News 3 interchanges and one sub, IT'S OFFICIAL

[mattys123]

Two days after we win a flag, and the AFL has already introduced it's idea of how to curb our effectiveness.

Gratz AFL, keep ruining our great game.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/103656/default.aspx

AFL TEAMS will have three interchange players and one substitute on their benches in 2011 after the League acted to curb the dramatic rise in the number of rotations during matches.

The new rule, which was trialled in the 2009 and 2010 NAB Cup competitions, will allow clubs to introduce their substitute into games at any time, but the player who is replaced cannot return to the field.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/103656/default.aspx

 

[Ant85]

No cap on interchanges

In better news, the AFL has decided not to cap interchanges, but will instead introduce 1 sub, leaving 3 available for rotations.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/103656/default.aspx

This is a great outcome for us, and I think might actually assist us.

Now we will enter a match planning for 3 rotations, so if an injury occurs, our structures won't be overly hindered (unless we have more than one major injury in a game, which - as the data shows - is unlikely).

 

[DeZi]

Yup in addition, the sub can come on for any player (injured, bad game, or whatever reason)

Sub must be announced on Thursday with the teams

By the way, next year if a GF team doesn't use a sub, does the sub get a premiership medallion?

 

[Ant85]

LOL Beat me to it by 30 seconds.

Mods, can you merge our threads please?

 

[WakeUpPies]

Now the average # of rotations will increase across all clubs, well done AFL, you have succeeded in limiting the number of interchanges and managed to slow down the game!

 

[pies_1981]

We found a way to use the bench to our advantage before and I'm sure they'll find a way to use this new rule to their advantage.

In reality the new rules effect many other teams who also use the high rotation policy so I don't think it will have a massive impact on us.

 

[The Panther]

It's all relative. Our midfield will still make unlimited interchanges.

We can still make unlimited interchange rotations.

All it means is the death of the 2nd Ruckman, i.e. carrying 2 pure ruckman.

 

[shawthing09]

Non sensical really, they claim to want to reduce the number of interchanges this will absolutely surely mean players rotate more often for an even shorter period.

The AFL continue to try to hold the game back from evolving rather then letting it do it naturally, every time it does the clubs continue to find a way to exploit these changes and the AFL again try to change the game.

 

[WakeUpPies]

Does anyone have a link to the medical reasoning behind the changes? I keep hearing about it but it is never posted in detail.

 

[shawthing09]

Does anyone have a link to the medical reasoning behind the changes? I keep hearing about it but it is never posted in detail.

They haven't and will not release it (that's if they actually have any) to begin with they where basing it off the rugby stuides, from there something was mentioned about "The more a club rotated it's players the higher the chance of injuries to the opposition" make no mistake the overwhelming drive behind this is to try to counter defensive zone structures and stop the "uncontested" possesion game.

To point out that collision injuries are always going to be more common if you have the big blokes running harder for longer isn't rocket science, but that is because that is a game that pretty much revolves around big guys running at each other. There is no way a rugby study will have any correlation to the AFL.

The rules comittee (as mentioned by Spicey I think) should be disbanded, it appears that so long as we have one they will want to make changes to justify their existance. The AFL speed up the game to try to counter flooding, the players rotated more because they didn't get a rest during the breaks and now they are trying to counter that. It is an ongoing battle between the AFL and the defensive structures of the game, instead of just letting coaches develop offensive tactics to counter it (as Geelong did so succesfully)

 

[smiddaz123]

I know a guy who works in the AFL circles. Apparently the reasoning is that with the current trend, players will be going for short, shap bursts of running, coming off, rinse and repeat. Apparently this is more likely to result in injury than longer but less intense periods of running.

No idea how accurate it is, whether that is actually true, or anything. It's what I've heard though.

 

[DeZi]

Jeez Swanny would disagree with short sharp bursts cause injuries

 

[DaneInc]

The use of interchange has created more congestion, more stoppages, more defensive pressure and has contributed to a drop in disposal efficiency.

At the start of the year the AFL said they wanted to cap the interchange to slow the game down and now they are saying high rotations caused more stoppages???

"The medical advice was also telling us that a restriction should be applied to try to arrest the current injury trend."

The Magpies mastered the use of rotations to get the most out of their players and have strongly opposed any moves to cut rotations"

These 2 lines there directly contradict each other. If we mastered the use of rotations then maybe there is a link between that and the fact that last week we only had one 1 player unavailable because of injury.

I don't understand the AFL.

 

[shawthing09]

Jeez Swanny would disagree with short sharp bursts cause injuries

Exactly.

To be fair I actually think this won't hurt us, we have one of the most versatile sides with a huge number of guys capable of going through the midfield and a large number of our mids very capable fowards so we will be able to get away with "resting" players foward a bit more then most.

I think the AFL have failed to consider how this will shorten older players careers. You certainly wouldn't be taken a guy like Brad Johnson into your side now. I think it will also make it harder for guys who play strictly midfield particularly inside mids. Luke Ball's for example will probably be a dying breed as teams look for guys with a wider range of skills who can be rotated on field.

 

[WakeUpPies]

I don't understand the AFL either, they seem to be more worried about collision than stress/overuse injuries, they also seem to ignore that fatigue is one of the main contributors towards all injuries (including those caused by contact) and that Collingwood who uses the most rotations have one of the healthiest lists.

You are more likely to get a severe injury in a marking contest than running full speed into someone.
More likely to do your hammy when you are tired and try to exert too much than when you are fresh.

 

[Ant85]

I just posted this on the main forum.

Don't look at this as a negative:



Not much will change.

Rotations will still go ahead, clubs will have to make very slight adjustments to their game plans.

The AFL had to make a change to avoid looking like they've whimped out. So they chose the option that will have the least impact.

The AFL caved, what is everyone whinging about?

It's a clear victory for Malthouse, Eade, Roos and all other coaches, club officials, journalists (yes, including Mike Sheehan), and supporters who disapproved of capping rotations.

 

[Ickirus]

Its a stupid rule and a classic knee jerk reaction by the AFL. They want to limit interchanges for reasons not backed up by any evidence and contradictory to all the evidence clubs have put forth. To cap it off they introduce a new rule that will increase rotations, not reduce it.

The most disappointing thing about this rule is it will no longer be the best 22 that plays all game, but the best 21, so it denies a player the opportunity for a place in the team, unless an injury occurs. It hurts chances for guys like Blair, Goldsack and other young guys to grab a spot in the team

 

[Mickaman]

They haven't and will not release it (that's if they actually have any) to begin with they where basing it off the rugby stuides, from there something was mentioned about "The more a club rotated it's players the higher the chance of injuries to the opposition" make no mistake the overwhelming drive behind this is to try to counter defensive zone structures and stop the "uncontested" possesion game.

To point out that collision injuries are always going to be more common if you have the big blokes running harder for longer isn't rocket science, but that is because that is a game that pretty much revolves around big guys running at each other. There is no way a rugby study will have any correlation to the AFL.

The rules comittee (as mentioned by Spicey I think) should be disbanded, it appears that so long as we have one they will want to make changes to justify their existance. The AFL speed up the game to try to counter flooding, the players rotated more because they didn't get a rest during the breaks and now they are trying to counter that. It is an ongoing battle between the AFL and the defensive structures of the game, instead of just letting coaches develop offensive tactics to counter it (as Geelong did so succesfully)

Yep fully agree with this. Just a load of BS to try and make the game played to how the AFL wants it played. "Less ugly football".

I personally think it will not have any detriment to Pies. Due to alot of players being so versatile.

 

[mattys123]

The positive is we have the most talented coaching staff, and they will just "tweak" our gamestyle to suit the new rules.

It won't be that different, I'd say it would drop the interchange numbers by about 20% only, once teams figure it out a bit.

It was the best of the 3 options anyway, an interchange cap would have been bullshit.

 

[daics_35]

I dont think it will make much difference becuase we can rotate players as much as we want and I am sure our coaches and fitness staff will find another way of getting an upper hand and take us to our second straight premiership.

 

[shawthing09]

Its a stupid rule and a classic knee jerk reaction by the AFL. They want to limit interchanges for reasons not backed up by any evidence and contradictory to all the evidence clubs have put forth. To cap it off they introduce a new rule that will increase rotations, not reduce it.

The most disappointing thing about this rule is it will no longer be the best 22 that plays all game, but the best 21, so it denies a player the opportunity for a place in the team, unless an injury occurs. It hurts chances for guys like Blair, Goldsack and other young guys to grab a spot in the team

Pretty sure sub can be made for any reason, therefore the sub will be used in every single game. It will just be that the "sub" will only play around a half. The difference between a sub and bench player is bench players can go to and from the ground freely. Once you use your "sub" the player subbed off can no longer come onto the ground. I don't think clubs will use their subs as injury insurance and expect them to be used much more like an extra bench player.

 

[BazzaTheBogan]

All its going to do is put more pressure on midfield rotations, it will just give us further advantage, because we can now rest some of our mids forward of the ball in the pockets and flanks while we grind the engine room with even more rotations.

 

[Quicky]

Pretty convenient timing for the AFL you'd have to say.

 

[Knightmare]

Not as bad as it could have been and for what the AFL was setting out to achieve it was the better of the alternatives. Much better than an interchange cap for mine.

Would personally much prefer to go the other way and expand to 6 + 2 subs for larger rotations and greater fairness if injuries occur.
With the main difference being increase to the pace without regard for congestion. Only so many players you can play on the ball without it being to your detriment just like with the number of rotations so I don't mind it being player to this greater level.

My belief is that neither of these changes will make a difference of injuries.

Bigger bench = more rotations and faster pace through less players playing tired = better spectacle.

 

[Frankie23]

Better than the cap!

We've shown throughout the year we can cope with 3 men on the bench, it will only take a few tweaks from the conditioning staff and we'll be right.

All our defenders play 97-100% gametime so that isn't an issue. Instead of Swanny/Pendles going to the interchange they can rest in the forward pocket so I don't think it'll be much of an issue

With GC we get an extra bye, over the course of the year it won't affect us that much fatigue wise.