Capping Rotations

[AKA The Joker]

The AFL talks up the spectacle of the game. Surely players who have plenty in the tank are more capable of taking the huge mark, that third or fourth tackle to disposses and force a turnover or a huge run and goal from outside 50. The game is better with fresher players, simple as that.
The 'theory' that there is a direct correlation between rotation of players and injury is flimsy at best.
Our own sports science department at Collingwood have evidence in the contrary to the AFL medicos (who by the way no one has heard from except the AFL) that an increase in player rotation is actually reducing soft tissue injury frequency.

Considering the AFL's stance alongside Etihad Stadium management regarding the playing surface which undoubtedly has direct impact on player welfare it reeks of double standards.

Rotations allow for the great players to the exciting things that make our game great more often. A rotation cap just adds another fidgety technical rule we could all do without.

 

[Ando727]

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. Footy has lost a lot of it's random elements which were great when you look back on the old footage. Now it's about maintaining possession and maximum efficency etc. It makes sense and it's very impressive, but for me, football is a little too professional and "peak-performance" sometimes. I like the idea of the big league still resembling the grass roots game. At the moment it doesn't at all.

Taking players off as soon as they kick a goal - that's one that does annoy me. It's symptomatic of the attention deficit society we live in. Like players need to recover for their next magical effort...

Still, if they don't cap them, it won't be a huge deal because it's what we have now.

 

[memberforever]

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. Footy has lost a lot of it's random elements which were great when you look back on the old footage. Now it's about maintaining possession and maximum efficency etc. It makes sense and it's very impressive, but for me, football is a little too professional and "peak-performance" sometimes. I like the idea of the big league still resembling the grass roots game. At the moment it doesn't at all.

Taking players off as soon as they kick a goal - that's one that does annoy me. It's symptomatic of the attention deficit society we live in. Like players need to recover for their next magical effort...

Still, if they don't cap them, it won't be a huge deal because it's what we have now.

So lets legislate so that people can watch the footy like they did in the 1980's

Footy is continually evolving and no matter what rules you put in the coaches will come up with something else to get an advantage.

The trouble with altering the rules, is that football is changed forever and the rules committee never ever think about the effects of the change.

Just think back to all the changes in the last couple of years and the effect is had on the game.

 

[Zahki]

It should be at least trialled in the NAB Cup for a couple of years before it's brought in. The speed at which they're working to introduce the new rule makes me think they're well aware of the negative impacts it will have and are doing it quickly before people have a chance to see exactly how it's going to change the game and complain.

 

[memberforever]

It should be at least trialled in the NAB Cup for a couple of years before it's brought in. The speed at which they're working to introduce the new rule makes me think they're well aware of the negative impacts it will have and are doing it quickly before people have a chance to see exactly how it's going to change the game and complain.

But why trial it? The effects are known now.

Teams will reach their cap and coaches will force players to play injured as they can't interchange any more.

There will be a whole lot of more officials at games counting the number of interchanges, and what happens if the club breaches the total?

There is no thought on what will happen with these changes. Just like when the AFL changed the bench from two reserves, to two interchange players to four interchange players, the game changed forever. We almost had 6 at one stage when Malthouse was complaining.

The AFL caused the high interchanges by firstly the play on at all costs, play on after a point is kicked, having 4 boundary umpires, which all mean players don't get a chance to rest ON the field, so they have to rest off the field.

 

[Ando727]

So lets legislate so that people can watch the footy like they did in the 1980's

Footy is continually evolving and no matter what rules you put in the coaches will come up with something else to get an advantage.
.

It won't return to the days of old, players are a lot fitter. But keeping them on the field for 10 minutes might actually make them have a different string to their bow. I don't like the direction things have been heading. Players who operate in short bursts of maximum effort then come off.

The trouble with altering the rules, is that football is changed forever and the rules committee never ever think about the effects of the change.

Just think back to all the changes in the last couple of years and the effect is had on the game.

Limiting rotations isn't really tampering with the game though. It's just putting a cap on something - not changing an on-field rule or rule interpretation. It won't affect the rules you see on the field.

I accept that the excessive rule changes have had a bad affect on the game, but in this case, it's actually about limiting the change to the game. Very different idea.

What you say about the game constantly evolving - is that always a good thing? Should we make no efforts to prevent the game changing completely from its origins? Rules are one of the things that can preserve the important aspects of a sport. All sports have rule changes - AFL is not unique in this regard.

Personally, I do remember the old game more fondly than the modernised version (and I'm not even that old). The terminology is all borrowed from American sports now. It's "rotations" instead of interchange. We have turn-overs, zones and "dee-fence". I know the game is evolving, but into what?

The only effect in limiting "rotations" will be that a component of the game will be retained - physical endurance will play a role and tiring of players might result in less structured and more free-for-all contests. Not a bad result, I say.

One more problem with rapid rotations is that it starts to affect the type of player who is suitable for AFL. If the game is played in very fast bursts of maximum speed, what does that do to the slower players? Even a player like Jimmy Stynes would not make it in a super fast game. He had heaps of endurance and could power through a whole game, but with substitutions going crazy, that ceases to become an asset. Recruitment will be targeted on speed athletes rather than workhorses. Reduces the appeal of football on young kids who know they aren't very quick.

 

[Pessimistic]

One option the AFL are 'offering' is three rotation players plus one substitute.

No interchange cap

Make it 3 + 2 and I reckon the coaches would go for it

 

[albundysmate]

they only put those first 2 options in to sugar coat it. they will go with the 80 rotations option. i doubt they will bring in the other 6 new rules. but have they looked at this seriously, what happens when a player gets injured when a team has run out of rotations. will a team lose all their points in that game if they replace him or will they be told to leave him on the field or just play with 17 men

 

[Sir CJ]

If the capping of rotations does help remove the congestion around the ball, I'd be all for it, makes the game a better spectacle without the amount of congestion some teams use around the footy

 

[Radical Roo]

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.

 

[Ant_]

Capping interchanges will effectively end Sam Reid's career as a type 1 diabetic if he needs to come of for an injection he has to come off.

 

[Ando727]

Capping interchanges will effectively end Sam Reid's career as a type 1 diabetic if he needs to come of for an injection he has to come off.

You obviously have no understanding of diabetes. Testing at the start of a quarter is ample. You would very seldom need to inject insulin in the middle of a quarter.

By the way, they are talking about limiting rotations, not banning them. There would still be more than enough to take care of the various reasons why players come on and off the field.

 

[TheBloods]

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.

 

[Father Jack]

I like the two-and-two idea as it is simpler to implement. I guess an unlimited four man interchange was always going to be exploited to the point of ridiculousness, like we have now.

 

[sgbn77]

It should be at least trialled in the NAB Cup for a couple of years before it's brought in. The speed at which they're working to introduce the new rule makes me think they're well aware of the negative impacts it will have and are doing it quickly before people have a chance to see exactly how it's going to change the game and complain.

I guess I actually have a problem with this being trialled in the NAB Cup, as it is primarily a practice run for the real season. I find it difficult to comprehend that we'd introduce a system with LESS rotations at the start of the season, thereby introducing more possibility of fatigue injuries (hamstrings, etc), when players have spent all pre-season practising game styles and more rotations (run, run, run), only to have an abrupt halt for four weeks of a competition.

It sort of needs to be all or nothing. So that the entire team philosophy is kick long to contest, etc...rather than just for a mickey mouse competition at the start of the year.

And for the record, I'm against it in general.

 

[Spurk]

I guess I actually have a problem with this being trialled in the NAB Cup, as it is primarily a practice run for the real season. I find it difficult to comprehend that we'd introduce a system with LESS rotations at the start of the season, thereby introducing more possibility of fatigue injuries (hamstrings, etc), when players have spent all pre-season practising game styles and more rotations (run, run, run), only to have an abrupt halt for four weeks of a competition.

It sort of needs to be all or nothing. So that the entire team philosophy is kick long to contest, etc...rather than just for a mickey mouse competition at the start of the year.

And for the record, I'm against it in general.

Kicking long to a contest has nothing to do with 8 less rotations per quarter. Unless they fix flooding, zoning or loose men in defense, pissing around with the ball is here to stay. Regardless of the hysteria, bias and ignorance, slowing interchange will:


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

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 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 10 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.

But yeah it's all being suggested for nothing.

 

[Pie eyed]

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.

Clutching at rule changes to make your side more competitive seems pretty fatalistic to me. No rule change will make the side better.

I can see a pattern regarding a couple of vocal Roos supporters.
BF is no guide.

Ask the Clubs. The coaches and then look at the public polls.

 

[memberforever]

I like the two-and-two idea as it is simpler to implement. I guess an unlimited four man interchange was always going to be exploited to the point of ridiculousness, like we have now.

Why is it ridiculous? How does this effect you watching the game. Personally I don't notice if the coach interchanges 80 or 180 times.

 

[memberforever]

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.

As Rocket said this morning, he will increase the rotations amongst the three players on the bench. It is not going to work

 

[Spurk]

Clutching at rule changes to make your side more competitive seems pretty fatalistic to me. No rule change will make the side better.

I can see a pattern regarding a couple of vocal Roos supporters.
BF is no guide.

Ask the Clubs. The coaches and then look at the public polls.

Brad Scott is against capping rotations. My opinion has nothing to do with North and is about the game.

RadicalRoo is dumbass.

 

[Ant_]

You obviously have no understanding of diabetes. Testing at the start of a quarter is ample. You would very seldom need to inject insulin in the middle of a quarter.

By the way, they are talking about limiting rotations, not banning them. There would still be more than enough to take care of the various reasons why players come on and off the field.

You have no idea, last game he played he had to come off mid quarter and have an injection. That would constitute a rotation.

 

[Brad Goodman]

Is there a genuine reason for capping interchanges? None of what has been put forward seems bad enough to warrant such a significant rule change.

 

[Furn]

they only put those first 2 options in to sugar coat it. they will go with the 80 rotations option. i doubt they will bring in the other 6 new rules. but have they looked at this seriously, what happens when a player gets injured when a team has run out of rotations. will a team lose all their points in that game if they replace him or will they be told to leave him on the field or just play with 17 men

why would a team ever use all their rotations until the last few minutes?

 

[grizzlym]

ROFL

You onyl dont want them capped beucase your game plan and swans plodding rely's on it.

Suck it up princess!!!!!!

Play the ball not the man.

 

[Alfonz]

So what happens if a player is injured and the interchanges are capped (without substitutes)? The AFL says teams currently have a 7% less likely chance of winning if they go a man down? How exactly will this change ... both sides will have the same amount of rotations ... yet one side can only cycle this through 3 players instead of 4, so their players will still get tired quicker and it will not really remove the disadvantage to the team with an injured player.

I think if they are going to cap interchanges, they still need to allow a permanent substitute and/or give a side XX amount of extra rotations per permanently injured player. The latter would maybe be too hard to implement, how do you work out what is a fair amount of extra rotations, and this would also depend on what stage of the game it happened and so forth.

What happens if you have used 80 rotations, the game is level, and with 2 minutes left one of your players gets knocked out? What do you do then? Play with 17 and have 3 fit players sitting on the bench? What a farce. Even if they allowed substitutes, you would likely have used your substitute by this point of the game. They need to say that any injured player coming off, who can't come back on, does not count towards the count of 80 ... but again this causes grey areas as how do you know someone is really injured.

The AFL really needs to think through all possible scenarios properly before proceeding with this. They can try all they want to narrow-mindedly attack certain "problems", but they just create cascading problems where one rule change results in something else they want to "fix", then they try to fix that with another stupide rule change, and before you know it the game has been bastardised beyond belief with rule change after rule change to change the effects of previous rule changes.