Do you think it's time the AFL reconsider the 3 player + 1 sub on the bench rule?

[chelseagle]

as you have read, that is my thesis. I have thought about doing a hand written pen-paper letter to the geelong medico, think it is former medico, he is now on the board with colin carter, he is just a regular GP in Newtown Geelong, and he is the head of the AFL medical committee.

docs might be science rote learnt, but the best of medicine dont find their way to afl.

I think an interesting parallel is Anthony Morabito. This is not a suggestion that he is doping, I would not suggest that in the slightest, but when he came into the league as an 18 year old he had thighs as big as tree trunks. That would make Mal Meninga blush. He was quick in a straight line, had a tonne of power. Big Italian Stallion legs.

Then the knee injuries came. Horrible luck, but what if his legs were so powerful they were probably destroying the joints? That the sheer force of his quads were pounding through knees not yet evolved for it.

Now imagine you aren't blessed with the muscular genetics of Morabito and have the skinny boy legs of most 18 years olds playing AFL. But your club gets you bulked up and says "hey, go out there and sprint as hard as you can then change direction all of a sudden". Tears and tears.

 

[seanoff]

there is some nonsense in this thread

ACLs / club /yr
Knee ACL 0.9 (92 - 02) 0.6 (2003 26.8 rotations) 0.5 (2004) 0.6 (2005) 0.9 (2006) 0.6 (2007) 0.9 (2008 80.3 rotations) 0.7 (2009) 0.6 (2010) 0.9 (2011) 0.8 (2012 131 rotations) 0.8 (av 03 - 12)

as you can see the number of knees per year is pretty variable and the eye test seems to indicate there is no event that leads to more or less of them in any one year.

at the average from 92 - 02 there would be 16 ACLs this year. and at the average from 03 - 12 14 ACLs this year.

the average before the grounds became golf greens is very marginally higher than with the golf greens.

the numbers appear to have little to do with rotations, high before 03, low in 03, high in 08 with 80 rotations, higher again in 12 with even higher rotations. but low in 2010 with rotations around 105.

if someone wants to pop up with a model that explains this, there is a PhD in your future.

 

[calyam]

ACL aren't directly caused by injury but they could very well be indirectly caused by it.

The AFL keep implementing rules that pull players in various directions. They're trying to make the game so fast it slows players down...how is that not absurd?

Looking at West Coast vs Port last week, I can't work out how the sub rule was to our advantage.

They want to slow the players down but speed up ball movement. Result should be reduced stoppages and congestion around the ball. There is nothing absurd about that.

If the rule changes had any real effect on ACLs we would've seen it two years ago when the sub was implemented and players had not adapted to the change. All we are seeing now with injuries is random volatility.

 

[Kwality]

3 +1 is not perfect but I think its working & the reduction in interchange will spike the description of our game as 'cross country basketball', a description that is more applicable to the current game thanks to uncapped interchanges.

Nothing is perfect, last weekend Port chose a gun player on the way back from injury as its sub in Robbie Gray, the Eagles were forced to activate their sub at the 11 minute mark in the first quarter - when Gray came on, the Eagles were 41 points up & lost. It underlines the benefit of a gun sub. More power Port.

Go back to why interchanges were allowed, the extended bench - cap them at 80, we will get a better game based on footy skills not athletic ability.

 

[blackcat]

I think an interesting parallel is Anthony Morabito. This is not a suggestion that he is doping, I would not suggest that in the slightest, but when he came into the league as an 18 year old he had thighs as big as tree trunks. That would make Mal Meninga blush. He was quick in a straight line, had a tonne of power. Big Italian Stallion legs.

Then the knee injuries came. Horrible luck, but what if his legs were so powerful they were probably destroying the joints? That the sheer force of his quads were pounding through knees not yet evolved for it.

Now imagine you aren't blessed with the muscular genetics of Morabito and have the skinny boy legs of most 18 years olds playing AFL. But your club gets you bulked up and says "hey, go out there and sprint as hard as you can then change direction all of a sudden". Tears and tears.

dont know much on Morabito. But there should be some parallel or correlation of native body size, and strength, to the strength and size of the tendons/ligaments.

my layperson intuition says, when you are built as a skinny and slight natural physique as your genetics dictate, any size and strength that your ligaments and tendons cannot grow in proportion, places undue demands on those elements. remember steven tingay had enormous difficulties with his hamstrings. the guy was a skinny ectomorph coming into the afl. this may well be a confirmation bias. it is not a significant sample.

 

[Agent93]

Yes... the rule was brought in to alter the game speed and reduce injuries. This has not happened, it has merely made the game more complex. Remove the sub, go back solely to the interchange, reduce the number to 3.

A better option may be to have a 3 man interchange, and up to 3 injury substitutes (taken from the named emergencies) where players are incapacitated and unable to take further part in the game. Rather than inject a completely fresh player into a game with tired bodies late in the 3rd (as most often happens) coaches would be restricted from using the substitute as a tactic, be allowed only to act as a replacement.

This 'rule' could be exploited, so to mitigate this an independent medical assessor should be on hand at each game to rule whether the player can take the field again; ie a cut head in the 3rd is not grounds for a sub.

 

[NT.Thunder]

Does anyone know if this rule is being looked at or changed in 2015?

I hate the rule and think that the AFL should leave player management, fitness and medical issues to the individual clubs considering the millions they invest into it.

Personally hope they scrap it but someone did mention it was being reviewed again.

 

[telsor]

I don't like the interchange cap, because I think the rules of the game should be the same at all levels, and it's difficult to enforce at lower levels where you can't just have another official to do the count.

I do agree with the goal of trying to slow the game down by cutting breaks however, and remember how 30 odd years ago, there was no interchange, 'just' 2 emergencies (who were effectively used as subs are now).

I'd get rid of the cap and go down to 2+1 on the bench (reducing it further if that doesn't work..maybe to 1+2), with the stated goal of the sub being injury coverage (it wont always be used that way, but frankly it seems too tough to enforce a minimum standard of injury on the spot). I'd also let the club have all 3 emergencies on the bench and pick the one required at the time, so they can have a 'like for like' replacement.

 

[Greendogg5]

I'm with Kevin Bartlett, no interchange at all. Have only substitutes (maybe 4/5). You would almost immediately put an end to flooding leading to a lot more 1 on 1 contests and players would play their positions e.g wingers/flankers etc. The best (most skilful not the best endurance runners) players would be on the ground more often and have the space to weave their magic. You'd have the dominant forwards the silky skilled crumbers & the pacey wingers like we had in the past. The players would have to adapt and they would not be able to just run around chasing the ball all over the field. at the moment we have 2 or 3 forwards and defenders and 15 midfielders

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I'm with Kevin Bartlett, no interchange at all. Have only substitutes (maybe 4/5). You would almost immediately put an end to flooding leading to a lot more 1 on 1 contests and players would play their positions e.g wingers/flankers etc. The best (most skilful not the best endurance runners) players would be on the ground more often and have the space to weave their magic. You'd have the dominant forwards the silky skilled crumbers & the pacey wingers like we had in the past. The players would have to adapt and they would not be able to just run around chasing the ball all over the field. at the moment we have 2 or 3 forwards and defenders and 15 midfielders

The opposite would happen. Blokes who can run all day would get more game time over those skillful players who might not have the athletic capacity, because otherwise we'd have tired blokes all day. And besides the spectacle of the game would disappear if players are just fatigued for the entire game. No more Matera or Matt White runs down the ground, they're too tired

My solution to the game's congestion and injuries and something I have said for a long time is to have 16 players on the field per team like the old VFA. Solves every problem. Have 6 on the bench so the AFLPA doesn't kick up a stink about less playing opportunities for players, and then you can configure those 6 interchange players with however many subs you want, could be 2+4, 5+1, 3+3, 6+0, whatever.

 

[Greendogg5]

players would be physically unable to run from one side of the ground to the other, nobody on earth could do that. you'd have players stationed in the middle, wing etc. it would be like there are zones without there actually being a rule necessarily in place enforcing them.

 

[Greendogg5]

The opposite would happen. Blokes who can run all day would get more game time over those skillful players who might not have the athletic capacity, because otherwise we'd have tired blokes all day. And besides the spectacle of the game would disappear if players are just fatigued for the entire game. No more Matera or Matt White runs down the ground, they're too tired

My solution to the game's congestion and injuries and something I have said for a long time is to have 16 players on the field per team like the old VFA. Solves every problem. Have 6 on the bench so the AFLPA doesn't kick up a stink about less playing opportunities for players, and then you can configure those 6 interchange players with however many subs you want, could be 2+4, 5+1, 3+3, 6+0, whatever.

In my opinion it's the rotations that cause the flooding and stoppages, until they are slowed (or stopped) it will continue.

 

[beachboy3]

With those rules changes in regards to interchange and subs, the other idea is to open the game up more. Instead of introducing those silly complex rules, how about only have 16 a side on the ground. It would open up the game more, therefore it will be less congested. The game is too heavily congested and it's ugly. With less players there will be less collisions, therefore less serious injuries. What I don't like about the current sub rule, teams don't bring in their back up ruckman, and when the first ruckman goes down, their key forward takes over, and this puts the big man structure for the team out of place.

 

[Wallaby]

The opposite would happen. Blokes who can run all day would get more game time over those skillful players who might not have the athletic capacity, because otherwise we'd have tired blokes all day. And besides the spectacle of the game would disappear if players are just fatigued for the entire game. No more Matera or Matt White runs down the ground, they're too tired

Yeah, like Phil Manassa in the last quarter of the Grand Final. Or Ray Gabelich. Or Wayne Harmes chasing his own kick in 1979. Or...

It's rubbish. There have always been players who were fitter than opponents.

If players have to run more, the coaches will adopt strategies to avoid the players getting tired. Like maybe make them stay in set positions more----like, say Centre-Half-Forward, or on the wing. You know - like the game used to be played. Yes, there may not be as many 15-metre chips across the half-back line, or swinging the ball from side-to-side around the 50-metre arc probing for a gap in the flood - but, I for one, won't mind.

Interchange has brought about a huge change in the way the game is played. It is now a mass possession game - the key aim being to hold possession rather than to win possession. The strategies resemble soccer or basketball - trying to create an opening in the opposition defence. There used to be far more body shapes in a VFL/AFL team - now a team basically consists of a 6'7" ruck, a 6'5" bloke to give him a chop-out, 16-18 completely interchangeable 6-foot athletes who can run all day, and 2-3 guys who are about 2 inches taller - to be the target up forward, or the bloke to play on the opposition target.

Now, maybe we would have reached that stage anyway as fitness level increased over the years - but we sure as hell got there a lot faster due to interchange.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

6 subs, four of which can be used in any quarter and subs reset each quarter. The same players do not need to start as subs each quarter.
No interchange.

The basic idea is:
- four is enough to cover injuries in any given quarter, and with six to choose from cover any position
- using four from six means a couple of players migh be out of the game with minimum flexibility lost compared to an opponent who suffers no injuries, both teams can still make four changes a quarter

Less importantly, it takes us back to the days when as a fan you could keep track of who was on the field at any given time.

 

[davis_756]

Since we have a cap I don't see why they don't just put it back to 4-0 instead of 3-1, tired of fringe players sitting on the bench for 3 terms and not getting any match practice.

 

[spudmaster]

Iat the moment we have 2 or 3 forwards and defenders and 15 midfielders

Seen a Ross Lyon-coached team? That has 22 defenders!

 

[Ambrosia]

Do away with the whole sub rule it's gimmicky at best.

 

[Pessimistic]

With those rules changes in regards to interchange and subs, the other idea is to open the game up more. Instead of introducing those silly complex rules, how about only have 16 a side on the ground. It would open up the game more, therefore it will be less congested. The game is too heavily congested and it's ugly. With less players there will be less collisions, therefore less serious injuries. What I don't like about the current sub rule, teams don't bring in their back up ruckman, and when the first ruckman goes down, their key forward takes over, and this puts the big man structure for the team out of place.

A good argument for two subs

 

[Pessimistic]

Also the sub rule has little effect in the first half of games. If the rule is to continue, let them play the first half via interchange, then put a green vest on one or two players at half time, only allowed on for a complete substitution after that

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The AFL is considering removing the sub for 2016 - it should be done immediately! The moment they brought in restrictions on the number of interchanges the sub became pointless.

Note, they are talking about reducing the interchange from 120 down to between 80-100 which is why they're considering removing the sub. I'm not sure where I stand on this, the intent is obviously to drag players back to more positional football so they don't wear out running up and down all day however I fear it could have the opposite effect, that coaches will play and even more defensive "soccer-style" set-up with players behind the ball and streaming forward on breaks to try and score (similar to now but even worse with more players actually starting behind the ball).

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-could-scrap-substitute-rule-20150224-13nrzw.html

 

[Wallaby]

Don't scrap the sub - scrap the interchange!

 

[Pessimistic]

Malty is pulling a sneaky by having the game shortened at the same time.

Actually its not a bad idea

 

[Greendogg5]

Don't scrap the sub - scrap the interchange!

wish i could like this more than once

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Reduce numbers onfield to 16, increase bench to 8. No interchange, 8 subs per quarter, unlimited changes at the break.