Capping Rotations

[Spurk]

"Thats Bollocks"

Did you see the kelly tackle on Young? if any tackle was designed to injure it was that one - grabbed his shoulders from the back and pulled down - not even a free !!!

And before we ger a sob story about Mitchell on Ablett take a look at the treatment Mitchell got from Ling for most of the game !

Anyway the 08 is the worst game to use as an example for interchanges because Dew stayed on because he couldnt be interchanged - hawks had 2 1/2 injures, cats had just one

Hawks cheated by kicking points and sniping Ablett.

Rules were changed.

Hawks could beat the Pies this year by taking a couple of them out. Mightn't be the worst result. )

Whatever way you look at it, this injury factor is the key.

Whether unlucky or targeted violence, it's the main reason of many.

 

[Helfarch]

Hawks cheated by kicking points and sniping Ablett.

Rules were changed.

Hawks could beat the Pies this year by taking a couple of them out. Mightn't be the worst result. )

Whatever way you look at it, this injury factor is the key.

Whether unlucky or targeted violence, it's the main reason of many.

This doesn't change if there is one interchange or one thousand. One sub or 22. An injury to a player on the field is an injury to a best 22 player.

 

[Spurk]

This doesn't change if there is one interchange or one thousand. One sub or 22. An injury to a player on the field is an injury to a best 22 player.

Don't see the issue, the Pies will likely get a flag before the changes are introduced.

Man down is twice the punishment it used to be and seems people don't want to accept that.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Have fun trying to stop Judd now, suckers!

 

[Ant_]

Don't see the issue, the Pies will likely get a flag before the changes are introduced.

Man down is twice the punishment it used to be and seems people don't want to accept that.

How did you come up with twice the punishment?

If this is just about disadvantage when a player goes down, why not keep the four interchange and have a injury substitute?

 

[Adam Selwood]

Leave it how it is FFS. Teams will find a way to abuse/get around a substitute or reserve rule

Adrian Anderson and the other muppets ruining our game need to be stopped

 

[Spurk]

How did you come up with twice the punishment?

If this is just about disadvantage when a player goes down, why not keep the four interchange and have a injury substitute?

Fair point.

Still is relying on only 1 injury. Still open to exploitation of subbing the unfittest player. Increases rotations.

What's to stop a feral supporter jumping the fence and belting a player?

Something needs to change and there's no point mucking around when 80 or 80 plus 1 sub is fair to all.

There are many other reasons for capping other than injury.

 

[Ant_]

Fair point.

Still is relying on only 1 injury.

What's to stop a feral supporter jumping the fence and belting a player?

Something needs to change and there's no point mucking around when 80 or 80 plus 1 sub is fair to all.

There are many other reasons for capping other than injury.

How often does more then one player go down with a game ending injury? What other reason is there for capping?

 

[Spurk]

How often does more then one player go down with a game ending injury? What other reason is there for capping?

I edited my original post to say 1 injury sub will just lead to the unfittest player being subbed, therefore increasing rotations.

Players walk a fine line of concussion and injury in general. A Grand Final will throw that in the air. Clubs have been benchless before and it will happen again.

I gave a number of reasons in another thread.

 

[Ant_]

I edited my original post to say 1 injury sub will just lead to the unfittest player being subbed, therefore increasing rotations.

Players walk a fine line of concussion and injury in general. A Grand Final will throw that in the air. Clubs have been benchless before and it will happen again.

I gave a number of reasons in another thread.

I'm sure the AFL could police the injury sub for real injuries and fine clubs abusing it.

You have a link to the other reasons in another thread?

 

[Helfarch]

Fair point.

Still is relying on only 1 injury. Still open to exploitation of subbing the unfittest player. Increases rotations.

What's to stop a feral supporter jumping the fence and belting a player?

Something needs to change and there's no point mucking around when 80 or 80 plus 1 sub is fair to all.

There are many other reasons for capping other than injury.

Fair?

Do as you see fit is far more 'fair' than do as Adrian Anderson says.

 

[Spurk]

Fair?

Do as you see fit is far more 'fair' than do as Adrian Anderson says.

Whatever the case, screaming leave it alone doesn't help anything.

If players were still rushing behinds from CHB the game would be ruined.

Illegal blocks etc evolve all the time, flooding decreased forwards output dramatically. Etc Etc.

I'm all for 'fight the power', but FFS leaving everything alone is not possible.

They generally get it right and until flooding is fixed, the game will suffer no matter how many corrections they make to coaches negative manipulation.

 

[Helfarch]

Whatever the case, screaming leave it alone doesn't help anything.

If players were still rushing behinds from CHB the game would be ruined.

Illegal blocks etc evolve all the time, flooding decreased forwards output dramatically. Etc Etc.

I'm all for 'fight the power', but FFS leaving everything alone is not possible.

They generally get it right and until flooding is fixed, the game will suffer no matter how many corrections they make to coaches negative manipulation.

Another logic fail, flooding existed more than a decade ago and yet interchage has only come to it's peak in the last two years and arguably is one of the answers to flooding. Unless you mean zones, however again a fresh midfield can work through a zone, a tired one bombing long in hope can not.

 

[Spurk]

I'm sure the AFL could police the injury sub for real injuries and fine clubs abusing it.

You have a link to the other reasons in another thread?

Post 16 in this thread actually. A few anyway.

I rekn could think of a few more. )

 

[Spurk]

Another logic fail, flooding existed more than a decade ago and yet interchage has only come to it's peak in the last two years and arguably is one of the answers to flooding. Unless you mean zones, however again a fresh midfield can work through a zone, a tired one bombing long in hope can not.

So faster flooding is an answer to flooding.

There's your logic fail.

 

[Helfarch]

So faster flooding is an answer to flooding.

There's your logic fail.

Since when has the midfield moving the ball through the midfield been flooding?

You don't make any sense, what exactly do you want to change about the game? Players staying in position and playing 1on1?

 

[Eastern Rangers]

So faster flooding is an answer to flooding.

There's your logic fail.

The frontal pressure being applied by some teams constitutes flooding. Cap the rotations and we will see more real-estate opened up through the middle.

Good teams with good players can break apart zones. Why doesn't Thompson care about interchange caps? Because he knows his defensers and midfielders will benefit from the changes.

Not everyone has drafted hard working, "burst" footballers.

 

[Ant_]

Since we've covered injury I'll leave them out.

.Reduce congestion around contests and slow down flooding, zoning and basketball breaks.

Run and Carry game has come in to prevent flooding. Would not call the Dogs a negative flooding/zoning type team.

Bring match ups back to the game.

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

That's your opinion, for example I enjoy watching the Dogs go coast to coast more then a boring defensive match up battle.

Stop teams removing goal kickers after a goal.

How does that effect the game?

Stop boundary line playing sides having an unfair advantage by walking 5 metres off the ground instead of running 100 metres. Ensuring more teams don't begin to play the soft boundary game.

Stop the tactic of players running to forward lines off the bench hoping for a fast break.

How often is that an issue?

Stop the infringements when crossing the boundary line.

What do you mean by this?

Keep footballers in the game instead of short distance sprinters without a tank.

Don't you mean keep endurance athletes over short distance sprinters? Football ability is another thing all together.

Remove the ugly aspect of 10 players all fleeing the ground after a point or goal.

Don't notice it myself?

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.

Depends on the team, the increase of interchange has helped the run and carry teams as well to combat the defensive nonsense.

 

[Spurk]

Since when has the midfield moving the ball through the midfield been flooding?

You don't make any sense, what exactly do you want to change about the game? Players staying in position and playing 1on1?

You skipped the discussion with this:

Another logic fail, flooding existed more than a decade ago and yet interchage has only come to it's peak in the last two years and arguably is one of the answers to flooding. Unless you mean zones, however again a fresh midfield can work through a zone, a tired one bombing long in hope can not.

Whatever you were saying didn't fit the discussion or make sense.

I'll be back in 3 hours if you wish time to think of something clearer to argue.

 

[Helfarch]

You skipped the discussion with this:



Whatever you were saying didn't fit the discussion or make sense.

I'll be back in 3 hours if you wish time to think of something clearer to argue.

There is no arguement here, I have legitimate reasons that an interchange cap will not change what proponents of a cap think it will. All you do is say 'I want football to be played the way I like it'. Hopefully you're going out to get a clue.

 

[Old Spice]

There is no arguement here, I have legitimate reasons that an interchange cap will not change what proponents of a cap think it will. All you do is say 'I want football to be played the way I like it'. Hopefully you're going out to get a clue.

Might be going to the shop on his penny-farthing to pick up some Brillo.

 

[Liljohnz]

Why change the rules at all?

Their is simply no reason for the change?

We have the most even competition we have ever had at the moment, even going into around 21 10 teams can still make the 8.

We had situations where 12th beat 3rd, 1's lost to 14th...

The game is at an incredibly even level, and looks beautiful.

Their is nice flow through the corridor, around the wings, high scores, and big grabs.

The torp has even come back into play the last month.


The only reason I can find, for the iterchange being capped, is because when the MCC members look at the game from their side of the ground, they can see a few rotations and they dont think its pretty.

That is about it. I go to the footy every single week, and have NEVER noticed the rotations, or thought to myself... jeez the game is heading in a bad direction, they really have to stop players running so hard...

It is rediculous.

I hope people come to their sences, and decide to ATLEAST if not abbolish the idea completely, trial it in the nab cup for 3 years MINIMUM!

All rules that get brought into the AFL should be trialed in the nab cup for 3 years, so that the full effects of them can be seen, and tinkered with...

But to just pick a random figure, and bring it into the game I think it nieve and stupid. This is a proffessional competition and not a bag yard kick around. You cant just change the rules at whim. Its rediculous.

PLEASE DONT CHANGE THE GAME!

 

[Pie eyed]

So faster flooding is an answer to flooding.

There's your logic fail.

You're losing your grasp on the discussion.

All the "alleged" advantages of the cap on rotations have been addressed.
The cap on rotations is a construct. A misrepresentation of data supplied from another code (rugby league). The AFL has no valid data which suggests that there is any advantage to capping rotations, in fact the evidence suggests the opposite.
As the rules we have now are the status quo and there is no evident reason to change it then it is up to those who want change to justify the change with facts and evidence, not gut feelings and personal opinion.

The ball is in your court no-one else's.

You act as if it is up to others who want no change to provide evidence of "why not".
I don't give a rats toss if it's better for your club. You prove it's better for the game or STFU.

See you in 3 hours with some evidence.

 

[TheBloods]

Don't worry, I'm sure next year they'll propose a ban on sprinting in the first half What a stupid premise, what about a substitute brought in at half time? Not allowed to sprint because it's 'unfair'? What are you saying here? Players that are fast should be hobbled? They chasing players' problem is fatigue.

Hamstring injuries are in all running sports, eccentric hamstring excercises in the pre-season is one of the few proven methods to reduce hamstring injuries.

I'm simply quoting what some of the medical experts have opined.

 

[TheBloods]

Surely you're not claiming this as a new tactic in GF'S. It's been happening since it was discovered that unconsciousness can effect a players performance, since before there was a bench and right through every change.

Didn't matter as much in the past.

Bolded part made me