Remove this Banner Ad

Capped rotations

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Purple Jesus

Purple Jesus

not jess
Fremantle Poster of the Year Sweet F.A. Reigning Premiers - Dragons FFC Season 40 - SFA Sweet FA: Survivor Knock Out 10k Posts Veteran Dragons FFC - Sweet F.A. A Star Wars Fan
Joined
Aug 16, 2009
Posts
12,526
Reaction score
28,213
Location
UK
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Dragons FFC, Old Easts
I think we'll just rotate players forward and back more often. Save rotations for the final quarter.

Will defiantly help the fitter teams. Like us. ;)
 
Sheridan's signing is looking better and better. Big tank midfielders are going to be worth their weight in gold, even if they are - with all due respect - talentless hacks like Andrew Raines.

Careers will be shorter because older players tapering off and younger players building up aren't going to have the luxury of sitting on the bench for a few extra minutes a rotation unless they can sit in a forward pocket and suck in the big ones.
 
Penalty:
The penalty for exceeding the 120 rotations per match would be a free kick and a 50-metre penalty against every additional rotation completed. This is the same penalty as when there were trial interchange caps during the pre-season.
Click to expand...
Wonder if strategy will play part here too. Make a 'extra' sub when the ball is down field and already in opp. hands? And what if a player has to be 'subbed' due to inj.?? Bit harsh to pen. a team for taking a player off post 120?

The after kicking a goal auto-sub sure looks in peril. Can understand it remaining only for the likes of Ballas who is everywhere and anywhere getting the extra rest in.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

taller mids who can rest forward and might snag a goal or two will be handy as well.

Given that most of our mids can rotate forward (Mundy/Fyfe/Barlow/Hill/Sandi), and most of our forwards will spend a bit of time in the middle (Walters/Ballas/Mayne/Suban/Clarke) we seem quite well poised with respect to this rule.
 
jusjoshin said:
taller mids who can rest forward and might snag a goal or two will be handy as well.

Given that most of our mids can rotate forward (Mundy/Fyfe/Barlow/Hill/Sandi), and most of our forwards will spend a bit of time in the middle (Walters/Ballas/Mayne/Suban/Clarke) we seem quite well poised with respect to this rule.
Click to expand...

In the days of yore, all onballers spent a part of their game time in a pocket or similar to rest, rather than on the bench.
 
Just had a quick look at the stats. Of our regular 22, seven appear to average more than 90 per cent game time (mostly defenders). In fact Zac Dawson and MJ are both in the top 10 AFL players for percentage of time on ground.

Now this new rule is interesting because it limits each players rotations to 5.5 a game (as an average) but when you account for the sub it is more like 6 rotations per player. Last round MJ spent approx 7 minutes and 10 seconds of the field (assuming the game averages out at 120 minutes or thereabouts) You would suggest that is way no where near 6 interchanges. Crowley, Spurr, Dawson, Mayne, De Boer and Mzungu all have similar figures... So, if you assume all these players have around 3 interchanges per match that means the remaining players get approximately 7 interchanges each. Just looking at that number, that seems fairly reasonable...
 
This will not be an issue because Freo has the luxury of having a coach who is more likely to exploit any changes. I also agree with the opinion that Freo has one of the fitter teams which is a necessity with RTB game style.

Hell, even Worsfold was happy with capping the rotations! but I am not sure that he understood the question;)
 
I can never understand the need some people have for finding solutions to problems that don't exist. Why aren't you allowed to take the ball directly out of ruck contest? What problem does that absurd rule solve?
 
You guys actually average the most rotations this season but with Lyon as your coach, I can imagine Fremantle being one of the first teams to use this rule change to their advantage.
 
Oh and I predict a rather gruelling summer on the track for the players... They will probably be looking to squeeze another minute or so out of every player next year.

Makes guys like Mzungu who appear to have a bottomless tank all the more important.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

I wonder how it will affect our list management and targets in this next draft.

Does it mean we are less likely to keep Kepler and Silvagni?

Does a multi positioned player/swingman rise in stock and go higher up the draft?

Wonder how the high endurance runners will go in the draft?

Will Sandi play many games next year?
 
If there has to be a cap this seems sensible to me - 120 won't change things dramatically and now everyone knows what the limit is
 
Nickos66 said:
We could eventually see a gradual phasing of taller lumbering types out of the game, with 36 endurance runners out on the field instead.
Click to expand...

I thought it was theoretically meant to make the game more one on one to stop teams getting large numbers around the ball, so preserving a place in the game for those types????
 
caterina said:
I thought it was theoretically meant to make the game more one on one to stop teams getting large numbers around the ball, so preserving a place in the game for those types????
Click to expand...


This was my thought too. The intention is to restore some of the one-on-ones late in the day, so it's not all about gut running. Not a big fan of all the rule tinkering but I think this is well intentioned at least.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Seppo said:
I wonder how it will affect our list management and targets in this next draft.

Does it mean we are less likely to keep Kepler and Silvagni?

Does a multi positioned player/swingman rise in stock and go higher up the draft?

Wonder how the high endurance runners will go in the draft?

Will Sandi play many games next year?
Click to expand...

Sandi's dangerous deep forward, would expect him to spend much less time in the ruck though.
75% - 25% Clarke with 75.
 
caterina said:
If there has to be a cap this seems sensible to me - 120 won't change things dramatically and now everyone knows what the limit is
Click to expand...


The question then has to be asked, why bother?

It's not going to slow the game down any significant amount, and all it does is add another potential element of confusion at the interchange bench.

Ridiculous imo.
 
Mockcockpit said:
I can never understand the need some people have for finding solutions to problems that don't exist. Why aren't you allowed to take the ball directly out of ruck contest? What problem does that absurd rule solve?
Click to expand...
It's one of the few rules in world sport where a player is penalised for taking possession of the ball. The other I can think of is the tip off in basketball.
 
I have a sense of foreboding about this.

How will the 120 rotations be counted? They better come up with a system that does not rely on a human counting, because if they do I'll bet that there will be counting mistakes made throughout the course of the season. Be it over or under, there will be counting mistakes. Sod's Law will dictate that the first such error will happen with 90 seconds left in a close game.

It is just asking for a farce.

Don't like it at all from a practical implementation perspective.
 
Meh, not going to change drafting tactics. In 10 years and plenty of alterations, the culture has barely shifted that much. We'll be okay.

Is this being brought in to stop congestion and open up the ground?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom