Every time a goal is scored it could explode. Kids love that shit.
-
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.
Rules Centre Bounce ditched; no more Subs: AFL announce rule changes for 2026
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Multiball
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
I think people are overstating the impact that the 5th interchange does. Teams aren't giving players 90 seconds rest with the 75 interchange cap, it's impossible with each interchange slot only being used less than 5 times per quarter, and now it'll be less than 4. What it does do is allow for perhaps a bit of tactical manoeuvring with players spending half a quarter or whatever off the ground if you want to go a bit taller/shorter or whatever. And it allows players to be taken off the ground instead of taking them off as you make a decision to sub them off.
Sensible changes well done AFL.
Now just fix the poster issue - Do away with 1 point for a poster. If the ball hits the post and goes through for a goal...its a goal. If it hits the post and goes through for a behind....its a behind...if it hits the post and comes back into field of play...play on!!!
Now just fix the poster issue - Do away with 1 point for a poster. If the ball hits the post and goes through for a goal...its a goal. If it hits the post and goes through for a behind....its a behind...if it hits the post and comes back into field of play...play on!!!
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Oct 19, 2020
- 31,999
- 43,698
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Banned
- #81
Does this spell the end of Pendulbury and other old players?
- Mar 27, 2019
- 14,621
- 13,283
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Players in that age bracket will mostly get managed and miss a game here and there
Call one the Snitch.
Nah. You'll keep posting.
Banyo Bloods
Norm Smith Medallist
They could have just had someone (time keeper) put the time back on the clock for reset bounces.
A compromise of starting each quarter with a bounce would keep tradition then throw it up at all other junctures. It was a unique part of the game for the last 100 or so years and then Greg Swann the AFL puppet is back slapped into change like a guy that's sensible. He took a look at Rampe getting an intentional ball kick from Greene and said nothing in that what a muppet.
Protecting the health of the umpires so they can spend less time training on that skill and more time on decision making is the biggest load of rot. Good one Greg.
A compromise of starting each quarter with a bounce would keep tradition then throw it up at all other junctures. It was a unique part of the game for the last 100 or so years and then Greg Swann the AFL puppet is back slapped into change like a guy that's sensible. He took a look at Rampe getting an intentional ball kick from Greene and said nothing in that what a muppet.
Protecting the health of the umpires so they can spend less time training on that skill and more time on decision making is the biggest load of rot. Good one Greg.
- Sep 23, 2012
- 4,203
- 6,535
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, Ozark Mountain Daredevils
But I only go to games to see the centre bounce! - not
Until different umpires throw to different heights etc, causing rucks to adjust their leap for for the tap.
Yes that minute or less was really noticeable.
- Sep 19, 2007
- 19,528
- 18,208
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Anaheim Ducks, PSV Eindhoven
Only at Geelong
I always liked the first bounce in a big game but there's nothing more anticlimactic than when it's gets stuffed up.
It's not like they originally bounced the ball like they currently do anyway. Back in the day, they held it with one hand and used to slap it into the ground, so it's hardly a 'tradition' that needs to stay.
It's not like they originally bounced the ball like they currently do anyway. Back in the day, they held it with one hand and used to slap it into the ground, so it's hardly a 'tradition' that needs to stay.
- Sep 19, 2007
- 19,528
- 18,208
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Anaheim Ducks, PSV Eindhoven
I recon they should go 2 interchange (unlimited) and 50 substitutions (but only 2 players) and 1 Emergency for significant injuries but the injured player has to have at least 1 week off.
And the bench steward can have an absolute fit trying to track it all.
And the bench steward can have an absolute fit trying to track it all.
- Mar 25, 2020
- 2,861
- 7,494
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
BRING BACK THE ZOOPER GOAL!!!
kaiserchief13
Hall of Famer
- Jul 12, 2011
- 37,807
- 28,575
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Eagles, Lakers, Bayern, Trojans
Whats the reason behind sub removal?
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
RCAB
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 25, 2024
- 5,899
- 8,963
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
It's not necessary. We have 5 interchanges on the bench now, and interchanges are capped anyway.
kaiserchief13
Hall of Famer
- Jul 12, 2011
- 37,807
- 28,575
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Eagles, Lakers, Bayern, Trojans
The reason it was brought in was injury though and a team not being disadvantaged wasn't it? So now that will occur again
Coaches just want more interchange.
So Chris Scott's issue was that in some of the edge cases it can put too much pressure on medical staff to make a hasty decision, and if it is a 50-50, that also becomes a distraction for the coaches. Because once you are subbed off, that is it. They'd prefer the option of putting on the sub, and then, IDK, changing their minds?
(This was actually an option when the sub was brought in - if a player had a suspected concussion you could inject the sub temporarily while you assessed the injured player for concussion. If they passed the test, you would take the sub off and then use them as a sub for any player later in the game.)
The problem with that logic is that he had interchange available anyway - he could have used them. The benefit of the sub is really for that early injury which would put you at one less rotation for the whole game - unfair. But it also gets used tactically so coaches need to consider that.
I think the bigger bench mitigates the problem of being one down early. (4 v 5 bench is not as bad as 3 v 4). Perhaps fewer rotations would also help because then managing player minutes becomes less of a job for the coaches.
RCAB
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 25, 2024
- 5,899
- 8,963
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Correct.
The reason it was brought in was so not too disadvantage a injured team, but that's been alleviated by:
- Having an additional interchange on the bench, we have FIVE now
- Interchanges are still capped... which means you can't just advantage your team with more interchanges, even if you have more players available on the bench
- Removing the sub and instead making them an additional interchange player, removes the uncertainty and "waiting" to make the decision to make the sub. This allows the fifth player to come on quicker... So you could argue that this actually helps the injured team more.
threenewpadlocks
Brownlow Medallist
The difference between 5 v 4 rotations (with a 75 rotation cap) is not that stark and barely a disadvantage because the 75 cap puts a limit on actually getting as much tactics out of that 5th spot anyway.
They made it an interchange and not a sub because it's too annoying to have to tell a player they're the sub (and manage their loads over the course of a season) and too rushed to make sub-related decisions in game.
Similar threads
