Capping Rotations

[Timmy from Thomastown]

I still fail to see a decent argument for capping rotations.

Here are a few that I have heard and my comments.....

High rotations cause injuries
....there is no evidence of rotations causing injuries in either the clash or wear and tear categories.

It will make the game more attractive
....the game is more attractive now than it was six years ago.

It will bring back the "matchups"
....it will bring back the dirty sniping tagger. There is no evidence under high rotations that the best players dont go head to head with the best players. If anything, matchups are back in fashion and tags are going out of fashion.

It will slow the game down.
......So will waving the flags before kicking the ball in.

It will allow teams with less midfield depth to be competitive.
......Why should teams with more depth be punished for having a better list?

It will stop teams using interchange "tactics".
......Maybe this is true to some extent but the rules are the same for both sides. Its 22 against 22 with 18 on the ground at any one time. When 22 and fair enough too - its a team sport.

High rotations punish teams who lose a player during the game through injury.
......Injuries are part of the game.

 

[TheBloods]

The game is less attractive than it used to be. More congested play flipping to uncontested possessions with chip passing, with a reduction in goals kicked, big marks and marquee matchups.

In the faster, high rotation game injuries have a bigger impact on the outcome of a game.

 

[Spurk]

High rotations cause injuries
....there is no evidence of rotations causing injuries in either the clash or wear and tear categories.

Good stuff

Well that's up for debate, if you believe the only people that know, then you're wrong. Even coaches have admitted if you go a player down early, it dramatically reduces your chances. The relationship between speed and collision injury, harder/faster tackling is undeniable.

It will make the game more attractive
....the game is more attractive now than it was six years ago.

It's as obvious as ever this round that the heart is being replaced by robots. Faster flooding, more congestion, less bouncing, lower scoring than 2 years ago.....

It will bring back the "matchups"
....it will bring back the dirty sniping tagger. There is no evidence under high rotations that the best players dont go head to head with the best players. If anything, matchups are back in fashion and tags are going out of fashion.

Whether people like it or not the tagger was a character of the game, the drama of the contest. Accountable football leads to a hero and villain, something any good theater needs.

It will slow the game down.
......So will waving the flags before kicking the ball in.

That would merely increase congestion and allow further rest for players. Speeding it up.

It will allow teams with less midfield depth to be competitive.
......Why should teams with more depth be punished for having a better list?

Not sure Collingwood have that much midfield depth, you should be saying it allows c graders to play like b graders with bit part robotic roles.

It will stop teams using interchange "tactics".
......Maybe this is true to some extent but the rules are the same for both sides. Its 22 against 22 with 18 on the ground at any one time. When 22 and fair enough too - its a team sport.

Zoning combined with flooding has decreased the size of the playing arena.
The last thing the sport currently needs is players shutting down space faster.

High rotations punish teams who lose a player during the game through injury.
......Injuries are part of the game.

Agree to a degree, that's partly why i prefer 1 sub. Stopping the professional corky like TAITA said will come to the fore in finals.

The bench was never designed to be the most important aspect of the contest.

It's the bench FFS and the product is on the field. The games priorities have slipped to a level that threatens the heart and soul of the comp.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

The games priorities have slipped to a level that threatens the heart and soul of the comp.

Leave the emotive cliches out of it and you'll go a lot further.

The game is what it is. I'm sure the regular punter on a regular week to week basis doesnt even notice the interchanges. It (this move to cap interchanges) a typical response to try and react to what the top side is doing and if you cant replicate it, try and outlaw it.

The game's in a good place. It will never return to the good old days when people thought it had "heart and soul". Its evolved to where it is now and people are still coming in droves. Flooding and presses and zones are simply part of the modern game. Tweaking rules here and there wont change that. You wont get the 80's like positional football back unless you introduce zones and make the players wear bibs like in netball.

 

[campbell]

The game is less attractive than it used to be. More congested play flipping to uncontested possessions with chip passing, with a reduction in goals kicked, big marks and marquee matchups.

In the faster, high rotation game injuries have a bigger impact on the outcome of a game.

agree.

 

[Spurk]

The game's in a good place. It will never return to the good old days when people thought it had "heart and soul". Its evolved to where it is now and people are still coming in droves. Flooding and presses and zones are simply part of the modern game. Tweaking rules here and there wont change that. You wont get the 80's like positional football back unless you introduce zones and make the players wear bibs like in netball.

Three 100 point beltings from 5 games this week shows the rotations are a technique of over control that is removing individual talents/players feel for the contest and replacing it with robotic sniper roles. The Dogs, Bombers and Tigers showed where the game is heading with players losing all their responsibilities.

Without some form of capping, the game will soon enter the phase where 16 players per side or netball zoning are it's only options.

 

[TheBloods]

Yeah, pretty much.

2+2 would work, but i'd like to know how far 2 interchange can be pushed during a game as well as what tactics 2 subs will bring.

Will 2 interchange steady the rotations in the same way a 60 cap would? Or will the bench still just be thrashed for everything it's got.

The whole idea seems to be taking the bench back to what it is, a place for replacements to sit with some room to rest weary players or ruckmen instead of a way to ensure players have extra speed and concentration span to shutdown space and tackle harder.

2 subs is 2 completely fresh players as well as 2 interchange remaining open to 100 rotations.

Could become a case of limiting a coaches wallet but instead see them skulling drinks to achieve the same level of intoxication.

60 cap would not be a bad thing to steady this problem and eliminate this whole evolving aspect of the bench and coach basically being part of the ground.

Coaches don't rotate purely to get the number up, but seek an advantage, so they're not going to flog the interchange bench for the sake of it. It seems unlikely that a two-player interchange bench can go too much higher than 80 effectively, so it would achieve the objective without any need for a cap. In addition, you need to think about the types of players on the bench. Now you often have three running players and one tall, but with two you can only one running player and a tall, so it has a bigger effect.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

100 point beltings have been happening for years, especially late in the season when teams out of the comp put the cue in the rack.. Rotations have nothing to do with it.

Just last year people were worrying that StKilda's close-down-lock-down-choke-them-out style that was built on the Sydney model, was going to be the model for the future. They were not kicking huge scores nor winning by huge margins.

 

[TuskenRaider]

The solution is simple. Capping interchanges is a stupid idea.

As I've advocated for a few years, they should change the bench to be two (or three) interchange players and two (or one) reserve players.

The interchanges still allow rotation of players, but slows it down.

A reserve can replace any player in the side for the remainder of the game.

Loss of a player through injury will therefore not have the same effect.

This is the best solution. Taking one of the interchange players out of the equation will limit the coach's ability to rotate so often and there is no negative impact if players are injured as there are reserves.

And for those who cry "stop changing the rules", it's a bit late for that - the can of worms was opened when we went from 2 to 3, then 3 to 4 interchange players. 3 is plenty and reserves are then available if required.

 

[TheBloods]

Leave the emotive cliches out of it and you'll go a lot further.

The game is what it is. I'm sure the regular punter on a regular week to week basis doesnt even notice the interchanges. It (this move to cap interchanges) a typical response to try and react to what the top side is doing and if you cant replicate it, try and outlaw it.

Hmmm... okay... enough with the typical Collingwood paranoia.

The game's in a good place. It will never return to the good old days when people thought it had "heart and soul". Its evolved to where it is now and people are still coming in droves. Flooding and presses and zones are simply part of the modern game. Tweaking rules here and there wont change that. You wont get the 80's like positional football back unless you introduce zones and make the players wear bibs like in netball.

Taking away some of the rules that have created the 'modern game' would improve it.

 

[Spurk]

Coaches don't rotate purely to get the number up, but seek an advantage, so they're not going to flog the interchange bench for the sake of it.

If there is a psychological element of retaining attention span or focus with rotations, some coaches may exploit that and continue the trend of unsettling match ups and sniping increased contests in order to have the match sown up by half time without worrying about ability to run out games.

It seems unlikely that a two-player interchange bench can go too much higher than 80 effectively, so it would achieve the objective without any need for a cap.

That seems to be the objective and i think the ideal scenario would be 2+2 with the subs being legitimate injury replacements instead of 2 second half running specialists.

Independent medical assessors would be the only way to police such a situation. Whether that is workable is another issue.

In addition, you need to think about the types of players on the bench. Now you often have three running players and one tall, but with two you can only one running player and a tall, so it has a bigger effect.

The ruckmen are already under the pump and 2 interchange would see the death of 2 IMO. Likely both interchange would be running players and key position players would rotate less frequently.

 

[Spurk]

This is the best solution. Taking one of the interchange players out of the equation will limit the coach's ability to rotate so often and there is no negative impact if players are injured as there are reserves.

And for those who cry "stop changing the rules", it's a bit late for that - the can of worms was opened when we went from 2 to 3, then 3 to 4 interchange players. 3 is plenty and reserves are then available if required.

One positive of the 4 man bench is the opportunity to play more youth.

This is where a cap of around 60, although not perfect, allows for flexibility of list/injury while returning the bench to it's purpose.

If they were to go with a cap:

Either 60-70-80

Incorporate some type of flexibility on the cap.

# Teams having access to an extra 5 rotations- Like 5 get out of jail free cards per year. Etc.

If they managed to control the reaching of the cap limits effectively, that would be ideal without having to introduce subs or reduce the youth/rucks on the bench.

80 is still too many rotations IMO.

60 cap with a somehow flexible limit.

 

[TheBloods]

Injury-specific reserves would add all sorts of silly games I think.

The choice of whether to take two ruckmen or just one or leave one up forward would simply be a decision coaches would have to make. With a slightly slower game they could have two still.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Hmmm... okay... enough with the typical Collingwood paranoia.

Its not Collingwood paranoia. It just happens to be Collingwood's turn to be the focus of attention..

Its no different to the complaints when Sydney were top of the tree and "destroying the game" with their megaflood and low scoring.

Its no different to the hysteria over Joel Selwood getting so many free kicks.

Its no different to the hysteria over Hawthorn's unsociable football.

People want to reinvent the rulebook every time a coach/player comes out with a new tactic or strategy.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Agree capping is a bad idea.

The best compromise - not that I believe in rulechanges at all - is going back to three subs and an emergency. The emergency must be allowed to come on for any reason, not just injuries.

 

[TheBloods]

If you don't believe in rule changes then do you think we should go back to having just a 19th man? It's amazing how many people say we shouldn't have rule changes and to accept what is there now without recognising how many rule changes have taken place to get to this.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Who said I dont believe in rulechanges? They are a neccessity from time to time.

I dont believe in this rulechange and I believe many rule changes are rushed through according to the current trends set by the top side.

Those who want this rule change are actually the type who want to go back to the good old days. Not me. I think this proposed rulechange is actually regressive and wont achieve the goals.

 

[TARANTULA]

Todays Crows v Lions game would have been real interesting with a rotation cap in place.

 

[Pie eyed]

If you don't believe in rule changes then do you think we should go back to having just a 19th man? It's amazing how many people say we shouldn't have rule changes and to accept what is there now without recognising how many rule changes have taken place to get to this.

There is no relevance between the current individual proposed rule changes and changes which have been bought in over the last 100 years.

 

[TheBloods]

Who said I dont believe in rulechanges?

You did.

Agree capping is a bad idea.

The best compromise - not that I believe in rulechanges at all

Those who want this rule change are actually the type who want to go back to the good old days. Not me. I think this proposed rulechange is actually regressive and wont achieve the goals.

I don't think a cap will achieve it. Less on the interchange bench will.

 

[TheBloods]

Agree capping is a bad idea.

The best compromise - not that I believe in rulechanges at all - is going back to three subs and an emergency. The emergency must be allowed to come on for any reason, not just injuries.

Yes, I've said along I don't agree with capping, and I think less interchange players and more reserves - who can come on at any time for any reason as a permanent replacement - is the best option.

 

[shawthing09]

The rules commitee seem to be in a constant battle against the evolution of the game. They tried to speed the game up with the view that if the ball was in constant motion teams didn't have as much time to push numbers back with the defensive flood and that the lesser on field rest time would impact the players ability to be fit enough to run out the game in this fashion.The clubs started rotating more and now they want to cap it.

The fact is the game has and will always evolve defensively. Making rule changes to try and protect the look of the game is just so short sighted and no doubt teams will find a way to exploit the new rule changes and there will be another aspect of the game "lost" and we will see the need for more rule changes to get it back.

The thing that gets me the most is the fact that the AFL keep trying to push it as a injury issue where it seems clear that it isn't. The clubs doctors don't agree. The main medical evidence the AFL used to begin with is one from Rugby which just doesn't cross over as relevant to
AFL. Dane Swan is the AFL's most heavily rotated player and is in the midst of a huge streak of consecutive games (possibly the most in the league.)

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

You did.

You quoted me out of context. I dont believe in this rulechange. Thats different to opposing all rulechanges.

At least we have common ground on these proposed rule changes. If they have to occur...and I still quatsion that.... it should be three (preferably four) interchange plus one emergency, and no caps on interchanges.

 

[TAITA]

At least we have common ground on these proposed rule changes. If they have to occur...and I still quatsion that.... it should be three (preferably four) interchange plus one emergency, and no caps on interchanges.

Way to totally take The Bloods out of context.

What next? Eighteen on the bench so you can run an offence and a defence?

Collingwood supporters have, without exception, virtually ruled themselves irrelevant to this debate as they strive to push the position that is most advantageous to their current team over the health and future of the game.

 

[TheBloods]

You quoted me out of context. I dont believe in this rulechange. Thats different to opposing all rulechanges.

You weren't very clear.

At least we have common ground on these proposed rule changes. If they have to occur...and I still quatsion that.... it should be three (preferably four) interchange plus one emergency, and no caps on interchanges.

That's not really what I've suggested. I think we need less on the interchange bench. I prefer two (at most three, but that's not my preferred option in the long term) on the interchange bench.