-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Capping Rotations
- Thread starter AKA The Joker
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
It would be far easier to slow the game down by re-instating the "no kick in until after the flags have been waived" rule, then having some new complex interchange rule brought in.
Spurk
Club Legend
The issue is flow of the game and people attribute flow to speed which is merely a by product of improving flow.
Improving flow was important especially with zoning, flooding making it very difficult to get the ball from defense passed a wing.
80 cap requires coaches to fit in with the rule to the degree they need to hover around 70 rotations consistently. Is not that hard if they were willing to play along. If they push the limit often enough it will have an issue or 2.
Having 3 + 1 sub reduces rotations by 25% but with them pushing 170 ATM isn't much of a restriction.
80 + 3+1 will allow for the injury/sniper factor for 1 player with a sub as well as allowing coaches some flexibility with 80 changes via a 3 man interchange. Is enough.
Without the cap, the bench could be pushed to it's absolute limits, which could have a negative effect.
Slowing the speed is one of the main requirements of this without reducing the flow.
The speed is increasing congestion as well as building towards high collision.
Slowing speed without reducing flow is where it's at.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Spurk
Club Legend
Yeah will fix the issue, without the twilight zone of 79 rotations.
But, I personally think the ideal number of players being available to rotate is 3.
Less strain on the 2 guys who will likely only get a short rest. But would be better than the current system.
Also, 1 sub might be a better gate way drug for coaches when it comes to exploitation of subs. 2 subs is deepend subbing straight up.
How will 2 subs pan out and is it good for young players, fringe players?
2+2 will fix the current problem but the repercussions of 2 subs will be bigger than 1 and are yet to be explored in anything we've seen.
How will subbing play out?
If it's no big deal than that might be better than an actual restriction.
With more teams in the competition, the quality of fringe players will lessen.
The competition has had 2 or less on the bench for most of its history and produced quality football, so I don't see any reason why 3 or 4 interchanges are a requirement for good football.
In terms of subs, as I said earlier they would simply replace a player coming off the ground for the rest of the game, exactly as happened before interchanges were brought in only 32 years ago. I don't see how they can really exploit the subs.
We've had 4 interchange players for only 12 years. Its aim was to speed up the game - that's what's happened. If there are too many rotations and they wish to slow the game down again they should go back to the original source of speeding it up which was the number of interchange players. Interestingly 3 interchange players were used for only 4 years.
The competition has had 2 or less on the bench for most of its history and produced quality football, so I don't see any reason why 3 or 4 interchanges are a requirement for good football.
In terms of subs, as I said earlier they would simply replace a player coming off the ground for the rest of the game, exactly as happened before interchanges were brought in only 32 years ago. I don't see how they can really exploit the subs.
We've had 4 interchange players for only 12 years. Its aim was to speed up the game - that's what's happened. If there are too many rotations and they wish to slow the game down again they should go back to the original source of speeding it up which was the number of interchange players. Interestingly 3 interchange players were used for only 4 years.
Spurk
Club Legend
Yeah, may effect the movement of players during the already tempting free agency, but could be a positive in some ways. The main problem i'd have with that, is young players playing their first 10 games as subs or certain players being career or professsional subs.
Agree.
Tactically it may have an effect on teams using them to stop momentum or standard last quarter specialists. Professional subs or players being shamed out of games by coaches may come into it. What type of players will be subbed on/off?
The coaches are too aware these days of the advantage that over rotating can achieve. If they have 2 players to rotate, it doesn't mean they will be rotated in the same way they were when benchings were seen as a punishment. We could still see 100 rotations with 2 players on the bench. What effect will that have?
Maybe a cap for 1 year to change the priority and create a tempo with rotations, then move into the sub territory?
I have a feeling if the AFL is giving these3 options, but not the current situation, coaches would go for the 3 + 1.
I think they could get enthusiasm from the coaches if they proposed 3 + 2
If you think about it, if a team used both subs in a game it would be just one rotation more than 3 + 1.
If one of the mjor reasons for doing this is fo player injuries, then the subs optin is a bonus here.
Say for example a player gets concussed. the team can sub them knowing the other team now does not have an advantage over them in rotations.
Plus one more player in every AA and TOC side
I think they could get enthusiasm from the coaches if they proposed 3 + 2
If you think about it, if a team used both subs in a game it would be just one rotation more than 3 + 1.
If one of the mjor reasons for doing this is fo player injuries, then the subs optin is a bonus here.
Say for example a player gets concussed. the team can sub them knowing the other team now does not have an advantage over them in rotations.
Plus one more player in every AA and TOC side
Cant wait for the first diabolical stuff-up that costs a team a match. I can see it now - eight players, club officials, and emergency umpire all yelling at the interchange steward who is standing there with his clipboard trying to recount whether or not the club is up to its cap, standing there in the pouring rain with a pen that wont work on a soggy sheet of paper......at the 30 minute mark with scores level.....
Spurk
Club Legend
That's why they should just introduce:
# 6 subs with 0 interchange
# All players being allowed 1 rotation only.
# 1 interchange and 2 subs.
# 60 cap
# 40 cap
# 3 interchange, 1 sub and 60 cap
# 2 interchange, 1 injury sub, 1 non injury sub
.........or leave it as it is.
If they want to bring in a sub that should be over and above the 4 interchange.
If they want to bring in a sub that should be over and above the 4 interchange.
Spurk
Club Legend
You're a funny man.Why don't they just extend the bench to 6.
They should make a rule that players can spend no longer than 5 minutes at a time on the field.
A law that players are required to go to the bench after a speckie, a goal or a strong tackle.
They could just have 20 players on the field so players could shut down the space, tackle faster and keep fitter. Less need for rotations.
It's super positive reinforcement benching players after goals and leaving them on after points. Great psych there.
I'm so pleased that you are concerned for players motivational welfare, but I'm sure they are big and ugly enough to worry about their own positive reinforcement.
That has to be the lamest argument for a rule change that I have ever heard.
Spurk
Club Legend
You don't even have an argument.
If you were true to yourself or the game in any way, you wouldn't spout the drivel you do. That point about positive reinforcement goes way over your head and is probably the exact reason goal kicking is going backwards.
You think that was an argument for a rule change?
Strachuniee
Team Captain
You don't even have an argument.
If you were true to yourself or the game in any way, you wouldn't spout the drivel you do. That point about positive reinforcement goes way over your head and is probably the exact reason goal kicking is going backwards.
You think that was an argument for a rule change?
Yeah of course thats the exact reason. Players must think its a bad thing to kick a goal
The best solution is to just leave the game at it is and let natural progression take its course. All of these 'solutions' have flaws which will most likely result in another rule change in a few years to correct them
Spurk
Club Legend
Yeah of course thats the exact reason. Players must think its a bad thing to kick a goal
Not sure it works like that
Why would a tinkering down the track be a bad thing?
Who cares if they have to make an allowance?
Even if it's half fixed its a win for the game and players.
- Jul 11, 2007
- 10,821
- 83
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
I think it's bullshit that we should manipulate a rule in order to force teams to play a style perceived as more entertaining.
What ever happened to tactically using the rules in order to win?
What ever happened to tactically using the rules in order to win?
Amber Guzzler
Norm Smith Medallist
I'm really not interested in what he says. He also says there's nothing wrong with Etihad stadium. I'm more interested in what he can prove. And as he claims to have proof re the injury situation, but refuses to supply any, I find it hard to believe anything he says.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Typed this.
Spurk
Club Legend
Mate you think players should still be rushing behinds from CHB
But yeah another factor of over rotating seems to be the ritalin effect it has on on players. I'm sure you're well aware of this effect.
Give me footballers with heart any day over the robotic boring foot soldiers we see now.
Not really interested whether ridiculous benchings helps some limited dumb footballers from the Pies control blockbuster fatigue, stay focused and seem quick.
It's not all about Collingwood, it's about the game.
When all teams are benching heavily, the game will be rubbish.
Spurk
Club Legend
Do you think 2+2 could work with 1 injury sub and 1 regular sub?
I don't think there is any need to differentiate. It would be much simpler just to make them both regular subs.
Amber Guzzler
Norm Smith Medallist
Your argument seems to have hit a new lowMate you think players should still be rushing behinds from CHB
But yeah another factor of over rotating seems to be the ritalin effect it has on on players. I'm sure you're well aware of this effect.
Spurk
Club Legend
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.
Similar threads
