Change the Bench back to 4 and keep the Sub??

[Fitzey]

Change the bench back to 4 but add a sub so 4 and a sub??

 

[GiantForce]

I'd be for that.

 

[blaze036]

i was praying that's how they would do it originally, as the clubs injury lists seems to have increased this years with 3 + sub

 

[gareth36]

Yes that is what everyone would love the game stays at the same pace you have the same amount of rotations and if some one gets injured you still have 4 bench players because of the sub.

The afl brang in the sub rule to stop all the soft tissue injuries and it some what has to an extent but what it has made worse are alot of fatigue injuries.

Because players have been injured and there isnt enough players on the bench to replace the injured/tired/fatigued player thus making them more injured,tire or fatigued.

 

[BABYBOMBERS2007]

Would seem like a good idea. But since it is, the AFL probably won't do it.

 

[gareth36]

Would seem like a good idea. But since it is, the AFL probably won't do it.

Exactly but the afl wont admit it doesnt work and will keep saying it is fine because they dont want to admit that they were wrong.

And i love how the afl makes adrian anderson the face of everything so that if there is a problem he is the one to blame and has anyone ever seen demetriou go out and publicly say the afl sub rule is fine and here to stay.

No he makes adrian anderson do that so he is not held responsible in any way.

 

[blaze036]

the sub rule area is headed by Anderson, and if they dont admit they were wrong why do they change so many rules at the end of every year

 

[dajesmac]

Would it affect salaries? An extra player to give match payments to etc? Just thinking it would make salary caps tighter.

For the idea from a purely on-field perspective though. It's how it should be.

 

[statman87]

thats what i thought originally was going to happen, im 110% for it

 

[rhaz]

Would it affect salaries? An extra player to give match payments to etc? Just thinking it would make salary caps tighter

$2900 (2011 match payment) x 22/25/26 games isn't that much... and im not sure match payments come under the salary cap so it isnt really an issue

 

[Fitzey]

thats what i thought originally was going to happen, im 110% for it

Hope it works out!

 

[gareth36]

Would it affect salaries? An extra player to give match payments to etc? Just thinking it would make salary caps tighter.

For the idea from a purely on-field perspective though. It's how it should be.

no it wouldnt affect a team money wise at all because to play another player that player has to alrwady be on your playing list which means they are already being paid a set amount of money per game or a set salary a month/week/year (whatever it may be).

so it wouldnt affect the club at all.

 

[exile]

Yes please, x 1000.

 

[Fitzey]

Yes please, x 1000.

Same!!

 

[blaze036]

somone make a petition to send to the afl?

 

[stmookeyj]

I personally would prefer restricted interchange with 4 subs rather than 4 and a sub.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

Would rather see 4 and a sub

 

[Fitzey]

I personally would prefer restricted interchange with 4 subs rather than 4 and a sub.

4 Subs??

 

[Histrionics]

Would rather see 4 and a sub

Agree.

 

[cleomenes]

I would like a return to the spirit of the interchange as it was originally introduced. When the change was made from 19th and 20th being substitutes, the idea was to allow on field injuries to be assessed off the field and players returned after treatment if appropriate. Coaches exploited this in a way entirely unintended by the rule to increase their tactical options. To achieve this at least in part,
1. reduce interchange to 2, cutting the amount of rotating of players, but allowing enough flexibility in exchanged players to allow cover of big/small injuries.
2. Increase substitutes to 4, allowing plenty of injury replacements and quite a bit of tactical flexibility.

 

[Hoops]

I ldon't mind the way it is, I would in fact go the otherway and have 2 interchange and 2 subs. but Ideally I would like to see 4 quarter by quarter subs.

 

[yamahamoto]

3 interchange as it is ...working fine...but 2 subs to cover the injuries...like the essendon case...im not an essendon supporter...

 

[Topkent]

3 interchange as it is ...working fine...but 2 subs to cover the injuries...like the essendon case...im not an essendon supporter...

Id love to see no one on the bench and 4 subs

Make the blokes who are being paid to play stay on the ground, s**t there would be less rolling malls and more long kicking!

 

[stmookeyj]

4 Subs??

Might try 4 interchange, 20 changes a quarter (blood rule and genuine stretcher cases do NOT count). Running tally to be on scoreboard or big screen.