Capping Rotations

[Slattery_20]

I don't think going back to 1970s or 1990s numbers of subs/rotations a game will make the game look like the 1970s or 1990s or whatever.

 

[TAITA]

The bench was increased to help sides with an injury, not hinder them. 7% increased chance of losing with 1 man down.

Reduce congestion around contests and slow down flooding, zoning and basketball breaks.

Bring match ups back to the game.

Slow down collision injuries.

Give key players more involvement and responsibility to ride out games.

Stop boundary line playing sides having an unfair advantage by walking 5 metres off the ground instead of running 100 metres. Ensuring more teams dont begin to play the soft boundary game.

Stop the tactic of players running to forward lines off the bench hoping for a fast break.

Stop the infringements when crossing the boundary line.

Keep footballers in the game instead of short distance sprinters without a tank.

Bring back more space for bouncing the ball, and potentially increase scoring to levels of 2 years ago. The gang tackling, rugby style is assisted by fresher players and isn't a good spectacle.

The stoppage game combined with boundary play is exactly the defensive ugly aspect the AFL don't wish to see.

These points are all valid, and support the introduction of the 2+2 option IMO.

However if you want to use a GF as an example, take off your Hawthorn hate googles for a minute and use a GF with some credibility to back your claims - like '89 perhaps when Hawthorn had Brereton taken out at the first bounce, Dipper crunched by Ablett with resulting punctured lung and Platten in lala land. That was a real example where the Cats went out and played the man - 2008 - poppycock, we had less men to call on than they did.

The only positive reason that it can be justified for leaving the status quo is that it is an accepted fact that injury is more prevalent when a player is fatigued.

 

[Helfarch]

These points are all valid, and support the introduction of the 2+2 option IMO.

However if you want to use a GF as an example, take off your Hawthorn hate googles for a minute and use a GF with some credibility to back your claims - like '89 perhaps when Hawthorn had Brereton taken out at the first bounce, Dipper crunched by Ablett with resulting punctured lung and Platten in lala land. That was a real example where the Cats went out and played the man - 2008 - poppycock, we had less men to call on than they did.

The only positive reason that it can be justified for leaving the status quo is that it is an accepted fact that injury is more prevalent when a player is fatigued.

They are not factual points, they are misguided opinions. Boundary line play is defensive and results in less scoring? Two opposite game styles sit one and two on the ladder and one and two in score for. They also sit at opposite ends of the interchange per game. One has less injuries.

 

[Spurk]

They are not factual points, they are misguided opinions. Boundary line play is defensive and results in less scoring? Two opposite game styles sit one and two on the ladder and one and two in score for. They also sit at opposite ends of the interchange per game. One has less injuries.

Are you deliberately making stuff up?

Who made the connection to less scoring from boundary play?

If anything it's a soccer tactic that can increase scoring on flat tracks.

Just because Collingwood are having a good run with injuries doesn't mean the world will end if caps come in.

I'm sick of this debate.

It's there for you to see, just take off the patch.

 

[Spurk]

Since we've covered injury I'll leave them out.



Run and Carry game has come in to prevent flooding. Would not call the Dogs a negative flooding/zoning type team.



That's your opinion, for example I enjoy watching the Dogs go coast to coast more then a boring defensive match up battle.




How does that effect the game?



How often is that an issue?



What do you mean by this?



Don't you mean keep endurance athletes over short distance sprinters? Football ability is another thing all together.



Don't notice it myself?



Depends on the team, the increase of interchange has helped the run and carry teams as well to combat the defensive nonsense.

Fair enough.

You make some decent points.

Energy low...

 

[Spurk]

These points are all valid, and support the introduction of the 2+2 option IMO.

However if you want to use a GF as an example, take off your Hawthorn hate googles for a minute and use a GF with some credibility to back your claims - like '89 perhaps when Hawthorn had Brereton taken out at the first bounce, Dipper crunched by Ablett with resulting punctured lung and Platten in lala land. That was a real example where the Cats went out and played the man - 2008 - poppycock, we had less men to call on than they did.

The only positive reason that it can be justified for leaving the status quo is that it is an accepted fact that injury is more prevalent when a player is fatigued.

Yeah 2+2 would be better than the 3+1 which is basically nothing and 1 hit from nothing.

The problem with 2 and 2 might be just a constant flow of interchanges, clogging and exploited subs.

I think an 80 cap and 1 sub would work best.

 

[Spurk]

You're losing your grasp on the discussion.

All the "alleged" advantages of the cap on rotations have been addressed.
The cap on rotations is a construct. A misrepresentation of data supplied from another code (rugby league). The AFL has no valid data which suggests that there is any advantage to capping rotations, in fact the evidence suggests the opposite.
As the rules we have now are the status quo and there is no evident reason to change it then it is up to those who want change to justify the change with facts and evidence, not gut feelings and personal opinion.

The ball is in your court no-one else's.

You act as if it is up to others who want no change to provide evidence of "why not".
I don't give a rats toss if it's better for your club. You prove it's better for the game or STFU.

See you in 3 hours with some evidence.

Just read that, gold.

Why is it better for North?

It's better for the game.

I was away for reasons other than writing an essay about this.

I could if i wish, but can see it is a huge heart flutter for the Pies fans.

The issue has 2 sides and now both sides are on the table.

 

[AsianWithAFro]

There's no evidence of capping interchange will reduce injuries. The teams at the moment who rotate highly aren't feeling any major ill effects. If your tired injuries are more likely to happening so wouldn't it increase it. Also if people are worried that the game looks ugly due to interchanges than thats not even a worry. Since when did sport have to always look pretty

 

[Spurk]

There's no evidence of capping interchange will reduce injuries. The teams at the moment who rotate highly aren't feeling any major ill effects. If your tired injuries are more likely to happening so wouldn't it increase it. Also if people are worried that the game looks ugly due to interchanges than thats not even a worry. Since when did sport have to always look pretty

Since when have the AFL tried to hinder Collingwood.

Never that's when.

It's for the game as a whole and seems to be a matter of what type of cap rather than if at all.

 

[TAITA]

Yeah 2+2 would be better than the 3+1 which is basically nothing and 1 hit from nothing.

The problem with 2 and 2 might be just a constant flow of interchanges, clogging and exploited subs.

I think an 80 cap and 1 sub would work best.

I think the thing you are missing here, and this is of great importance if you truly believe your position, is that an 80 interchange cap still is equal to 100 minutes rest per quarter (plus time on) shared amongst 22 players.

The 2+2 option is 50 minutes rest per quarter (plus time on) shared amongst 20 players.

Now, if you truly think that football needs this intervention, and I do because local footy is a much better spectacle to watch these days, the 2+2 option is the only one you can support.

And you won't have half the bullshit associated with administering it.

This falls firmly at the feet of Sheedy for creating the monster in the first place.

 

[Spurk]

I think the thing you are missing here, and this is of great importance if you truly believe your position, is that an 80 interchange cap still is equal to 100 minutes rest per quarter (plus time on) shared amongst 22 players.

The 2+2 option is 50 minutes rest per quarter (plus time on) shared amongst 20 players.

Now, if you truly think that football needs this intervention, and I do because local footy is a much better spectacle to watch these days, the 2+2 option is the only one you can support.

And you won't have half the bullshit associated with administering it.

This falls firmly at the feet of Sheedy for creating the monster in the first place.

Well said.

I dont dislike the 2+2.

I just think that's basically 20 players a week to select.

Might force extra fringe players out of clubs.

It will shrink the required depth but could help sustain a legitimate 18 team comp.

Do designated players fake cramp in the 3rd quarter?

An injury is a bonus with a sub and 2 injuries, real or not is xmas?

 

[TAITA]

Well said.

I dont dislike the 2+2.

I just think that's basically 20 players a week to select.

Might force extra fringe players out of clubs.

It will shrink the required depth but could help sustain a legitimate 18 team comp.

Do designated players fake cramp in the 3rd quarter?

An injury is a bonus with a sub and 2 injuries, real or not is xmas?

Well, that option is there - to fake injury - but I think it would be better if they were just open about it and created a substitution, keeping in mind that those two are the next best players and no match practise at all does not help them.

We will definitely end up seeing games decided by injury otherwise (it's only a matter of time before 'professional' corkies are applied) so I reckon it's the best option.

 

[TheBloods]

Why worry about fake injuries? Reserves would be able to replace any player who could then not return - just like in the pre-interchange days. For most of the VFL the game was played with just a 19th man as a reserve.

 

[Smoky]

Since when have the AFL tried to hinder Collingwood.

Never that's when.

It's for the game as a whole and seems to be a matter of what type of cap rather than if at all.

Pathetic victim mentality post.

The whole worlds against you there mate

 

[Spurk]

Well, that option is there - to fake injury - but I think it would be better if they were just open about it and created a substitution, keeping in mind that those two are the next best players and no match practise at all does not help them.

We will definitely end up seeing games decided by injury otherwise (it's only a matter of time before 'professional' corkies are applied) so I reckon it's the best option.

That'll work. Will still give the coaches the freedom of rotations without the overloading ability.

Just not personally a huge fan of subs unless for injury, but that would struggle as well.

Have to give the 2+2 some more consideration, could at least be easier to implement.

 

[Spurk]

Pathetic victim mentality post.

The whole worlds against you there mate

I assume you didn't see his post before he edited it?

 

[Amber Guzzler]

You see the something of a pattern emerging here? The people who are against the capping of interchanges are the clubs that are doing well like Collingwood and WB. I would abs love the introduction of the capping of interchange. So no sympathies for these clubs, serve them right. Also it means we NM is on the way back to the top because we have traditionally being a one on one and long kicking side. No more zone, no more of this handballing crap, no more fleet footed players. Time to go back to the good old days of the 90s where big body players and long bomb is again fashionable. What a good bit of timing for collingwood eyyy!? Suck on it.

At least we're starting to see why you're all in favour of a cap. You think it'll give your team a chance to make the finals. It's a bit sad when you rely on the AFL to change the rules in your favour rather than play to the best of your abilities within the rules that already exist.

 

[Spurk]

At least we're starting to see why you're all in favour of a cap. You think it'll give your team a chance to make the finals. It's a bit sad when you rely on the AFL to change the rules in your favour rather than play to the best of your abilities within the rules that already exist.

Nice, bully the Water Boy.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Ant you are a smart man.

Picture grand final day, said team targets Cooney early.

Knees to ribs at a stoppage.

Dogs automatically disadvantaged not only from losing a key player but an unfair limit on freshness of the whole team.

Double that scenario and you have a dirty premier.

This will happen.

It doesn't really matter what interchange system you implement, at team that loses a player to injury will always be disadvantaged. That's just a fact of the game.

Suppose the bring the 2+2 system. One team loses 2 players in the first qtr to injury. This means that their opponent will have 2 players with fresh legs they can bring in at any time, something the first team wont be able to do.

A system that allows subs to only be used to replace injured players would be even worse. That would mean that a team that doesn't have any injuries at all would have 2 players sitting on the bench for the entire match, not getting any game time. It would also be impossible to police.

As for the AFL's 7%, that's just more of the rock and the tiger. Collingwood for example have low numbers of injuries, and high rotations. Perhaps it's the high rotations that cause both their low injuries and their ability to win games.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Nice, bully the Water Boy.

I'm playing the ball, not the man. I'm not attacking him personally, just the argument he posted.

 

[Spurk]

It doesn't really matter what interchange system you implement, at team that loses a player to injury will always be disadvantaged. That's just a fact of the game.

That has increased dramatically.

Suppose the bring the 2+2 system. One team loses 2 players in the first qtr to injury. This means that their opponent will have 2 players with fresh legs they can bring in at any time, something the first team wont be able to do.

So you admit something needs to change?

2 injuries now is a lot worse, as when the subs are introduced, the opposition will only have their 21st and 22nd best players waiting for a run, and still can't over rotate the remainder of the squad.

The only real issue i have with subs is the way young players are abused or coaches punishing/making negative statements on players etc.

Other than that it would work well.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Fair point.

Still is relying on only 1 injury. Still open to exploitation of subbing the unfittest player. Increases rotations.

What's to stop a feral supporter jumping the fence and belting a player?

Something needs to change and there's no point mucking around when 80 or 80 plus 1 sub is fair to all.

There are many other reasons for capping other than injury.

I think you just lost the argument buddy.

 

[Spurk]

I think you just lost the argument buddy.

Clutching at straws there pal?

 

[Amber Guzzler]

That has increased dramatically.

Mate, it's 7% ATM. Where's your evidence of a dramatic increase? What was it 10 years ago? Or 20 years ago, when there were only 2 on the bench?

So you admit something needs to change?

I did nothing of the sort. I was saying that even if you change the system, this problem will still be there. It will always be there.

2 injuries now is a lot worse, as when the subs are introduced, the opposition will only have their 21st and 22nd best players waiting for a run, and still can't over rotate the remainder of the squad.

The only real issue i have with subs is the way young players are abused or coaches punishing/making negative statements on players etc.

Other than that it would work well.

I think the issue you have with the current system is quite obvious. Some clubs have spent years successfully building teams that play well within the current system, and yours isn't one of them.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Clutching at straws there pal?

No, this is clutching at straws.

What's to stop a feral supporter jumping the fence and belting a player?

I suppose you're also worried that the AFL has no contingency in the event that the sun burns out during a game.