4 on bench it has become a rotation system. Maybe a cap of 40 or 30 that would make it more an interchange system would force the game to become a lot more pure to it's origins as a positional game most of us grew up with and enjoyed the real contests of one on one way more often.

100% spot on. Please god let them reduce it by 10 a year until we get back down to 30-40.

 

[threesixpio]

i think these rules have basically signed sealed and delivered the flag to hawthorn. there's no way to defend them now. they have the kicking skills to control the tempo and avoiding fatiguing as much as everyone else will.

this port, bulldogs running and taking the game on at every opportunity style is unsustainable for 4 quarters with the current rules.

Lets watch Hawthorn today before thinking this.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

#samplesize

I'm not really suggesting any of these things are the case, but rather asking for what changes we think will happen. It's certainly too early to make any conclusions, but it's interesting to speculate.