Brad Scott and the sub rule

[witsend]

Interesting to see Brad Scott rubbishing the new system because they replaced a fit player with the sub and then when they had injuries, found themselves a player down on rotations!
This is exactly what I predicted would and will happen in the first part of this year.
Coaches will get "cute" and try to take advantage of the sub by rolling the dice on injury, then will sook like schoolgirls when it comes back to bite them!
The rule was designed to diminish rotations, and the sub was introduced to compensate coaches who complained that they are disadvantaged by injury.
This rule is essential for the good of the game.
Rotations are exploding and a blight on the game.
Eventually coaches will realise that they simply cannot push the players to 100% capacity all the time and will start to consider conserving.

 

[SJ]

I agree.

Less scope for rotations actually helps the team struck by injuries. He could have waited until the injury hit, made the substitution and had a full team still.

In saying that, I still would have preferred an interchange cap rather than a substitute but it's better than nothing.

 

[witsend]

The smart coaches will see the sub for what it's meant to be.
Actual access to your first emergency during a game, something they have never had before.
Is it possible the sub may, in some instances, not actually play?
Personally I think that's unlikely, but you may see the sub only come on for the last quarter or so, in which case it could more likely be a mid with fresh legs.

 

[SJ]

I think the substitute will be made about half way through the third quarter if there has not been a game-ending injury.

That way even if there is an injury the effects will only last a quarter or so, but you have the fresh legs anyway. And if there is not an injury, well you get 45 minutes or so of a new player.

 

[witsend]

Exactly...which is why I reckon it will be a mid.
The whole team balance/ruck-not ruck issue will be sorted out amongst the 21 remaining players at match selection, like it always has.
Coaches will be tempted to play the extra mid early at times, depending on the state of the game.

 

[Vdubs]

Interesting to see Brad Scott rubbishing the new system because they replaced a fit player with the sub and then when they had injuries, found themselves a player down on rotations!
This is exactly what I predicted would and will happen in the first part of this year.
Coaches will get "cute" and try to take advantage of the sub by rolling the dice on injury, then will sook like schoolgirls when it comes back to bite them!
The rule was designed to diminish rotations, and the sub was introduced to compensate coaches who complained that they are disadvantaged by injury.
This rule is essential for the good of the game.
Rotations are exploding and a blight on the game.
Eventually coaches will realise that they simply cannot push the players to 100% capacity all the time and will start to consider conserving.

The rule is ridiculous and NOT based on medical advice regarding excessive rotations. Pies did it to perfection last year, so what if they succeeded. So why should there be any limit to rotations? I work with teams and players are pleading to be rotated off to bet a breather, but are limited because of "rules".

Totally agree with Scott. Injury should be accounted for with the sub rule. In other words, let's go back to what we had, which worked. MAYBE 2 extra interchange players would be the optimum.

 

[Vdubs]

So what happens if in the first half you have a serious enough head injury/ concussion, and maybe a hamstring? Given that the concussion may well be NOT permitted to return? The rules will make it very tempting in a GF to target key HEADS.

 

[witsend]

The rule is ridiculous and NOT based on medical advice regarding excessive rotations. Pies did it to perfection last year, so what if they succeeded. So why should there be any limit to rotations? I work with teams and players are pleading to be rotated off to bet a breather, but are limited because of "rules".

Totally agree with Scott. Injury should be accounted for with the sub rule. In other words, let's go back to what we had, which worked. MAYBE 2 extra interchange players would be the optimum.

Because the sorry spectacle of close to a 36 man rolling ball of midfielders for 120 minutes is shit and the coaches won't stop doing it.
The whole point will be that eventually players won't have to run themselves to the point of exhaustion and sub off every 7 minutes.
I wanna see footballers play, not scientists coach.

 

[witsend]

So what happens if in the first half you have a serious enough head injury/ concussion, and maybe a hamstring? Given that the concussion may well be NOT permitted to return? The rules will make it very tempting in a GF to target key HEADS.

Shit happens. It's sport, and injury has been a part of it forever.
You still have 20-21 players to make up 18. There have been many examples over the years of teams being down to 17-18 fit players, and through sheer force of will guts, have been victorious.
Continue as we were and you will end up with limitless subs a la NFL.
And if you think the coaching staff give a rat's ass about the players well-being, then you're kidding yourself.
They are pieces on a chess-board to be run to exhaustion with little or no concern for their short or long term well-being other than how it affects the team's chances of winning.
I am sick to death of seeing clogged up,6 at every contest keepings off footy.
I admire Saints and Collingwood for their commitment and fitness abut they are destroying the best game in the world with excessive rotations.

 

[McCrann]

The rule is ridiculous and NOT based on medical advice regarding excessive rotations. Pies did it to perfection last year, so what if they succeeded. So why should there be any limit to rotations? I work with teams and players are pleading to be rotated off to bet a breather, but are limited because of "rules".

Totally agree with Scott. Injury should be accounted for with the sub rule. In other words, let's go back to what we had, which worked. MAYBE 2 extra interchange players would be the optimum.

I assume you mean go back to the time before Demetriou and Anderson, ie the 90s? ie with 3 on the bench.

Well - it seems the AFL has granted your wish! Why aren't you thanking them?

But instead you want more interchange players? So in effect you want the rolling pack to increase in size? Maybe you should watch Rugby mate because you can forget about running footy with 6 on the bench!

 

[cynical]

i think most people want the interchange for strategic changes or for injuries and not so guys can gut run for 7-10min then come off

id rather see some kind of cap, a time penalty of some kind, or only 1 interchange at a time maybe at set periods

the sub will slow it down a bit, im pretty sure it'll be used towards the end of the 3rd quarter unless there is a major injury

 

[Hinkley29]

My suggestion:

- A bench between 6 and 8 players, all of whom are subs. Once a player is off, they are off.

If you get an injury, you get subbed off and don't come back on. How often does a team get more than 6 injuries in a game?

Combine it with a send off rule (not to be replaced) and big suspensions for players who are deemed to have deliberately injured other players.

If you wish, you can use the subs strategically if the game is getting away from you, or you save them up as a safeguard against injuries.

Footy is becoming much too much like ice hockey, with 60 second line changes, and it is detrimental to the game.

Funnily enough, what I am suggesting is used in most team sports around the world.....

 

[SJ]

My suggestion:

- A bench between 6 and 8 players, all of whom are subs. Once a player is off, they are off.

If you get an injury, you get subbed off and don't come back on. How often does a team get more than 6 injuries in a game?

Combine it with a send off rule (not to be replaced) and big suspensions for players who are deemed to have deliberately injured other players.

If you wish, you can use the subs strategically if the game is getting away from you, or you save them up as a safeguard against injuries.

Footy is becoming much too much like ice hockey, with 60 second line changes, and it is detrimental to the game.

Funnily enough, what I am suggesting is used in most team sports around the world.....

Yeah. Coaches will cry foul but they coped with 20-30 interchanges for 1995-2005 and even fewer before then.

I'd probably be in favour of an interchange with a low cap on numbers, but your suggestion would work just as well. Only problem would be multiple players getting very little game time.

 

[Hinkley29]

Yeah. Coaches will cry foul but they coped with 20-30 interchanges for 1995-2005 and even fewer before then.

I'd probably be in favour of an interchange with a low cap on numbers, but your suggestion would work just as well. Only problem would be multiple players getting very little game time.

It just requires a change of mindset. Rather than rotating players off the bench, you rotate players through less physically demanding positions. Like it used to be when on ballers would "rest" in the forward and back pockets.

It would mean less players around the ball, less congestion and more one-on-one contests around the ground. Some would criticise it as going backwards in time, but how good would footy be if it was played in the style of the 90's but with the athletes of 2011. It would be fantastic.

 

[Beth]

I'm willing to bet this sub thing lasts one season after the barrage of sooking that comes from 17 coaches who all screw it up at one time or another. I can't wait to see the reaction when a team loses a critical game because they do what Scott, B did on the weekend (I hope its not us).

Slightly off topic why exactly do we have a rules committee anyway. We have a brilliant sport, it has rules, why do we need to change them year to year?

 

[Catsace]

Because the sorry spectacle of close to a 36 man rolling ball of midfielders for 120 minutes is shit and the coaches won't stop doing it.
The whole point will be that eventually players won't have to run themselves to the point of exhaustion and sub off every 7 minutes.
I wanna see footballers play, not scientists coach.

Excellent point. Malthouse has obviously in his long career made a habit of doing all he can to undo the sort of footy Geelong has played. His Eagles of the early 90's shut down Geelong's sort of one-way style of footy, but boy it was beautiful to watch. And in our recent success Geelong was universally acknowledged to have played great watchable footy 'the beautiful game' only for Collingwood's runball and 100% full on tackle pressure to squash it.

Instead of seeing fluid ball movement, it is a little like a rolling mall of midfielders, except Collingwood have the fitness to have a group hard at the ball and simultaneously be forward of the ball circa Dogs 1997 style and take advantage through Thomas, Beams and Didak.

Still it is now up to all clubs to find a way through Collingwood's style, which is sort of like St.Kilda's defensive press only faster. Already it appears that a tactic is going to be a quick kick from a contested situation, as Geelong proved last year against the Pies, backwards handball is death. Paradoxically it could see a return to longer kicking footy, as being able to roost long balls from a contest may see plenty of Collingwood players be 'overtaken' and perhaps put more pressure on their defensive numbers.

With the sub rule, it opens up so many options, although i am sure the sub will always come into the game. As others have said, a midfield-type player is most likely the one to be picked for this role, as a midfielder in today's footy is more likely to be involved in whatever game style a match may throw up. Picking a second ruck, or another forward/backman could see situations thrown up where the sub may be of limited value.

One thing is for certain, it's a rule that could be a boon if a coach can cannily get it right, let's hope Chris Scott has done his research.

 

[witsend]

Excellent point. Malthouse has obviously in his long career made a habit of doing all he can to undo the sort of footy Geelong has played. His Eagles of the early 90's shut down Geelong's sort of one-way style of footy, but boy it was beautiful to watch. And in our recent success Geelong was universally acknowledged to have played great watchable footy 'the beautiful game' only for Collingwood's runball and 100% full on tackle pressure to squash it.

Instead of seeing fluid ball movement, it is a little like a rolling mall of midfielders, except Collingwood have the fitness to have a group hard at the ball and simultaneously be forward of the ball circa Dogs 1997 style and take advantage through Thomas, Beams and Didak.

Still it is now up to all clubs to find a way through Collingwood's style, which is sort of like St.Kilda's defensive press only faster. Already it appears that a tactic is going to be a quick kick from a contested situation, as Geelong proved last year against the Pies, backwards handball is death. Paradoxically it could see a return to longer kicking footy, as being able to roost long balls from a contest may see plenty of Collingwood players be 'overtaken' and perhaps put more pressure on their defensive numbers.

With the sub rule, it opens up so many options, although i am sure the sub will always come into the game. As others have said, a midfield-type player is most likely the one to be picked for this role, as a midfielder in today's footy is more likely to be involved in whatever game style a match may throw up. Picking a second ruck, or another forward/backman could see situations thrown up where the sub may be of limited value.

One thing is for certain, it's a rule that could be a boon if a coach can cannily get it right, let's hope Chris Scott has done his research.

I actually still believe we have the personnel and the game plan to beat the Pies. We stuffed up last year because we lacked the fitness partly due to rolling the dice on starting our pre-season late with most senior players, and they were simply outrun by the Pies. Also, we developed a game plan to beat the Saints, not the Pies. They caught everyone by surprise come July onwards. By then it was too late.
There are other issues with Collingwood and St Kilda. The fact that they block and hold forwards long before the ball is there is a big problem, which only umpires can resolve. Also the abhorrent practice by the Pies of shepherding the man on the mark must be seen to by the umpires. Not sure how though. It's one of those "spirit of the game" issues.
I'd like some pace with 2-3 young players. Less emphasis on handball. Ablett's departure will help that for a start. One of Pods or Hawkins needs to "step up" to the next level.
A ruckman who can at least LOOK like taking a contested mark would help matters.
And again. The sub rule will help us.
We were never a big sub side.
It will hurt the Pies, the Saints and the Bulldogs.

 

[Vdubs]

I actually still believe we have the personnel and the game plan to beat the Pies. We stuffed up last year because we lacked the fitness partly due to rolling the dice on starting our pre-season late with most senior players, and they were simply outrun by the Pies. Also, we developed a game plan to beat the Saints, not the Pies. They caught everyone by surprise come July onwards. By then it was too late.
There are other issues with Collingwood and St Kilda. The fact that they block and hold forwards long before the ball is there is a big problem, which only umpires can resolve. Also the abhorrent practice by the Pies of shepherding the man on the mark must be seen to by the umpires. Not sure how though. It's one of those "spirit of the game" issues.
I'd like some pace with 2-3 young players. Less emphasis on handball. Ablett's departure will help that for a start. One of Pods or Hawkins needs to "step up" to the next level.
A ruckman who can at least LOOK like taking a contested mark would help matters.
And again. The sub rule will help us.
We were never a big sub side.
It will hurt the Pies, the Saints and the Bulldogs.

Yet we were not able to beat the Saints, and were a bit lucky rain wise to get close to them. And that loss mid year to St. Kilda was one of the most inept Geelong performances I've seen since Bomber was coach. We were impotent. Not Ablett's fault , we were just outgunned.

Pies also beat us twice in a row, so we learned zilch. We do not have the personnel or game plan as we write to beat the Pies. But the wheel changes quickly, and as said yesterday, we are due this year to make amends.

 

[witsend]

Yet we were not able to beat the Saints, and were a bit lucky rain wise to get close to them. And that loss mid year to St. Kilda was one of the most inept Geelong performances I've seen since Bomber was coach. We were impotent. Not Ablett's fault , we were just outgunned.

Pies also beat us twice in a row, so we learned zilch. We do not have the personnel or game plan as we write to beat the Pies. But the wheel changes quickly, and as said yesterday, we are due this year to make amends.

I was at that mid year Saints game and I have never ever been so angry at umpires for allowing all our forwards to be grabbed, pinched, tripped and generally manhandled at all times off the ball and in marking contests!
Jesus Christ himself couldn't have got a kick in the second half against a St Kilda team virtually allowed to pack rape our forwards.
The SJ/Baker saga typified it. A total of, what 13 weeks suspension and headline news for weeks and yet not 1 free paid between them!!!???
A freaking joke.
As for the Magpies...as I said in my earlier post. We were ill-prepared for a number of reasons to combat their game plan which kicked in to gear in the final third of the season.
We were underdone on fitness, rigid in our game plan and team structures, and clearly there was a lot going on behind the scenes between GAJ and Bomber which caused disunity at best.
Many of those issues have already been addressed. I predict a mediocre start to the season as we settle into our new system, but there is simply too much talent on our list for us not to be a threat at least.

 

[maxy87]

I was at that mid year Saints game and I have never ever been so angry at umpires for allowing all our forwards to be grabbed, pinched, tripped and generally manhandled at all times off the ball and in marking contests!
Jesus Christ himself couldn't have got a kick in the second half against a St Kilda team virtually allowed to pack rape our forwards.
The SJ/Baker saga typified it. A total of, what 13 weeks suspension and headline news for weeks and yet not 1 free paid between them!!!???
A freaking joke.
As for the Magpies...as I said in my earlier post. We were ill-prepared for a number of reasons to combat their game plan which kicked in to gear in the final third of the season.
We were underdone on fitness, rigid in our game plan and team structures, and clearly there was a lot going on behind the scenes between GAJ and Bomber which caused disunity at best.
Many of those issues have already been addressed. I predict a mediocre start to the season as we settle into our new system, but there is simply too much talent on our list for us not to be a threat at least.

Yep. The last paragraph is how I feel. No guarantees by any means but we will be a nuisance to many teams and if things go well are capable of challenging