Dump the Sub

[Robroy22]

With Adam Goodes shunning the green vest and saying he'd prefer to play ressies footy rather than wear it....can the AFL finally see it for what it is: An outdated, anachronistic insult of a rule that does nothing but frustrate the game and it's participants?

People will try to point out that Goodesey is just being a wonderful human being by making the request of not donning the vest (again) but if he'd really felt that way he'd have said it last week before he had the ignominity of wearing said vest. Players just want to play....just like they always have. The interchange system allows players to rest, receive information and coaches feedback and still be involved in the game. The sub rule encroaches on the players right to play and it should be done away with as soon as possible.

Discuss?

 

[TheFreshBanana]

Let me get my dictionary out first.

Anachronistic? Ignominity?

 

[Apex36]

It will be gone next year. All coaches unanimously voted against it in a meeting with the league recently.

 

[Bay Pie]

Will be gone next year, with the possibility that an injured player disadvantages a team, to be offset by a reduced interchange cap to 80 or 100. I think McLachlan is far less pig headed then Vlad was, he give 100 a crack for 2 years and see where it takes us.

 

[Robroy22]

Yay....job done then...close thread.
Pity so many boys had to wear those stupid things just to stop Swanny dominating the league.

 

[sloth6]

Worst rule ever introduced.

I don't think vlad to blame, I place it purely on that c smoker Adrian Anderson.

 

[Collingwood 4 eternity]

Worst rule ever introduced.

I don't think vlad to blame, I place it purely on that c smoker Adrian Anderson.

Don't forget former filth player Andrew McKay , when he was working for the AFL and who is now back at the filth with MM Is also responsible.

Bet MM is so happy that one of the key people to have the Sub Rule introduced (the stop Collingwood rule) is alongside him at the filth

From the ABC Offsiders In August 2010

ANDREW DEMETRIOU, AFL CEO: I haven't formed a view yet Gerard because obviously it will come to the Commission and we've got the laws of the game committee that have been looking at this for probably the better part of two to three years. They've now got a lot of research, they've got the medical research, they've got data, they've got the number of interchange rotations and I think they've consulted with Andrew McKay who has gone out to every club and got feedback before they've put this paper together with the options, so on the basis that it will come to the Commission I'll wait to see the sort of feedback now, but I do think they've gone about it the right way.

www.abc.net.au/sport/offsiders/content/2010/s2983242.htm

 

[Kappa]

So back to the days when teams try to injure the other team in the 1st quarter so they can easily out run them in the last.

 

[Pera]

Worst rule in the history of the game.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

So back to the days when teams try to injure the other team in the 1st quarter so they can easily out run them in the last.

People always say this,but the sub doesn't really help eventhings out in that regard anyway. You lose a player in the 1st quarter, you're still massively more likely to lose, even with the sub.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

Hope it goes. Would rather the be no restrictions, but prefer a straight cap to the sub. If the cap is right you achieve the desired result anyway.

 

[BEEG]

Agree hate it how a bloke can rack up games as a sub

 

[Bring_Back_Brad]

I wouldnt mind the sub rule if it was a team off 22 players + sub, and they didn't have to wear a stupid vest. What's the point of the vest? It's not like they are going to sneak on the field or something.

I think it could work if a player could only be subbed out if injured/concussed, and if they get subbed out they are ineligible for selection the following week. So clubs would have to take the sub rule seriously and only use it if a player was legitimately injured.

 

[HappyRed]

What's this stop collingwood rule? and what's it got to do with Swanny?

 

[Kappa]

People always say this,but the sub doesn't really help eventhings out in that regard anyway. You lose a player in the 1st quarter, you're still massively more likely to lose, even with the sub.

You lose a player in the 1st quarter with sub

21 players v 21 players

without sub, 21 v 22.

Over the course of a 2 hour game that makes a huge difference.

 

[Jelly Bean]

So back to the days when teams try to injure the other team in the 1st quarter so they can easily out run them in the last.

Do you honestly think that happens Kappa? That people would out to intentionally hurt the opposition so that they needed to use their sub...? No chance. Even if so, it is free kick and suspension rules that are designed to stop this, not the sub rule... IF anything the sub rule would make this worse - e.g. now they need to injure two people instead of one to get the benefits...

The sub rule is the worst rule in the history of the game. It was initially brought in to reduce interchanges, but it didn't really have an effect, so they brought in the more direct interchange cap. Therefore, the sub rule is redundant.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Goodes is just being Adam Goodes. A cry baby.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Do you honestly think that happens Kappa? That people would out to intentionally hurt the opposition ....

It was a while ago, but yeah ...

 

[Jelly Bean]

It was a while ago, but yeah ...

Not sure the sub rule would have saved Dermie that day...

 

[10571z]

Get rid of it. Ffs is a player goes down early just simply bad luck.

Also I'm sick of seeing kids in it getting 1 quarter.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Here's what the rule really should be ...

Rule 27.4: It is the responsibility of the club doctor to determine if an injured player is unfit to return to the field of play

Rule 27.5: In the event that an injured player is deemed unfit to return to the field of play, the team of said player is permitted to pick a replacement from the crowd to take the place of the injured player.

 

[76woodenspooners]

The sub rule was never intending to be a good thing, it was only ever intending to be the lesser of evils.

I am certain that without the sub rule last week, some folks would have suggested that being a rotation down would have been a contributing factor to our loss ... that's what used to happen.

If a player gets injured, a replacement player comes on. If the replacement player isn't needed, give them a run around late in the game.

TBH, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

 

[jmac70]

Goodes is just being Adam Goodes. A cry baby.

How is Goodes being a "cry baby?" He has chosen to play reserves footy in order to find form and fitness. Sounds quite sensible to me.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

The sub rule was never intended to be a good thing, it was only ever striving to be the lesser of evils.

I am certain that without the sub rule last week, some folks would have suggested that being a rotation down would have been a contributing factor to our loss ... that's what used to happen.

If a player gets injured, a replacement player comes on. If the replacement player isn't needed, give them a run around late in the game.

TBH, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

I think the sub rule is fine. The problem is that it should be 4 players and a sub. This was said by coaches back when it was first introduced.

 

[Art Corvelay]

I see/saw no reason for a sub or capped rotations. Rule changes for the sake of change.