Capping Rotations

[TAITA]

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.

Therefore you should have no problem with taking the rules back to where they were, with slight improvement.

Remember mate, I am a Hawthorn supporter so have as much invested in this as you, but first and foremost, I am a lover of the game.

What we watch each week now is absolute shit, and if not for ingrained alliances and hopes of imminent success, we'd be down watching the far more entertaining local footy.

With beer in cans @ $3.50 a pop......................

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Therefore you should have no problem with taking the rules back to where they were, with slight improvement.

Even taking them back is a change. What's wrong with leaving them as they are? The coaches don't seem to want a change. The 5000+ people that voted in the age poll don't seem to want a change. Why bring in a change that most don't want?

Remember mate, I am a Hawthorn supporter so have as much invested in this as you, but first and foremost, I am a lover of the game.

What we watch each week now is absolute shit, and if not for ingrained alliances and hopes of imminent success, we'd be down watching the far more entertaining local footy.

With beer in cans @ $3.50 a pop......................

Last time I bought a beer at a local comp, it was in a glass. Not a plastic cup, but a real glass. BTW, cans suck, they get warm too quickly. Happiness is a cold beer.

 

[TAITA]

Even taking them back is a change. What's wrong with leaving them as they are? The coaches don't seem to want a change. The 5000+ people that voted in the age poll don't seem to want a change. Why bring in a change that most don't want?

Last time I bought a beer at a local comp, it was in a glass. Not a plastic cup, but a real glass. BTW, cans suck, they get warm too quickly. Happiness is a cold beer.

Hate to be Captain Obvious - but the reason is that football is absolutely shit to watch these days - a hybrid version of soccer/basketball that relies on fast breaks to score.

Give me the contests and the champion footballers anyday.

KB is an absolute blight on the game.

And no, I am not so genteel to drink beer in a glass - not during a game anyhoos - give me a roaring fire on a freezing day in front of the Lewers Stand watching the mighty Kyneton Tigers whilst I swill out of a subzero can wrapped in a footy record (because, as always - I forgot a stubby holder).

That's footy.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Hate to be Captain Obvious - but the reason is that football is absolutely shit to watch these days - a hybrid version of soccer/basketball that relies on fast breaks to score.

Give me the contests and the champion footballers anyday.

KB is an absolute blight on the game.

And no, I am not so genteel to drink beer in a glass - not during a game anyhoos - give me a roaring fire on a freezing day in front of the Lewers Stand watching the mighty Kyneton Tigers whilst I swill out of a subzero can wrapped in a footy record (because, as always - I forgot a stubby holder).

That's footy.

I'm not fan of zoning or flooding either. I just don't subscribe to the theory that they are caused by a high number of rotations. As for the pace of the game, I think it's great. But if you want to revert the game back to the way it was, then there's a whole plethora of rule changes that can be reversed before you go looking at touching the interchange rules, which basically haven't changed since the bench was expanded in 1994. Personally, I think reversing that change would be a mistake.

 

[TAITA]

I'm not fan of zoning or flooding either. I just don't subscribe to the theory that they are caused by a high number of rotations. As for the pace of the game, I think it's great. But if you want to revert the game back to the way it was, then there's a whole plethora of rule changes that can be reversed before you go looking at touching the interchange rules, which basically haven't changed since the bench was expanded in 1994. Personally, I think reversing that change would be a mistake.

We agree to disagree then.

My position, put simply is that if you cut the 'rest' time in half, the great footballers will come to the fore, flooding/zoning will dissipate massively and fringe players will be shown up for what they are - ultimately footballers will take precedence over athletes.

It's fine to say that the effect is 'minimal' but Greg Williams would not get a game under the current criteria.

Apart from the fact he was a Carlton flog, I don't think that's good for the game.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

We agree to disagree then.

My position, put simply is that if you cut the 'rest' time in half, the great footballers will come to the fore, flooding/zoning will dissipate massively and fringe players will be shown up for what they are - ultimately footballers will take precedence over athletes.

It's fine to say that the effect is 'minimal' but Greg Williams would not get a game under the current criteria.

Apart from the fact he was a Carlton flog, I don't think that's good for the game.

You only need to look at the fact that rotations were well below the proposed 80 per game when flooding and zoning came into the game to see why I don't agree with that. But yes, perhaps agreeing to disagree is the best options ATM.

 

[TAITA]

You only need to look at the fact that rotations were well below the proposed 80 per game when flooding and zoning came into the game to see why I don't agree with that. But yes, perhaps agreeing to disagree is the best options ATM.

Damn - I want to let this go actually because I feel I've made my point, however back in 1994 being called back to the bench wasn't considered a good thing - Sheedy probably was on top of it because he was the one who badgered for it, and it totally suited his needs with his 'Baby Bombers'.

However, good luck with getting Nathan Buckley to the bench in 1994, actually good luck in getting him there at any time in the twentieth century.

Rotations, flooding, zones, pulse footy - have all come along at different times and it cannot be said that one was a result of this, or this will lessen that or whatever apart from the fact that if you tire them out - it get's bloody harder to do.

Interesting stat - sprinting has gone up 4% this year.

 

[Sprout]

3 +1 and 80 rotations.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

Damn - I want to let this go actually because I feel I've made my point, however back in 1994 being called back to the bench wasn't considered a good thing - Sheedy probably was on top of it because he was the one who badgered for it, and it totally suited his needs with his 'Baby Bombers'.

However, good luck with getting Nathan Buckley to the bench in 1994, actually good luck in getting him there at any time in the twentieth century.

Rotations, flooding, zones, pulse footy - have all come along at different times and it cannot be said that one was a result of this, or this will lessen that or whatever apart from the fact that if you tire them out - it get's bloody harder to do.

Interesting stat - sprinting has gone up 4% this year.

Ok then, consider this scenario. You're an AFL coach. It's half way through the last qtr, and although your side is in front by 20 points, they're knackered, and you've used all of you allotted rotations. Wouldn't flooding the backline be an easy way to prevent your opponent from winning?

 

[TAITA]

Ok then, consider this scenario. You're an AFL coach. It's half way through the last qtr, and although your side is in front by 20 points, they're knackered, and you've used all of you allotted rotations. Wouldn't flooding the backline be an easy way to prevent your opponent from winning?

Depends on how your opposition is travelling, but if they need 4 goals in 12 minutes, you are spent, and they are running on - you could put a tsunami down back and you will still lose.

Believe me, as a Hawthorn supporter, I know such things.

 

[TheBloods]

2 + 2 is still the best option.

 

[Helfarch]

We agree to disagree then.

My position, put simply is that if you cut the 'rest' time in half, the great footballers will come to the fore, flooding/zoning will dissipate massively and fringe players will be shown up for what they are - ultimately footballers will take precedence over athletes.

It's fine to say that the effect is 'minimal' but Greg Williams would not get a game under the current criteria.

Apart from the fact he was a Carlton flog, I don't think that's good for the game.

Tired 'footballers' will fade and endurance athletes will come to the fore.

 

[Ant_]

Tired 'footballers' will fade and endurance athletes will come to the fore.

I agree with this, it will benefit the Daniel Cross type who doesn't have that burst of speed yet can and will run all day non stop.

 

[Spurk]

I agree with this, it will benefit the Daniel Cross type who doesn't have that burst of speed yet can and will run all day non stop.

Is that a bad thing?

But yeah, whatever happens next year, it will be interesting to see how the coaches react over the coming weeks.

It might drop back 10% for a short period, but the whole concept of this evolving and leveling out is severely flawed.

Too many coaches are a heavy loss or 2 away from intense scrutiny to resist eating that apple to reinvigorate their seasons or careers.

Raising benchings 30% in a week is close to the equivalent of a public spray from a former great, and will remain a tactic to put the fear of god through an underperforming side.

 

[TheBloods]

Tired 'footballers' will fade and endurance athletes will come to the fore.

That doesn't bode well for the quality of football.

 

[Spurk]

That doesn't bode well for the quality of football.

You could also say it has the opposite effect.

It brings heart back into the game, the responsibility of players to perform under duress.

Players having their finger on the pulse of the contest, going the extra yards and actually being part of the whole game and all the opportunity to succeed or fail that goes with it.

The Theatre and drama is going out the window through lack of characters, lack of match ups as well as lack of responsibility on players to win their position, stay in a position and stand up with heroic efforts late in games.

 

[pdave54]

Tired 'footballers' will fade and endurance athletes will come to the fore.

That doesn't bode well for the quality of football.

Something to consider, be it a burst or endurance type runner, is the quality of their disposal. Having watched footy since the 60's I would say that even though the speed of the game has changed and the skills of the players has improved, given the time to train and be a full time footballer a lot of players from the past would be stars today. Is running over emphasised, you have to have some but footy smarts and great disposal are what make great players and teams.

 

[TheBloods]

I think running, tackling and dinky chip passes are over emphasised relative to genuine football skills. Makes the contest less entertaining as a spectacle, but works for the current rules of the game,

 

[Snoozer]

So the AFL want to cap rotations in order to reduce collision type injuries? What about all the soft-tissues injuries that will result from the increase in fatigued players? Catch 22. Rotations will find their natural cap.

You hardly notice the amount of rotations while at the game. I cannot fathom how the AFL can come up with a reason to cap it. It doesn't affect the game IMO at all. I fail to see how players with more gas in the tank at certain periods is detrimental.

It's just another example of the rules committee justifying their existence by trying to fix part of the game that isn't remotely broken. They would be better off getting the umpires to officiate in the spirit of the game, rather than being over-zealous, domineering school teachers.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

That doesn't bode well for the quality of football.

How?

Some teams are struggling to implement high rotation strategies, especially amoungst young teams. The interchange exploitation is killing the "contest"'and is on it's way towards destroying the Meritocracy that our game has been for a long long time.

Football is turning a farce.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

We agree to disagree then.

My position, put simply is that if you cut the 'rest' time in half, the great footballers will come to the fore, flooding/zoning will dissipate massively and fringe players will be shown up for what they are - ultimately footballers will take precedence over athletes.

It's fine to say that the effect is 'minimal' but Greg Williams would not get a game under the current criteria.

Apart from the fact he was a Carlton flog, I don't think that's good for the game.

Absolute truth.

 

[Amber Guzzler]

How?

Some teams are struggling to implement high rotation strategies, especially amoungst young teams. The interchange exploitation is killing the "contest"'and is on it's way towards destroying the Meritocracy that our game has been for a long long time.

Football is turning a farce.

So what, we should prevent other teams from doing so? That's ridiculous. Would you apply that logic to any other aspect of game play? Some teams are struggling to implement a high goal kicking strategy, should the AFL step in and limit the number of goals per game?

 

[Spurk]

I'm not fan of zoning or flooding either. I just don't subscribe to the theory that they are caused by a high number of rotations. As for the pace of the game, I think it's great. But if you want to revert the game back to the way it was, then there's a whole plethora of rule changes that can be reversed before you go looking at touching the interchange rules, which basically haven't changed since the bench was expanded in 1994. Personally, I think reversing that change would be a mistake.

AA saying the 'injury' factor of rotations is not as simple as Collingwood make out.

He was saying if BOTH teams are heavily rotating during the same game, the increase of speed and congestion is basically doubled.

Like all budding trends it takes a certain length of time for the whole comp to become sheep, ie coaching from the boundary.

Filters through to twice the chance of collision injury, congestion as well as more tackling, leading to a greater chance of injury.

 

[flamethrower]

The only supposed 'pros' I see for capping the interchange are all flawed.

Run and carry style football will continue, Geelong rotate far less on average. It may increase because aggression and defensive pressure will decrease with fatigue.

Long kicks won't get any more effective. Defenders are hardly rotated as it is and forwards more only because HFs are injected into the midfield.

Losing a player to injury will be worse because you cannot compensate by increasing your rotations.

Fatigue increases the risk of injury, this is an indisputable fact. The AFL however in their special fantasy world want to use fatigue to decrease injury. Soft tissue injuries are far more prevelent and will increase with fatigue compared to impact injuries, impact injuries may even be exacerbated with tired and frustrated players making mistakes and lazy/reckless tackles.

Agree.

I have written to the AFL with counterarguments to all of the AFL's arguments for capping rotations.

When you get to the core argument, Adrian Anderson wants the game to return to the way it was 18 months ago when teams averaged 80 interchanges a game. Unfortunately it is just not that simple, as you can't magically undo the past 18 months of advances in tactics, innovations and sports science. Capping interchanges will introduce problems that no one has even though of yet - it always happens when the AFL makes a major rule change.

The other main argument is the advantage of teams when they have extra players on the bench because of injuries - easy solution - 2 (or more) substitutes per team that can only be used when a player has a game ending injury. To stop teams exploiting this, automatically ban that player from playing the following week.

While I believe that having 18 on the field, 4 on the bench and 2+ substitutes is the fairest solution, that is not an option apparently becuse it does nothing to appease those who believe there is a problem with the high number of rotations. Therefore I think that the best way to go would be 3 on the bench and 2 substitutes, with unlimited rotations.

 

[Spurk]

Capping interchanges will introduce problems that no one has even though of yet - it always happens when the AFL makes a major rule change.

Bigger problems than the evolution of rotations will bring? No.

The other main argument is the advantage of teams when they have extra players on the bench because of injuries - easy solution - 2 (or more) substitutes per team that can only be used when a player has a game ending injury. To stop teams exploiting this, automatically ban that player from playing the following week.

Ablett getting concussion in a Pre Lim and automatically missing a Grand Final? Dont think so, is unworkable.

While I believe that having 18 on the field, 4 on the bench and 2+ substitutes is the fairest solution, that is not an option apparently becuse it does nothing to appease those who believe there is a problem with the high number of rotations.

So you want to make the problem bigger?

Therefore I think that the best way to go would be 3 on the bench and 2 substitutes, with unlimited rotations.

Nearly there, IMO the best solution for the game is 3+1 and an 80 cap or just a 60 cap.

A compromise is 3+1 and 80.

2+2 is along the right lines and would be better than the current system.