Capping Rotations

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Way to totally take The Bloods out of context..

He wants three interchange and a reserve and no limit on rotations.

I havent taken him out of context. Out of the options presented , I agree with him that this is the best one, even though I'd prefer no rule-change or four interchange and a reserve.

 

[Spurk]

He wants three interchange and a reserve and no limit on rotations.

I havent taken him out of context. Out of the options presented , I agree with him that this is the best one, even though I'd prefer no rule-change or four interchange and a reserve.

Thought you might like this article i found from the backpage lead Timmy

AFL right to slow the game down

It’s not often we feel the need to jump to Adrian Anderson’s defence but many of the AFL rule change proposals he’s thrown up for discussion deserve more than the inevitable knee-jerk criticisms they’ve attracted. They deserve serious consideration.



I’m not talking about awarding goals to shots that bounce inwards off goalposts – I’d file that idea in the bin pretty quick smart – it’s more the AFL’s review of the game’s direction, and future, that should be given support. And in particular, the cap on interchange bench rotations.


Because AFL fans, in case you hadn’t noticed, the game that you attend, watch, read about and love has been transformed and turned upside-down in the past 10 years. Even if you dig out a tape of a 2005 match, you’ll find yourself looking twice at the date written on the DVD cover just to convince yourself that the game really is only five years old.



As to 30 years ago, and this observation’s been made many times before, but that stop-start, turgid fare – served up in tight pants - is almost unrecognisable from the 2010 spectacle.



So if you like to think of yourself as a traditionalist – that’s to say a supporter of the status quo – sorry, but you’ve missed the boat. The game is changing every season, and evolving at such a pace that the notion of an AFL status quo is almost redundant. The fundamental spectacle that drew us to follow AFL in the first place has now morphed into something quite different.



And few sports that I can think of have undergone such a massive transformation in such a short space of time.
That’s why the AFL have stepped in with these rule change proposals. The sport they are custodians of is spinning out of control to such an extent that no-one can predict with any certainty how the game will look like in 2015.



It is incumbent on the game’s administration to retain control over their code, so it is entirely right that Anderson and co, say: ‘Hold on, boys, let’s catch our breath here for a minute and see where we’re heading’.
As Anderson pointed out on Wednesday, interchange numbers per club have doubled – doubled - from an average of 58 per game in 2007, to 116 per game in 2010. In 2003, clubs were interchanging players at a rate of 22 per match, less than 20 per cent of current totals.



Can anyone tell me a sport – anywhere - that has tolerated that sort of fundamental change in seven years?



The effect of this unfettered substituting of players has been startling. The speed of the game late in the last quarter is just as hectic now as the opening minutes of the first quarter; the pace relentless from go to whoa.
This means, logically, there will be more high-speed collisions. The AFL Medical Commissioners have urged the league to review the interchange rules, saying uncontrolled use of the bench ‘‘would further increase the speed of the game, and pose an increased risk of serious injury’’.
Then there is the matter of the nature of the game itself. Once upon a time, stamina – the ability to run hard through the pain of exhaustion – was as much a part of the game as running fast or jumping high or kicking long. Not any more.



Collingwood’s Dane Swan is perhaps the premier on-baller in the league yet he is also the most ‘benched’, coming off the ground 178 times in his 19 matches this season. This allows him to run like the clappers – sprinting in bursts up and down the ground for eight or 10 minutes – before coming off for a rest. That pattern continues in high rotation for the entire match.
If you’d suggested seven years ago that Ben Cousins, Shane Crawford or Michael Voss be benched for 20% of each game, you’d have been laughed out of the coach’s box.



So we now have a high-speed, high-intensity contest which is threatening to produce more serious injuries but also shorten players’ careers because of the relentless demands placed on their bodies.
And don’t be seduced into listening to AFL coaches on this issue: they are simply not to be trusted as impartial observers. When Mick Malthouse, Rodney Eade and Brad Scott jump up and down about the ‘ridiculous’ idea of capping interchange numbers, you can safely assume their comments are driven by major self-interest.



Those three, and one or two others, reckon they can work the high-rotation bench changes to their advantage. That they can manipulate the interchange better than some of their counterparts and win close games as a result. Malthouse and Collingwood have reached 150 rotations in some games, while Eade and the Western Bulldogs lead the comp with an average of 130.



So we're to ignore the expert medical advice and forget about the longevity of players’ careers – everything is to be sacrificed on the altar of game-day success. Is that it?


The Sunday Age ran a revealing feature recently in which it polled five players about the idea of a cap on interchange numbers. One of them, Brisbane’s Jed Adcock, revealed himself not to be just a deep thinker about the game, but also endearingly honest.



‘’It is more of a power, burst game now,’’ Adcock said. ‘’There are more of those type of games, and you get more injuries. It's now very much five minutes, you go off, and then five minutes back on. You're spent when you come off. Now, the game is so powerful. Three years ago, five years ago, you were lucky to get on before half-time when you started on the bench. You give everything, then you go off.’’


Asked if the increasing speed of the game would reduce the length of his career, Adcock said: ‘’For sure. I think you have already seen that this year (with player retirements). You are lucky to get players over 30 these days. Five years ago, there were more who were 32 to 34 years of age. It's pretty much an accomplishment to get 200 games now.’’


As a result, he said he’d support an interchange cap. ‘’I think it's a goer. The injuries are up, longevity is shorter now than three years ago. It [cap] would make it a fairer game. When you have two injuries and only two left on the bench, and you can't interchange as much, that makes it unfair … They [AFL] have been throwing around 80 to 100 [capped interchanges]. I would be [in favour] of something around that mark.’’
His remarks about were supported by fellow players, North Melbourne’s Andrew Swallow and St Kilda’s Jason Blake.


Now, I don’t know whether the cap should be set at 80 or 90 or 100. Let’s settle on a limit, though, and try it. If it manifestly doesn’t work, well try another one. It's time this helter-skelter perpetual motion on the ground, and the sidelines, was reined in.

 

[Beckers]

I would be ok with them capping rotations. Yes, it might affect the running speed of the game, but it might also bring back the long bombs and marking contests. To be honest, I'm a bit sick of the run and carry thing being the be-all and end-all of footy. edit.... .

I'm with you Ando727. I'm sick of clubs drafting athletes instead of footballers.

AFL is a game of endurance, NOT a sprint!

 

[Spurk]

I'm with you Ando727. I'm sick of clubs drafting athletes instead of footballers.

AFL is a game of endurance, NOT a sprint!

Like this ABC effort from April.

Mick Malthouse has instituted what independent observers are calling an OCIAP (Official Collingwood Interchange Acceleration Process). Perhaps Collingwood science director David Buttifant has presented a paper to Eddie, Joffa and the Magpie faithful showing research which demonstrates the unquestionable correlation between higher rates of interchange and victory.

It follows on from his paper which shows the correlation between the higher score and victory (which was very well-received and the Lexus Centre and helped to build Buttifant's reputation).

In his column in "The Australian" Mick Malthouse argued that interchange was vital. It reduces physical pressure on players and keeps them performing at their best for longer.

His former skipper Nathan Buckley also discussed the matter of player rotations in his Saturday column in "The Age".

Such is the lack of clear thinking in this debate generally that Buckley found himself arguing that it is how coaches manage players 19 to 22 in a team which will affect outcomes of games in the future, and that this was a wonderful part of the game.

I have developed a lot of respect for Nathan Buckley over the years, but that is bunkum. That's what happens when footy gets its head caught up its own fundament.

Ben Rutten and Andrew McLeod are champions not because of how they are managed off the interchange bench, but because they have supreme skills and an ability to implement them under immense pressure when the game is there to be won.

We want players one to six to be able to show what they can do on a footy field, not have a procession of grubs niggle them into obscurity because spells on the bench mean they only have to go at it for bursts of a few minutes.

The issue of interchange was so topical last week the ABC commentary team discussed it during pre-match on Friday night. It was a fascinating discussion involving the wise old heads of David Parkin and Tim Lane, and the young thinkers Peter Schwab and Gerard Whateley.

But I think the discussion needs to occur at a more elemental level. The principal question should be: what is the essence of footy?

This, of course, is a matter of taste. For me the Crows-Port game was far closer to the essence of footy than the bureaucratic paper-shuffling that managerialism has brought to interchange-driven footy.

Here is what I think the essence of footy is.

It's twofold. It places the man-on-man contest within the context of a team game. It reveres the notion that the swift and skilful movement of the ball by team-work will be rewarded, and that your destiny is in your own hands.

Dispose of the ball quickly enough and skilfully enough and the reward will be a possession further up the ground - unless the defender is more skilful or reads the game more effectively, and can interfere (fairly).

The ball, however (as Geelong showed last year) will always beat the man, and so it should. But the defender can give himself a chance - hence there is a contest.

The game used to be man-on-man. But in these days of supreme fitness and strength, and player management from the interchange bench, coaches are able to employ strategies where space, rather than individual players, can be defended.

Players can run to their position in the zone, and the zone can roll and sag and do whatever zones do.

Zones stop working once players are tired and they can't physically make it to their designated position, and can't think on their feet to adjust the zone.

Once players are tired you see them reverting to a man-on-man contest. And the game opens up. The ground gets bigger.

The greatest matches are the goal-for-goal nailbiters because players are desperate and in their exhausted yet still-determined state they do whatever they can.

Not only because the score is close. But because we get a great brand of chaotic footy; the brand of footy we have loved forever.

Thankfully there are quite a few of these matches each year. But there would be many more if we reversed the current thinking, as they have done in rugby league, and invoked a simple initiative: limit the number of interchanges.

 

[Spurk]

Lol, that last article is actually from April 2008!

Makes a lot of sense.

 

[Roby]

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.

Actually there is increasing evidence that high rotations cause less injuries. Collingwood rotate the second most and have had the best injury list this season. Bulldogs the most rotations and they have had the 3rd best injury list.

Geelong the least rotations and they have had one of the worst injury lists. Brisbane the second least rotations and they have had by far the worst injury list. Hawthorn went from one of the least rotations and having the most injuries to now the most rotations to the least injuries.

Now before I make an argument like the AFL does based on coincidence, there is possible attributation why high rotations keep injuries down. The 20 page-report which stipulates that high rotations coincide with the increased injuries and in particular collision injuries does not have any science behind it. It merely states a coincidence. Just like saying that players who were lighter socks before a game have had 7% more injuries than players who wear darker socks. Thus this proves that wearing darker socks before a game will increase your chance of injury.

Fatigue is proving to be one of the biggest factor in regards to injuries. Football Association’s Medical Research Programme for soccer in England, stipulates that early 'nearly half of match injuries occurred during the last third of the first and second halves of the match, suggesting fatigue as a factor.'

Mental fatigue and physical fatigue can cause many injuries during a game. When a player is physically fatigued, they are not able to move as efficiently causing unorthodox running and jumping which can lead to an inability to brace oneself correctly in an impact, or putting unduly strain or impact on the body, which would not occur if a player was less physically fatigued.

Mental fatigue has a linear effect to physical fatigue, as a mentally tired player can be numb to sensations in his body and cause him to effort in an incorrect manner which can cause them to strain muscles when the player should of been off resting. Cause an impact or lack the ability to avoid contact as their awareness and reflexes are diminished.

Most medical staff will tell you that one of the biggest problems in managing players is getting correct and honest feedback from players. Players for various reasons do not always work earnestly with the clubs fitness and medical staff in fear of been dropped for a game or having to sit on a bench. Players also do not want to appear weak in front of their team-mates and are embarrassed to com[lain about niggling injuries or pain they may feel. Unfortunately these things can sometimes turn much worse if not attend to early.

If a player is fatigues mentally during a game they also may not realise that something is wrong with them. Having a high rotations allows for the fitness and medical staff to better attend to their players. It also allows them to perform more checks which thus helps the player who is not always honest.

In short player rotations can help with fitter players who are less likely to cause any kind of injury and better a better management system for medical and fitness staff.

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

Low rotations will cause a decrease in speed and thus a less attractive game, as most would agree a faster game appears more exciting.

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?

If a team is limited on the amount of rotations they are using, what is stopping a coach to start 'flooding' and put numbers back as they cannot counter back in defence because of the lack of speed. Most inferior teams will just flood back in order to counter a faster team to counter the opposition faster players. Consequently they will just bomb it long and cause more stoppages in order to keep possession.

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.

If the AFL is concerned about this why don't just increase the bench? In soccer they are only allowed 3 substitutions but they have bench almost a full team. Simply increase the bench to allow 2 or 3 more players for substitutions if required.

If anything is UNFAIR in terms of tactical advantages, it will come in limiting rotations. Coaches will have more of an influence as players will not constantly be rotating which in turn constantly changes the dynamics of a game. Let's not forget that most if not all rotations are now player driven. Players decide when to come on and off, so in reality players are more empowered now than coaches are. Capping rotations will give the power back to the coaches.

 

[Covertackle]

Actually there is increasing evidence that high rotations cause less injuries. QUOTE]

Roby, long winded bollocks. Just shows how people like you on this forum can have absolutely no idea.



Growing injury lists drive Brisbane Lions to call for interchange rule changes


LIONS CEO Greg Swann says the AFL has no choice but to reduce interchanges to slow the game down after adding a broken jaw to James Aish to an injury list that is well beyond crisis point.

Aish, skipper Tom Rockliff (ribs) and Suns forward Jack Martin (hamstring) all face a month on the sidelines after another weekend of carnage for Queensland’s two clubs.

The news could get worse with the Lions waiting on results of scans for Claye Beams who is facing an extended time-out with a knee injury and Daniel Rich who has a sore hip.

Even with Lions pair Pearce Hanley and Jack Redden and Sun Nick Malceski expected to return in the coming weeks, each game brings new casualties for both clubs.

Swann said the competition could not sustain the alarming injury toll and something had to be done to slow the game down.

The ability to keep players fresh meant there was increased numbers around contests and they all moved at full pace which was making the collisions harder than ever.

“At the moment about 20 per cent of everyone’s list across the competition is injured and up here it is a lot worse, that


for more...' http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/gr...-fo-rule-changes/story-fndv8d6r-1227378611695

 

[SJ]

The bench used to be an instrument designed to provide equity via 'injury replacement' to teams suffering in-game injuries. It now creates inequity through 'out-rotation' as a team suffering injuries is exploited rather than compensated.

The current purpose of the bench is completely at odds with its original intent.

 

[Thats Wright]

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.

Spot on.

 

[Beutbrute]

The bench used to be an instrument designed to provide equity via 'injury replacement' to teams suffering in-game injuries. It now creates inequity through 'out-rotation' as a team suffering injuries is exploited rather than compensated.

The current purpose of the bench is completely at odds with its original intent.

This.
The game used to be 18v18 and has now become 22v22. It's no wonder there is more congestion