Bring Out Your Dead!

[The Royal Sampler]

[YOUTUBE]grbSQ6O6kbs[/YOUTUBE]

Spicey made an excellent point recently in another thread. If high bench rotations are causing games to reach a higher speed, more collisions and soft tissues injuries as the AFL postulates, then why do we have only five players on our injury list, 2 of whom are listed as "test" this week? Further analysis reveals that only one of those players, Prestigiacomo, has even played a game at AFL level this year when all these whacky bench rotations are being used! Surely our team should resemble an emergency department at a busy Melbourne public hospital?

But let's not stop there; in round 1 we were "outdone" in rotations by a former Malthouse understudy in Scott at North Melbourne, who set a new record for rotations in a game. Surely the North Melbourne list, forced by the tyrannical Scott into playing games at a rate that would make a Bugatti Veyron cower in fear, would be decimated beyond the point of despair? Nope.

Is it possible that the AFL, for some reason, just doesn't like seeing players rotating constantly off the bench, and so has concocted a self-serving hypothesis that heavy bench rotations is corelated with injury? Surely not...

 

[Zahki]

Heavy bench rotations are correlated with LESS chance of injury over a long period of time, and that's precisely why the club uses them. At least according to Side by Side.

We've been very lucky with injury so far, very lucky indeed. Hope it stays that way.

 

[the mighty T]

I for one dont get what the big deal is with people wanting to cap rotations

for example i wouldve thought opposition coaches would be happier to see star players like swan, pendles ect go off after a 5 or 6 minute burst...wouldnt it allow you to expose a temporary weakness?

imo there have been worse things done to the game than having an increase in rotations and if it benefits those who make the most of it, so be it.

 

[mdc]

Sampster, I think the AFL's claim is that high rotations could potentially increase the rate of impact collision injuries.

I think there's a skerrick of truth to that, but my gut suggests that the increase in impact injuries would be dwarfed by the decrease in wear-and-tear injuries. You'd be in a better position to comment than I.

From the AFL POV though, any collision injury makes the sport look violent, which is precisely what they're trying to abolish. Dozens of hamstring injuries, though far more damaging to teams, can just be written off as bad luck.

I think that's the crux of the matter. It's all about appearances, and less about overall injury prevention. Fewer impact collisions would help the AFL's image goals, and as such I'm sure they'll pursue any option that will help them achieve it.

 

[mattys123]

I personally love the amount of 2, 3 and 4 player rotations happening at the same time.

Cometti made the comment last week that's it's like an Ice Hockey match, which is actually the fastest sport on earth. (and my second fav sport).

Whether too many rotations leads to more injuries or less hasn't been proven either way though.

I simply hope the AFL dont change the rules on rotations, it is one reason why we are such a good team at the moment.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I think there's a skerrick of truth to that, but my gut suggests that the increase in impact injuries would be dwarfed by the decrease in wear-and-tear injuries. You'd be in a better position to comment than I.

I guess it depends on what you class as a wear-and-tear injury. In terms of hamstrings, the greatest incidence of hamstring tears occurs in the "middle" ten minutes of the third quarter, which suggests that it's not merely a case of not being warmed up or they'd be occurring in the first quarter. There is definitely a muscular fatigue element, which could be ameliorated by more frequent rotations.

The most common mechanism is a lunge or kick after an extended run at top pace, such as where Daniel Kerr went sprinting down the sideline and then kicked the ball inside-50. That last bit of hip flexion, as occurs during the kicking motion or when lunging to tackle a player, tends to be the "straw that breaks the camel's back" so to speak. It would appear that there is no reasonable way to eliminate that from the game.

Re: the point about "violent" impacts... I tend to agree with Nathan Buckley on this; the AFL have legislated the game to the extent that the players are no longer obligated to be able to protect themselves on the field. Players are more adept at throwing themself on the ball and then tossing the head back, or buckling at the knees to draw the free than they are at protecting themselves against the sort of contact which should be reasonably expected in a contact sport. Maybe if the AFL weren't looking at capping bench rotations, we wouldn't need to have so many athletes-before-footballers on the field, and we might have blokes on the field with some awareness of who is around them in the contest.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I personally love the amount of 2, 3 and 4 player rotations happening at the same time.

Cometti made the comment last week that's it's like an Ice Hockey match, which is actually the fastest sport on earth. (and my second fav sport).

Whether too many rotations leads to more injuries or less hasn't been proven either way though.

I simply hope the AFL dont change the rules on rotations, it is one reason why we are such a good team at the moment.

I agree, I think the increase in bench rotations is neither here nor there as far as the look of the game is concerned.

The increase in rotations however is inherently self-limiting. The reason being that there is a significant amount of time required to get a player to run from a stoppage to the bench, and then from the bench to the stoppage. In ice hockey the rink is relatively small (as compared with the MCG) and you can ice skate much, much faster than even Usain Bolt can run. We are approaching a point already when increased rotations will be detrimental to the team's performance because they will simply find themselves a man down from time to time. The other consideration is the "steward" in charge of marshalling the troops on and off the field... the job will become too demanding if rotations continue to increase at the current rate for much longer!

 

[StillWaiting5689]

I don't see how capping interchanges is even going to lessen impact injuries, it won't make a difference. When you have 6'2 90kilo blokes running into each other I don't think it would make much of difference if they were running at 80% or 95% pace.
Having less rotations isn't going to stop incidents like when Lewis got knocked out anyway. The way to stop most clash incidents is by players protecting themselves better. Often you see players recklessly throwing their heads into contests, someone will get seriously hurt doing this but free kicks are getting paid so players are doing it with increased regularity.
The AFL seem to recognise this to a degree and are trying to clamp down on paying free kicks to players who duck, though Selwood has made an artform out of ducking without seeming to.
Though the AFL are to blame for the pace of the game, they put in place rules to continually speed it up (I think this was due to football becoming less attractive due to widespread use of the flood) and are now worried it is causing injuries and are looking for a scapegoat so they blame interchange rotations instead of their rule changes.

 

[Old Spice]

There are some very dubious rationalisations for capping high rotations that have come from various quarters.

The first that I was aware of is that high rotations lead to a higher incidence of injury, without any science at all, and originated from an aesthetic / arbitrary viewpoint.

The first attempt to attack high rotations from a sports science perspective is pretty recent and is premised on the idea that it leads to injuries sustained from burst playing. You run hard, in short sprinty bursts, and therefore are likely to strain your muscles.

Yet Collingwood have the highest rotations, but very low incidents of muscle strain. The injury list - which this year includes JT, Sinclair, Dick and Presti - are not related to intensive burst play. The first three have not played for the seniors yet, and Presti is hardly a burst player.

Next came the argument that burst playing impacts opposition players. If you are extra fit by playing high-rotations, supposedly you are more likely to hurt the opposition because you are more bullocky. It's another feeble argument. Who from Collingwood has injured opposition players? Not many. The exceptions might be Wellingham on Hodge, but that was the result of an incidental block at close quarters at negligible speed - something that might occur at any point of the game.

Reiwoldt's hamstring twing came before half time, the result of a chase from Presti, hardly a burst player. Kerr's hamstring went in the 2nd quarter also. These incidents suggest that high rotations over 4 quarters is hardly to blame.

If high rotations prove anything at all, it is that it is more likely to protect players who play under that regime and have minimal impact on opposition players.

 

[loki04]

The AFL need to stop worrying about injuries from bumps because of the Sydney mums.

If they keep going the path they are going we will be playing touch footy and most of us males will stop watching the game.

The game isn't just about skill it was about courage, physicality and seeing a player sit up in the fire of that physical contest is team lifting.

 

[Quicky]

I think Davis knocked out Fisher, and was involved in the contest where Pears broke his arm fwiw Old Spice.

But I agree with the premise of the thread, capping bench rotations has very little basis in logic.

 

[collwood]

I don't see how capping interchanges is even going to lessen impact injuries, it won't make a difference. When you have 6'2 90kilo blokes running into each other I don't think it would make much of difference if they were running at 80% or 95% pace.
Having less rotations isn't going to stop incidents like when Lewis got knocked out anyway. The way to stop most clash incidents is by players protecting themselves better. Often you see players recklessly throwing their heads into contests, someone will get seriously hurt doing this but free kicks are getting paid so players are doing it with increased regularity.
The AFL seem to recognise this to a degree and are trying to clamp down on paying free kicks to players who duck, though Selwood has made an artform out of ducking without seeming to.
Though the AFL are to blame for the pace of the game, they put in place rules to continually speed it up (I think this was due to football becoming less attractive due to widespread use of the flood) and are now worried it is causing injuries and are looking for a scapegoat so they blame interchange rotations instead of their rule changes.

I agree with your point around stopping players from ducking; they've effectively forced players to be conscious of not making head contact, but this has further encouraged some to duck their head.

On speeding up the game though, AFL has argued that what they have done is make the game more continuous (e.g. by not having to wait for the ump when kicking in after a point). This makes the average speed of the game slower as players have to be constantly moving; stop-start games allow players to go faster in shorter bursts.

 

[Bay Pie]

The AFL brought in rules, (quick kick-in from behinds) etc, to quicken up the game.

Now they are considering new rules to slow up the game.

If a new rule, later requires another rule to fix it, the 1st rule wasn't a good one.

 

[StillWaiting5689]

On speeding up the game though, AFL has argued that what they have done is make the game more continuous (e.g. by not having to wait for the ump when kicking in after a point). This makes the average speed of the game slower as players have to be constantly moving; stop-start games allow players to go faster in shorter bursts.

This is just the AFL trying to pass the buck, of course they don't want to admit to their mistake because it makes them look stupid. They are just looking for something to pin the issue to regardless of any difference it will make. Clash contacts like Fisher getting knocked out and Lewis getting knocked out are never going to stop happening no matter the rule changes. The best bet is to get players protecting themselves properly again.
If anyone remembers the Lloyd Judd hit a few seasons ago you will remember Lloyd came out during the week and said that due to the bump rules he didn't want to bump Judd so he just ran at him instead and they clashed heads (I don't think Judd came back on), probably did more damage doing this then the bump would have done. The AFL only has itself to blame.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

The AFL has no clue about this issue.

I'm the biggest Malthouse detractor there is, but he and David Buttifant have been doing research on this issue for YEARS.

It's only logical that more rotations equals less injuries.

If players are doing hammies because of the speed of the game, then they're not up for modern football, or their medical staff aren't doing THEIR job.

Are there laws in the tennis now because there's more power in the game?

As with ANY sport that evolves. If you can't keep up, see you later.

If the capping of interchanges goes through, it'll be a complete joke.