Capping Rotations

[Spurk]

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?

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.

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.

I commend your ability to argue.

Knock yourself out:

#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.

#Stop the Grand Final from turning into a sniper fest of first man down loses.

#Slow down collision injuries.

#Reduce the sideshow debacle of coaches trying to out rotate the opposition.

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

#Stop teams removing goal kickers after a goal.

#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.

#Remove the ugly aspect of 8 players all fleeing the ground after a point or goal.

#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.

 

[Spurk]

No, this is clutching at straws.

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

You are a great poster










= ?

 

[Amber Guzzler]

I commend your ability to argue.

Knock yourself out:

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

...

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

Yes yes... I read all that before. However, you haven't answered my question. If the chance of losing a game due to an single injury is currently 7%, and there's been a dramatic increase, then what was it before this dramatic increase?

 

[Amber Guzzler]

You are a great poster

= ?

Allow me to explain. You're concerned about something that has never happened in all the years I've been watching AFL, and most likely never will. Worrying about this makes as much sense as worrying about the sun burning out during a game.

 

[Spurk]

Allow me to explain. You're concerned about something that has never happened in all the years I've been watching AFL, and most likely never will. Worrying about this makes as much sense as worrying about the sun burning out during a game.

Is this some lame derailment?

Go and have a look and see if your whole stupid point is based on a comment with

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Is this some lame derailment?

Looks like it. Seems you'd rather respond to this than answer my questions regarding your dramatic increase.

 

[TAITA]

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.

I think this is your whole argument.

If the Collingwood side contained Buckley, Daicos, McGuane, Millane, et al - ie; individual champions of the game who did not need to be rotated through the interchange to make a mark - your argument would be completely different.

2+2 would allow the champions to shine, so I see your concern.

 

[eaglefreak]

Im just over all these rule changes every bloody year. I mean how do you explane to a person that has never seen the game or one that is not realy into it what is happening out there..lol

when i was playing you put your head over the ball but always came throu side on, now they try their best to get hit in the head to win a free kick and run front on.

Just let the bloody game settle for once. The afl wanted the game faster and now they are trying to slow it down.wtf!

Luke darcy is a tool to ...i mean hit the post and it is still a goal c'mon give me a break.

 

[the ranger]

Has anyone considered changing the interchange rules so that players can only come on the field at stoppages eg. after a score or out of bounds?

Not sure if it'd work, just putting it out there.

 

[TAITA]

Luke darcy is a tool to ...i mean hit the post and it is still a goal c'mon give me a break.

Yeah - dunno, but when it changes the results of matches because of ineptitude - perhaps it's easier to change it rather than over officiate it.

We are the only code that kicks through the sticks that enforces slight contact during the trajectory.

 

[TAITA]

Has anyone considered changing the interchange rules so that players can only come on the field at stoppages eg. after a score or out of bounds?

Not sure if it'd work, just putting it out there.

No - more over officialdom and the next step would be 'basketball type time-outs'.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

I think this is your whole argument.

If the Collingwood side contained Buckley, Daicos, McGuane, Millane, et al - ie; individual champions of the game who did not need to be rotated through the interchange to make a mark - your argument would be completely different.

2+2 would allow the champions to shine, so I see your concern.

Am I pissed that the AFL have decided to level the field by disadvantaging teams that have successfully experimented with the bench over the last few years, and are now realising the benefits of these experiments? Of course I am. But what pisses me off the most is the reasons given, and the bullshit that supports them.

Injuries:
This is complete and utter rubbish. Have a look my club's injury list. Have a look at your own. There's simply nothing to suggest that an increase in rotations correlates to an increase in injuries. And funnily enough, that's exactly what the AFL have supplied to support this theory, nothing.

As for playing with 1 player down, no system will successfully account for that.

Flooding/Zoning:
Flooding and zoning were a part of the game long before rotations increased to the level they're at today. If anything, higher rotations are the result of flooding and zoning, not the other way round.

 

[TAITA]

Am I pissed that the AFL have decided to level the field by disadvantaging teams that have successfully experimented with the bench over the last few years, and are now realising the benefits of these experiments? Of course I am. But what pisses me off the most is the reasons given, and the bullshit that supports them.

Injuries:
This is complete and utter rubbish. Have a look my club's injury list. Have a look at your own. There's simply nothing to suggest that an increase in rotations correlates to an increase in injuries. And funnily enough, that's exactly what the AFL have supplied to support this theory, nothing.

As for playing with 1 player down, no system will successfully account for that.

Flooding/Zoning:
Flooding and zoning were a part of the game long before rotations increased to the level they're at today. If anything, higher rotations are the result of flooding and zoning, not the other way round.

If you read my previous posts, or my initial one actually, you would see that I agree with your first point - fatigue is most often the cause and longer depth of injuries - proven medically and consistantly.

I have no problem with that - it is the only thing that justifies having so many on the bench, and I do mean only thing.

However, take your black and white glasses off for a minute and get over your hyperbole - your team hasn't spent years drafting kids with no tank that have to be rested every five minutes to be effective, just as Hawthorn hasn't.

You are coming across, just like all your Collingwood mates, as complete tossers - I mean shit, is that the reason for your success?

It'd be like a raft of hawthorn supporters being up in arms about the rushed behind rule. (and please don't tell me this happened )

The four man bench is a Sheedy relic that needs to go the way of the dodo.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

If you read my previous posts, or my initial one actually, you would see that I agree with your first point - fatigue is most often the cause and longer depth of injuries - proven medically and consistantly.

I have no problem with that - it is the only thing that justifies having so many on the bench, and I do mean only thing.

However, take your black and white glasses off for a minute and get over your hyperbole - your team hasn't spent years drafting kids with no tank that have to be rested every five minutes to be effective, just as Hawthorn hasn't.

You are coming across, just like all your Collingwood mates, as complete tossers - I mean shit, is that the reason for your success?

There are many reasons for our success, and I'm sure this is one of them.

It'd be like a raft of hawthorn supporters being up in arms about the rushed behind rule. (and please don't tell me this happened )

The four man bench is a Sheedy relic that needs to go the way of the dodo.

So many people keep saying. But if it really needed to go, then surely someone would be able to post a reason that was so easily exposed as being complete and utter crap.

As for the rushed behind rule, I wasn't in favour of that one either. If it wasn't for the fact that it was used to Hawthorn's advantage in a GF, the AFL wouldn't have cared. It was reactionary at best, and I think it's caused more problems than it's solved. It's a stupid rule anyway. A player is still allowed to rush a behind if they're under pressure. How often do you see a player rush a behind when they're NOT under pressure. It's more often being under pressure that leads them to rush the behind in the first place.

The problem is that we have a rule change committee, and unless they come up with half a dozen proposed rule changes every year, it's only a matter of time before people start asking why we're paying these guys. How many other sports have 2 or 3 new rule changes proposed and implemented every year? I can't think of any. Certainly not sports that are 150 years old.

 

[Spurk]

There are many reasons for our success, and I'm sure this is one of them.

What are they?

As for the rushed behind rule, I wasn't in favour of that one either. If it wasn't for the fact that it was used to Hawthorn's advantage in a GF, the AFL wouldn't have cared. It was reactionary at best, and I think it's caused more problems than it's solved.

That is wrong. It was a major issue for a while after Bowden etc.

Can't believe you are defending that.

Your whole point is circumstantial regarding Collingwood's lucky run with injury.

Other sides have had more injury, others have stayed the same.

If you and a bunch of 'mates' were drinking a six pack everyday, then a couple of you started drinking 10 and didn't get hangovers but your mates still did occasionally over a short period, does that mean 10 beers is better for avoiding hangovers?

 

[TAITA]

10 beers always > 6 beers.

 

[Spurk]

10 beers always > 6 beers.

80 beers

 

[TAITA]

So many people keep saying. But if it really needed to go, then surely someone would be able to post a reason that was so easily exposed as being complete and utter crap.

Yeah I can - the bloke is a total ****wit who had the power to promote his own cause heavily whilst the masses sat back and thought he was some sort of genius whilst nothing could be further from the truth.

Backing up your argument with Sheedy is less credible than Wiki AFAIC.

 

[TAITA]

80 beers

Now we have found common ground!

 

[Spurk]

Now we have found common ground!

I swear there's a pamphlet somewhere that says that being inspired to go to the fridge at 1:30 isn't good!

 

[dumb]

"we put in a good effort, but having to use up all our substitutes early on put us at a disadvantage... i feel the game would be better served by having extra substitutes"

you could bet your house on that statement.

anyone remember the cricket ODI subs? supposed to be some amazing new rule to make the game more exciting... but petered out disused at the end.

time for people to learn to take their beatings. player from your team gets injured you live with it, princess.

as for rotations... wouldn't the rolling zone still go as fast as the players (who haven't been able to rotate) with the ball will go? rotations stop rolling zones/floods, then they have to stop players running with the ball as well, or the same still occurs but at a slower speed? to me, rotations are to rest players as much as possible, rather than making rolling zones possible. the zones will still be employed, the rotations are to take the edge off any exhaustion rather than prevent it entirely.

 

[TAITA]

"we put in a good effort, but having to use up all our substitutes early on put us at a disadvantage... i feel the game would be better served by having extra substitutes"

you could bet your house on that statement.

anyone remember the cricket ODI subs? supposed to be some amazing new rule to make the game more exciting... but petered out disused at the end.

time for people to learn to take their beatings. player from your team gets injured you live with it, princess.

as for rotations... wouldn't the rolling zone still go as fast as the players (who haven't been able to rotate) with the ball will go? rotations stop rolling zones/floods, then they have to stop players running with the ball as well, or the same still occurs but at a slower speed? to me, rotations are to rest players as much as possible, rather than making rolling zones possible. the zones will still be employed, the rotations are to take the edge off any exhaustion rather than prevent it entirely.

Yeah, good one Ratzero.

I'm not telling you any secrets about coaching.

Stop calling me - my wife is getting freaked out.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

What are they?

Don't change the subject. Where's your evidence in a dramatic increase in gameday advantage due to injury?

That is wrong. It was a major issue for a while after Bowden etc.

Can't believe you are defending that.

Again you seem to be over dramatizing the issue. It was minor at best.

Your whole point is circumstantial regarding Collingwood's lucky run with injury.

Other sides have had more injury, others have stayed the same.

And the sides that use inter change the most have had the least injuries, so there's hardly correlation between the 2.

If you and a bunch of 'mates' were drinking a six pack everyday, then a couple of you started drinking 10 and didn't get hangovers but your mates still did occasionally over a short period, does that mean 10 beers is better for avoiding hangovers?

That's a pretty poor analogy, as it's commonly accepted that alcohol does in fact cause hang overs (primarily as a result of the body's inability to process methanol). The argument but the AFL is that increased rotations causes increased injuries. This argument is not supported by the available data. Whether or not it can be proven that an increase in rotations prevents injuries in not the issue.

 

[TAITA]

The argument but the AFL is that increased rotations causes increased injuries. This argument is not supported by the available data. Whether or not it can be proven that an increase in rotations prevents injuries in not the issue.

So WTF are you banging on about then?

It hurts Collingwood and it's peahearts who can't run out the quarter?

And you've planned on recruiting blokes with questionable endurance for years?

I'm very quickly getting sick of you fools - bring back sunnyTEE.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

So WTF are you banging on about then?

It hurts Collingwood and it's peahearts who can't run out the quarter?

And you've planned on recruiting blokes with questionable endurance for years?

I'm very quickly getting sick of you fools - bring back sunnyTEE.

I'm "banging on" about the fact that I'm sick and tired of the AFL finding the need to change the rules every bloody year. They have trouble enough an applying the current set of rules, let alone changing them every year. Enough is enough.