Dump the Sub

[PieNSauce]

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.

I guess that whatever makes the situation more fair when one team loses a player can only be considered a good thing but I suppose the next question raised will be along the lines of where do you stop? 18 interchange players and a sub? Ridiculous I know but it does beg the question.

 

[Snag Breac]

If it's generally agreed that the rule sucks, why can't they get rid of it this year?

 

[Soaring Magpie]

If not scrapped all together, I'ld prefer it to be 4 plus sub.

 

[rand corp]

I still think it was a Collingwood rule brought in after our 2010 bench tactics mesmerized opposition teams and coaching boxes, leaving their midfields with no idea of who was playing on who.

There was, at the time, a few coaches calling for a sub rule and I see nothing wrong with it in principle, its just that it should have been added to the bench not instead of a rotation.

 

[jmac70]

I dumped a sub this morning, does that count?

 

[morelli89]

I like the premise of the sub, but I think it could work better.

I'd change the interchange back to 4 players and then have 1 sub, but if you use the sub on a player they have to actually be injured (maybe assessed by an independent doctor) or even miss playing the next week. This would cover teams if a player goes down injured, while not giving an advantage to the opposition.

 

[Maggie5]

I like the premise of the sub, but I think it could work better.

I'd change the interchange back to 4 players and then have 1 sub, but if you use the sub on a player they have to actually be injured (maybe assessed by an independent doctor) or even miss playing the next week. This would cover teams if a player goes down injured, while not giving an advantage to the opposition.

The problem is that the sub may not get any/sufficient game time, which one of the problems with the sub situation now.

 

[morelli89]

The problem is that the sub may not get any/sufficient game time, which one of the problems with the sub situation now.

A team could just rotate young players as the sub. I understand if the sub is the same person every week then they will lose match fitness, but by rotating the sub it could be beneficial for players that probably wouldn't be getting an AFL game yet to just get a taste of what the intensity is really like (Providing there is an injury so they get onto the ground). I don't think this rule will ever be perfect anyway

 

[Quicky]

Anyone remember that Clearances for the people t-shirt campaign for Danny Stanley all those years ago?

I reckon we should do the same but for Dump the sub!

Stupid bloody rule!

 

[domin8tors]

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.

what sports does it. basketball some teams run with 8 man rotations some run with 9. in motor sport if you engine blows up you don't tell them to stop the race while you put in your new engine. it's not 21 vs 21. it's 18 vs 18 at any one time. being fit enough to run out a game is part of the challenge.

 

[peatease]

Why not just have a bigger bench, so the impact of a loss of a player is less. I think that's what Malthouse wanted.

For records sake should everyone be counting subs as a game appearance?

 

[Robroy22]

A team could just rotate young players as the sub. I understand if the sub is the same person every week then they will lose match fitness, but by rotating the sub it could be beneficial for players that probably wouldn't be getting an AFL game yet to just get a taste of what the intensity is really like (Providing there is an injury so they get onto the ground). I don't think this rule will ever be perfect anyway

It can be perfect....22 players 4 on the bench, no limit on rotations

 

[the mighty T]

What if the sub rule tweaked into purely for use in situations where players get injured and go back to 22 v 22.

The caveat being that if a player is substituted due to an injury, he must miss the next week. That way you avoid the situations where clubs look to use the sub for a tactical advantage.

Or maybe we just get rid of it in general

 

[mike123]

Karnezis and De Goey, two exciting debuts ruined by a vest

 

[soreplums]

Even MM on SEN tonight before the game said that the sub rule needs to go. He thinks that it will be gone either next year or the year after. Also cited that from 2007-2010/11 collingwood had far less soft tissue injuries as a result of the increased rotations.

 

[Robroy22]

Karnezis and De Goey, two exciting debuts ruined by a vest

Exactly.

 

[popin]

#P1SSitOFF It's not basketball. Need to like make a petition from fans or make white t-shirts up with black writing on the front saying dump the sub and everyone from every club wear it to games.

 

[TradeDraft]

2nd That. Another Thing the AFL has done to F**K around with the game that does not need changing

 

[Axl the great]

I hate the sub rule, but if it is kept then the interchange should go to 4 and a sub.
The sub should then have to be activated at half time for both sides, not before or after, this way any injury advantage before half time is taken out of the equation.
Any injury after half time would still favour one side rotation wise but 3 vs 4 on the bench is less of an advantage than 2 vs 3.

 

[Pie eyed]

Sub Rule sucks and still smacks of tampering for tampering sake.

 

[PieNSauce]

It still blows my mind that they ever introduced this rule and also that they started limiting interchanges. I never understood the comment that it was a bad look for the game to have lots of rotations because frankly, I barely noticed it. The excuse they gave for limiting rotations also came across as less than believable when you consider that since they started tampering with these rules our injuries have been worse than almost any time I can remember. As far as the sub rule goes, I just hate seeing a player rotting on the bench for three quarters. It just plain annoys me.

 

[Buena]

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

Exactly. Demetriou seemed to favour the "if it ain't broke, we're going to fix it anyway" approach.
3 on the bench, plus an interchange cap, with the frightening speed the game is played at these days. It's as though they are trying to break the players, and shorten careers. Makes zero sense to me. And they did it to lessen injury - which is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Buena]

It can be perfect....22 players 4 on the bench, no limit on rotations

Just like it was for 100+ years! Rule changes, no other ball sport in the world f**ks with the system on an annual basis like this one. I hate seeing De Goey, or any kid from any side, have to sit on the bench for 3 quarters, then get 25 minutes to pick up the pace of the game, before being dropped back to the 2's the following week. Stupid rule, get rid of it.