AFL Rules and Discussion Thread

[proboy]

So the interchange stays the same, which was a shock. I was expecting a cap of some form.

But the big one is no wrestling for ruckman, this really makes the big boys bigger in my eyes. Sandilands will have a huge year and just shouted the Bar once he heard the news.

THoughts

 

[FredLeDeux]

So the interchange stays the same, which was a shock. I was expecting a cap of some form.

But the big one is no wrestling for ruckman, this really makes the big boys bigger in my eyes. Sandilands will have a huge year and just shouted the Bar once he heard the news.

THoughts

It may help the big boys and the big leapers such as Sandilands and Natanui.
It may hurt the wrestlers and scraggers such as Jolly and Mumford.
It may limit the impact of the 3rd man up, because he will have to start further back.
It may be umpired correctly for 3 or 4 weeks and then ignored.

 

[proboy]

Bit of wait and see. But collingwoods recruitment of the big Q as backup has just backfired if the govern the rules as they state.

 

[footscore]

I would have thought Sandilands would dislike this new rule?
He's 125kg and he often manages to wrestle his way to find front/best position against the smaller rucks (who happen to be giants in their own right), so now he may be slower to the contest being a vastly heavier person and won't be able to ****** blokes before the thrown in of the ball.
It's like a wrestling match between a bloke 100kg and his smaller counterpart who's 80kg, the smaller bloke has the advantage being more nimble than the bigger bloke but time will tell.

Good for us though as we have two athletic rucks who aren't the strongest so they can bridge the gap ever so slightly against the others.

 

[proboy]

I think the opposite. The smaller guys usually generate a wrestle and try get the bigger opponent off balance or out of position. This will allow the bigger guys free run at the pill.

 

[dazbroncos]

Im still of the thought that any business that creates the environment by which medical staff and then players may be coerced back into a professional environment under injury duress will be opening themselves to major litigious issues.

Im not the kind of person that would engage that way as i hate black and white law, but the brigade of ambulance chasers exist and it will come back to bite the AFL as an employer for creating the environment.

Leave the effen game alone...

GO Catters

 

[you pick one]

I'll wait and see how it eventuates,but if they could just enforce the rules they have now correctly and consistently that would be a good start.
Much rather they took a look at Hawkins being held onto and wrestled as the ball is coming into our forward line.

 

[Senatorguesty]

The less I say on the matter the better as I have pretty strong feelings/opinions on what the AFL is doing.
The interchange rule, is there any detail on injuries? If you hit the cap and cop an injury what happens?
If they allow injured players to come off past the cap then what is stopping players from faking injuries?
If they dont allow injured players to come off and put it on the club to allow 2 or 3 rotations just in case then that opens them up for HUGE legal issues down the track.
How much would it cost to "take care off" Anderson, Bartlett and Dimwitaroo?

 

[SJ]

The less I say on the matter the better as I have pretty strong feelings/opinions on what the AFL is doing.
The interchange rule, is there any detail on injuries? If you hit the cap and cop an injury what happens?
If they allow injured players to come off past the cap then what is stopping players from faking injuries?
If they dont allow injured players to come off and put it on the club to allow 2 or 3 rotations just in case then that opens them up for HUGE legal issues down the track.
How much would it cost to "take care off" Anderson, Bartlett and Dimwitaroo?

Why would you hit the cap with time left in the match?

 

[SJ]

Im still of the thought that any business that creates the environment by which medical staff and then players may be coerced back into a professional environment under injury duress will be opening themselves to major litigious issues.

Im not the kind of person that would engage that way as i hate black and white law, but the brigade of ambulance chasers exist and it will come back to bite the AFL as an employer for creating the environment.

Leave the effen game alone...

GO Catters

How come other football codes can get away with a handful per match?

Maybe they should include an interchange in the Olympic Marathon, or in the Hawaii Ironman - you know, we wouldn't want any athletes participating in a professional environment under injury duress.

Anyway, the cap actually improves player welfare. By limiting rotations there is less need for players to return back to the field with injury. By taking the principle to the extreme, if we had no interchange and pure substitutes (as in some codes) then an injured player would never be required to return to the field.

 

[Senatorguesty]

Why would you hit the cap with time left in the match?

Whats the alternative?
Leave 5 rotations for the last 60secs of the game?
Especially next year I reckon you'll see sides use their cap with 4-5 mins still to go.

 

[SJ]

Whats the alternative?
Leave 5 rotations for the last 60secs of the game?
Especially next year I reckon you'll see sides use their cap with 4-5 mins still to go.

Why not just leave one for the last minute?

How hard can it be?

PS. Your post sums it up to me. You used the word "rotations". The quicker this concept is eradicated, the better. There is no need for the bench to be used for "rotations", it should be purely for injury replacement and strategical movements.

 

[goyoucatters]

I'm finding it pretty hilarious that some of the same footy fans who don't want the AFL tinkering with the game as it used to be played are also pretty keen to defend the current interchange system.

The interchange/substitute system of 2012 is a million miles from the system I grew up watching in the 80's.

I, for one, would be glad to see a little sanity restored about the number of times players can rotate on and off the ground.

Give me the purity of a contest between two equally-stretched players anyday.

 

[FredLeDeux]

I think we now have the final word on the interchanges cap (from the AFL website).

KEVIN Bartlett has taken a hefty swipe at the AFL Commission for rejecting the Laws of the Game Committee's recommendation to impose a cap on interchanges.
The Richmond great, who is a key member of the committee, used his morning radio show on Wednesday to express his dismay at the Commission's decision to go "weak at the knees".

Old fella seems to have forgotten the difference between an advisory panel and an executive body. Now that's what I call hubris.

 

[SJ]

I think we now have the final word on the interchanges cap (from the AFL website).

KEVIN Bartlett has taken a hefty swipe at the AFL Commission for rejecting the Laws of the Game Committee's recommendation to impose a cap on interchanges.
The Richmond great, who is a key member of the committee, used his morning radio show on Wednesday to express his dismay at the Commission's decision to go "weak at the knees".

Old fella seems to have forgotten the difference between an advisory panel and an executive body. Now that's what I call hubris.

He's right though. They agree with it but are scared to put it in.

A cap should have been implemented in 2011 (set at 100 or 120) instead of a three interchange and one substitute (which is better than four interchange but not ideal). Then 2012 it could have been knocked down another 20, and then another 20 this year.

The principle is correct and it is inevitable that it will be implemented.

 

[SpryCorpse]

Agree with SJ and goyoucatters.
I've long thought that the number of interchanges has become a blight on the game.
It's really ridiculous viewing and introduces another level of chaos to a game that is already chaotic enough.

My personal preference would be to revert to the substitute rather than interchange.
My only concern with that is that subs on the bench may get too little football. But there are very often players that are coming back from injury, etc that fit perfectly into that requirement.
As for players tiring on the field well, like all sports, you need to pace yourself to last the duration of the game...

 

[Lana]

The way i see a cap working is that there would really be a cap of 84. After you go over 80 the player who went off can't go back on. This makes the talk of what if a player is injured and your over the cap irrelevent.

 

[Senatorguesty]

He's right though. They agree with it but are scared to put it in.

A cap should have been implemented in 2011 (set at 100 or 120) instead of a three interchange and one substitute (which is better than four interchange but not ideal). Then 2012 it could have been knocked down another 20, and then another 20 this year.

The principle is correct and it is inevitable that it will be implemented.

Why?
I cant find someone who gives a genuine reason why having rotations is a bad idea.
You cant say it reduces the viewing of the game as most would agree the last 2 or 3 years the standard of footy has been great.
Players are still playing large percentages of the game they are just getting a quick 30s-1 min break on the pine.
Players are fitter now than ever so you cant say anything on those lines.
It reduces fatigue injuries.
It ensures that the standard of play within the game stays the same and doesnt turn into crap in the last quarter.
Theres no actual reason to reduce rotations other than looking at the stats and saying "OMG LOOK AT THOSE BIG NUMBERS!!.

 

[SJ]

Why?
I cant find someone who gives a genuine reason why having rotations is a bad idea.
You cant say it reduces the viewing of the game as most would agree the last 2 or 3 years the standard of footy has been great.
Players are still playing large percentages of the game they are just getting a quick 30s-1 min break on the pine.
Players are fitter now than ever so you cant say anything on those lines.
It reduces fatigue injuries.
It ensures that the standard of play within the game stays the same and doesnt turn into crap in the last quarter.
Theres no actual reason to reduce rotations other than looking at the stats and saying "OMG LOOK AT THOSE BIG NUMBERS!!.

1. It abuses the purpose of the interchange bench
2. It creates disparity between a team with one or more injuries compared with an opposition with none
3. It leads to more 'burst' play creating more frequent and severe collision injuries
4. It leads to fresher players allowing more to follow the ball around the entire ground, creating more congestion around the ball and more stoppages
5. Conversely with your underlined point, it actually often leads to a clog-fest in the first half which then breaks open as structures break down in the second half

 

[goyoucatters]

Why?
I cant find someone who gives a genuine reason why having rotations is a bad idea.
You cant say it reduces the viewing of the game as most would agree the last 2 or 3 years the standard of footy has been great.
Players are still playing large percentages of the game they are just getting a quick 30s-1 min break on the pine.
Players are fitter now than ever so you cant say anything on those lines.
It reduces fatigue injuries.
It ensures that the standard of play within the game stays the same and doesnt turn into crap in the last quarter.
Theres no actual reason to reduce rotations other than looking at the stats and saying "OMG LOOK AT THOSE BIG NUMBERS!!.

Well, I'm certainly not one of the 'most' then.

The congestion in footy at the moment is severely impairing my viewing enjoyment of the game; so many players these days take possession of the footy and are immediately besieged by three opponents tackling them almost simultaneously. This is not great to watch, in my opinion.

And I also see that the rampant congestion creates another issue which makes footy less compelling viewing. When the footy is (eventually) cleared from the incredible morass of bodies within a close perimeter the players on the outside are often many metres in the clear. Each to their own, I know, but I'm no fan of seeing stacks of goals kicked by players who are in acres of space and have to do little more than stay upright to get the ball through the big sticks.

For me, the most satisfying goals kicked in footy are the ones that come courtesy of one team's ability to win the ball under pressure and survive the persistent efforts of the opposition to win it back. I think we lose something from the game when so many scores now result from players strolling into goal with no opposition player within 10 metres.

One-on-one contests all over the ground was one of the very first things that attracted me to footy; having won the ball in one position your team transferred the ball to the next contest further up the ground. We're now often reduced to watching one almighty contest for the footy at one location before a chain of (totally) uncontested possessions results in a score. Makes for fairly ordinary viewing at times, I believe.

Jetta's goal in the prelim might have thrilled many footy watchers but I found myself celebrating his speed and poise while simultaneously lamenting the fact that footy now includes the contingency that all the players can be so cramped on the field of play that a player on the HBF can pick up the pill and have nobody between him and the goal. If this keeps up you have to wonder why we still name players in distinct positions on the ground. Might as well have 22 followers named each week...

I acknowledge that rampant rotations are not the sole cause of congestion in footy but I believe they are playing a significant role in aiding the coaches to set up with so many players around the ball. The entirely natural fatigue that should prevent swathes of players from simply following the football all over the ground for so much of the game would help immensely in seeing players revert to playing their positions and simply battling to beat their direct opponent whenever the ball enters their area.

I still believe that's footy as it should be played.

 

[Senatorguesty]

1. It abuses the purpose of the interchange bench
2. It creates disparity between a team with one or more injuries compared with an opposition with none Hence the sub rule.
3. It leads to more 'burst' play creating more frequent and severe collision injuries Is there any proof? I did some quick research and couldnt find any numbers that actually proved that introducing a cap would have any effect on collision injuries. Alot of people will bring some figures up to try to back up that claim yet those are due to fitness levels of players being higher (hitting contests harder), tackling being more important to todays game (shoulder injuries).
4. It leads to fresher players allowing more to follow the ball around the entire ground, creating more congestion around the ball and more stoppages checking some facts, stoppages have gone up a small amount since 2002 (around 10%) but where is the proof pointing directly to interchanges and not just overall improved fitness of players?
5. Conversely with your underlined point, it actually often leads to a clog-fest in the first half which then breaks open as structures break down in the second half 2005/06 are widely considered the most defensive and ugly football years in recent memory, years where interchanges were down yet since 2007 we have seen some of the most attacking and entertaining football in recent memory where interchanges have exceeded 120.

My point is the "facts" the AFL are using (or pushing) would be better to understand when compared to the fitness levels of AFL players and the "science" of football the last few years.
Injuries have increased more directly to that increased fitness level and not so much on interchange numbers, IE years with HUGE increases to interchanges havent led to HUGE increases to collision injuries yet if you look at the 2011 injury report many injury types like concussions/kness/shoulders etc have hit decade highs, the year they brought in the sub to REDUCE those type of injuries?
Yet 2010 had LOWER numbers of injuries (and most by a significant amount, like 50%) when there was no reduction to the interchange.

If someone could give figures that directly state that reducing the interchange numbers (be in more subs or bring in caps) would reduce injuries I'll re-consider but all I can find points to the opposite (atleast in this short amount of time) OR those figures run parallel to fitness levels and not with interchanges.

P.S: Forgive me if I ramble or some doesnt make sense, I'm watching my daughter and had to stop and come back several times, I wouldnt be surprised if I type half a sentence and then the rest of the sentence has NOTHING to do with the start

 

[you pick one]

1. It abuses the purpose of the interchange bench
2. It creates disparity between a team with one or more injuries compared with an opposition with none
3. It leads to more 'burst' play creating more frequent and severe collision injuries
4. It leads to fresher players allowing more to follow the ball around the entire ground, creating more congestion around the ball and more stoppages
5. Conversely with your underlined point, it actually often leads to a clog-fest in the first half which then breaks open as structures break down in the second half

Is your fullstop key broken?

 

[Senatorguesty]

Is your fullstop key broken?

Card him SJ!!!!!!!

 

[Tex_21]

1. It abuses the purpose of the interchange bench

Did Polly Farmer abuse the purpose of the ruck contest by taking the ball out and handballing it? It's an interchange bench, not a subs bench anymore. The purpose is to interchange players. Increasing the number of those doing so doesn't change anything.

2. It creates disparity between a team with one or more injuries compared with an opposition with none

Same as there has always been a disparity. If you revert back to the 19th and 20th man situation, and get an injury early, you are one man down - still 18 on the field, but the lack of an option is there.

3. It leads to more 'burst' play creating more frequent and severe collision injuries

Got a citation? Or just the general speculation? Nothing to do with sports science allowing players to be faster, stronger and fitter? It may have an impact, but I'd be shocked if the numbers were statistically significant (in terms of "more frequent", "more severe" and the causation).

4. It leads to fresher players allowing more to follow the ball around the entire ground, creating more congestion around the ball and more stoppages

That is the biggest load of shit about the whole interchange debate. Congestion forms because players are fitter and faster, so allowing them to get clear on the outside is damaging. To counteract this, coaches instruct players to get around the ball, quite reasonably. This is further compounded by the extraordinarily long time it takes umpires to firstly call for a ball up, and secondly actually ball it up - it allows a crowd to form within a 30-40m radius. Blow the whistle early, ball it up quick, keep the game flowing - it used to happen.

5. Conversely with your underlined point, it actually often leads to a clog-fest in the first half which then breaks open as structures break down in the second half

Newsflash: Players more tired at the end of game than the start. Herald Sun readers blame interchange and Martian involvement.

 

[manboob]

Are they going to give the cap a whirl during the pre-season comp?