How do we use the sub?

[Schulzycrow]

only if our season is over or the game has already been decided and we have so many injuries that the 1st/2nd years are our emergencies/subs

Martin, Gunston, Jaensch, Tahlia, Pets are all going to need regular games to build up a core of players for 2012 when hopefully this moronic sub rule has bitten the dust we can have some experience on the bench.

 

[FR0GGY]

Yes. Stupid change IMO. You essentially have a 23 man squad with 1 sub "just in case". How is this going to change/limit rotations again?

well instead of having 22 players at your disposal and 4 on the bench to rotate you only have 21 and 3 on the bench at any one time.
So effectively if you were rotating all your bench players at a time you can only do 3 rather than four at a time. Effectively reducing the number of rotations.
Thats the theory of it, i dont like it, first they try to speed up the game ie kickouts now they try to counter and slow it down. Leave brittney (the game) alone!

 

[Schulzycrow]

Yes. Stupid change IMO. You essentially have a 23 man squad with 1 sub "just in case". How is this going to change/limit rotations again?

Betting rotations don't slow down at all. Maybe Collingwoods will plateau, but can see other clubs ramping it up a few notches. Once again a rule change to counter something brought on by another rule change last year...

If Collingwood lose a game due to injury and having only one fit bloke on the bench expect the rule to change back to 4 on the bench. Hot tip.

 

[Vader]

So if say VB subs out after running himself into the ground and Martin comes on halfway through the third...Danger gets poleaxed diving onto the ball and trying to shake off 4 tacklers. Are we then left with only 2 on the bench for the rest of the game even though VB is still available (although knackered)?

Of course.. that's the whole point of a substitution rather than an interchange. With an interchange the player can return, a substitution is a once-only offer.

If we're stupid enough to prematurely substitute a player who isn't injured then we potentially wear the consequences if one (or more) players actually DO get injured. For this reason, teams won't make the substitution until late in the 3rd quarter - unless they are forced to by injury. It's a simple exercise in risk minimisation.

 

[Schulzycrow]

Of course.. that's the whole point of a substitution rather than an interchange. With an interchange the player can return, a substitution is a once-only offer.

If we're stupid enough to prematurely substitute a player who isn't injured then we potentially wear the consequences if one (or more) players actually DO get injured. For this reason, teams won't make the substitution until late in the 3rd quarter - unless they are forced to by injury. It's a simple exercise in risk minimisation.

Fair enough, not saying it wouldn't be before late 3rd or early 4th quarter. Do you think this will cut rotations like the AFL is hoping it will?

 

[Vader]

Fair enough, not saying it wouldn't be before late 3rd or early 4th quarter. Do you think this will cut rotations like the AFL is hoping it will?

I'd suggest it will reduce them by about 20%, given that the clubs now only have 3 positions to rotate through. The players still need a short breather on the sideline before returning to the paddock, otherwise there's no point in removing them in the first place.

 

[afc1991]

Of course.. that's the whole point of a substitution rather than an interchange. With an interchange the player can return, a substitution is a once-only offer.

If we're stupid enough to prematurely substitute a player who isn't injured then we potentially wear the consequences if one (or more) players actually DO get injured. For this reason, teams won't make the substitution until late in the 3rd quarter - unless they are forced to by injury. It's a simple exercise in risk minimisation.

Doesnt bode well for a black cat club like ours.

Sounds like a new way to drop a final.... I picture subbing the ruckman, say Jocobs for Maric late in the 3rd, only for big Ivan to roll an ankle striding out to the middle. Perhaps clubs will treat it as 3 interchange and only use the sub when theres an injury.

Always thought they'd do something about rotations, but surprised at this outcome. Seems a silly rule, wouldnt mind betting they alter/scrap it for 2012. 4 bench, 1 sub, cap rotations I say. Thats even if anything had to be done in the first place.

 

[macca23]

The introduction of a substitute is a stupid backward move and could only have been thought up by the man who introduced post-it notes for interchange players - Adriana Anderson.

Given that this farcical situation will apply next year, IMO the sub has to be a player that is essentially a mid-fielder who can also play forward and back, to cover most situations.

Brad Symes would be a likely type as a sub IMO if he doesn't make the starting 21 (How stupid and retrogade is that - a starting 21. )

 

[jenny61_99]

Wonder if it will stop the obligatory "off after kicking a goal" rotation?

 

[Schulzycrow]

Wonder if it will stop the obligatory "off after kicking a goal" rotation?

Hope so, but that may be asking too much

 

[lunacy]

Like or hate the new rule, I believe our list lends itself perfectly to the new rules.

We now have enough adequate options for 1st ruck Jacobs/Maric/Moran.

We certainly have some good options for the new style 2nd ruck. Mckernan 196cm, Sellar 196cm, Craig 195cm. All of which can ruck and play KP. All have exceptional vertical leaps and good mobility around the ground.

IMO the key for 2nd ruck is his ability to play KP, because I think they'll only be rucking for approx 35% of game time. The rest will be playing in KP. Now we saw this year Craigy trying to use Maric a bit more up forward at times when not rucking. I can see Mckernan playing as a forward in addition to Walker and Tippett for short spurts and/or allowing Tippett and Walker to have some rests on bench.

This would make the forward line deadly. Because at times when Tippett/Walker have a rest on bench we're often a tall short up forward. Plus Mckernan is very quick, agile, strong and has a great contested mark when in form. Because of his ability to play KP better than Sellar imo he gets the nod as 2nd ruck because for the majority of the time they will be playing KP rather than ruck.

Also I think our list has a plethora of medium sized tall utilities in Otten, Henderson, Gunston and Shaw. I see this type of player being our sub. They can all play as running players (wing, HFF, HBF) or if we get an injury to a tall defender or forward they can step up and play as a slightly undersized KPP. Plus being able to play forward or back gives us great flexibility to cover injuries and to maintain rotations. However Gunston and Shaw are still probably a year off being best 22 so they probably aren't ready for sub role and I'd rather Otten and Hendo be starting 18. Maybe the following year (our premiership year ) our list will be perfectly placed for this setup.

Tippett being in the side also gives us huge flexibility. If our 1st ruck was to go down, we simply use Tippett to share ruck with Mckernan/Sellar with the other resting forward. Also if a KPP got injured ie Davis we have the luxury of Mckernan/Sellar (2nd ruck) playing CHB while Tippett can relieve Jacobs for short bursts in ruck. Having the mobile 2nd ruck capable of playing KPP and having Tippett capable of rucking gives us so much flexibility and ensures we stay strong even with injuries. This is why our sub doesnt need to and shouldnt be a ruckman. We have 1st ruck. 2nd mobile ruck/KPP plus Tippett.

Sub must be a medium tall running utility 190-192cm. As I said though possibly a year away from really making it work for us.

 

[Vader]

Historically, it wasn't that long ago that we only had 2 players on the interchange bench. Back in those days, players were expected to play the majority of every game on the ground. The 2 interchange players were there to replace injured players and "being benched" actually meant something.

Then Kevin Sheedy stuck his oar in and declared that we needed a bigger interchange bench to cope with situations where teams sustained 2+ injuries in the same game. The AFL responded by increasing the bench first to 3, then to 4 players.

It's only been in the last 3-4 years that the coaches have come up with the idea of utilising the bench players more fully, with a dramatic increase in the number of rotations being the result.

The downside of this is that teams which lose players to injury are once again disadvantaged - the very thing which increasing the bench size was designed to prevent. With one (or more) bench spots occupied by injured players, the coaches are unable to rotate their players more often - resulting in players becoming more fatigued than their opponents.

This rule is not being introduced because Collingwood won the flag and the problem is not the increased number of rotations per se - that's just the evolution of the game. The problem is the disadvantage experienced by teams who have their rotations limited due to player injuries. This problem was noted at least 2 years ago - and the AFL set out to find a solution at the end of 2009. Statistically, 1 player injury doesn't change much - but 2nd, 3rd or 4th injuries usually result in a significantly worse outcome for the team which is unable to rotate their players through the bench. The fact that Collingwood won the flag using these tactics is almost incidental.

Increasing the bench size to 5 or 6 would only result in an increased number of rotations, while not solving the problem of injuries leading directly to disadvantage. Putting a cap on the number of rotations isn't the solution either. If a team is down to 2 players on the bench, it doesn't matter whether they're allowed 20 interchanges or 25, they can't physically do more than 10 while still giving their players a decent break.

My own personal opinion is that the AFL didn't go far enough. I think they should have gone to a 2+2 mix, with 2 interchange players and 2 substitutes. This would prevent teams with 2 injuries from being disadvantaged, whereas the proposed system can only really cope with 1 injury.

Is it a case of the dog chasing its own tail? Probably. Will the coaches come up with new tactics to take advantage of the new rules? Almost certainly. Will the rule change achieve the desired result? Maybe, maybe not - only time will tell.

 

[srv23]

Tippett being in the side also gives us huge flexibility. If our 1st ruck was to go down, we simply use Tippett to share ruck with Mckernan/Sellar with the other resting forward. Also if a KPP got injured ie Davis we have the luxury of Mckernan/Sellar (2nd ruck) playing CHB while Tippett can relieve Jacobs for short bursts in ruck. Having the mobile 2nd ruck capable of playing KPP and having Tippett capable of rucking gives us so much flexibility and ensures we stay strong even with injuries. This is why our sub doesnt need to and shouldnt be a ruckman. We have 1st ruck. 2nd mobile ruck/KPP plus Tippett.

Sub must be a medium tall running utility 190-192cm. As I said though possibly a year away from really making it work for us.

Having Tippett is a big advantage for us with regards to this rule. IMO we'll do as others have said and play 1 of Jacobs/Maric (unless one of them can find some flexibility over the pre season) as 1st ruck with either McKernan/Sellar as second ruck but who can play forward/back as well. If our first ruck goes down we will always have the option of pushing Tippo in the ruck to give Smack/Sellar a break and have the advantage of him being a genuine ruck.

I'd love for Sellar to develop as a good KPD allowing us to play Truck and Sellar as our 2 main KPD with Davis taking over from Stevens as the 3rd tall swing man role. In the longer term if the club really sees Davis as a forward - Davis to CHF with Truck/Sellar/Talia down back with Young taking over from Truck at FB eventually. If Sellar could force himself into selection contention as a true KPD then we could effectively have 4 potential ruck options in our starting 22 with Jacobs/Maric, Smack, Tippett and Sellar which would give us huge flexibility with this new rule and allow us to play a tall running utility type as our sub. Not sure if this will make our side too tall but just a thought.

 

[King Elvis]

No team should use the sub as a protest against one of the dumbest rule changes in the last decade (and that's saying a hell of a lot).

 

[Vader]

No team should use the sub as a protest against one of the dumbest rule changes in the last decade (and that's saying a hell of a lot).

It's not even close to being the dumbest rule in the last decade. That honour goes to the "post it note" interchange debacle. There's daylight between that one and the 2nd place getter, which may (or may not) be the substitute rule.

 

[RoosterLad]

The sub rule is an absolute joke and just makes me even more disillusioned with the AFL.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Every team would have planty of experience playing with a 3 man bench. Its happened due to injury on countless times before.

The sub is an interesting twist, but stupid.

 

[srv23]

What's even more irritating is that in that AFL "survey" and I use the term loosely, with the question regarding the interchange there was no option of "leave it the same"

We have got to be one of the only sports in the world that feels we have to change or add in several new rules each season. Can we just leave it alone and let things evolve rather than having reactionary rule changes every time some coach impements a game plan tactic which the AFL deems to be undesirable.

 

[Wood_Duck]

Gotta say I'm a bit disillusioned with people wanting to use the best key forward weve had in a over a decade as a second ruckman.

 

[srv23]

Gotta say I'm a bit disillusioned with people wanting to use the best key forward weve had in a over a decade as a second ruckman.

I certainly wasn't saying use him as a second ruck. I was saying that we have one of Jacobs or Maric as 1st ruck with one of Smack/Sellar as second ruck. Most clubs will play 1 genuine ruck and a Brown/Trengove/Bradley type as second ruck. If a Sandi/Brogan/Jolly goes down then they will have their very part time ruck leading the ruck and pulling some other kpp in to give them breaks. Whereas if we have Jacobs/Maric go down, we'll be able to have Smack/Sellar ruck most of the game but have the flexibility of using Tippet for short burts to give them breaks.

Surely it's a big advantage of having the flexibility of using Tippett to give 1 of our rucks a break if our other ruck gets injured is a huge advantage compared to having to use say Westhoff, Hawkins, for example.

If we don't have any ruck injuries then under no circumstances would you move Tippett away from the forward line ever. But if we have a ruck injury, having a player like Tippett in our side as a KPF in his own right gives us a huge amount of flexibility, especially with this new rule where clubs are more and more going to go in with only 1 genuine ruckman.

 

[RoosterLad]

Gotta say I'm a bit disillusioned with people wanting to use the best key forward weve had in a over a decade as a second ruckman.

Well Tippett can't kick a goal to save himself so it is not that ridiculous to suggest he could do a lot of ruckwork.

 

[sydney_crow]

Like or hate the new rule, I believe our list lends itself perfectly to the new rules.

We now have enough adequate options for 1st ruck Jacobs/Maric/Moran.

We certainly have some good options for the new style 2nd ruck. Mckernan 196cm, Sellar 196cm, Craig 195cm. All of which can ruck and play KP. All have exceptional vertical leaps and good mobility around the ground.

IMO the key for 2nd ruck is his ability to play KP, because I think they'll only be rucking for approx 35% of game time. The rest will be playing in KP. Now we saw this year Craigy trying to use Maric a bit more up forward at times when not rucking. I can see Mckernan playing as a forward in addition to Walker and Tippett for short spurts and/or allowing Tippett and Walker to have some rests on bench.

This would make the forward line deadly. Because at times when Tippett/Walker have a rest on bench we're often a tall short up forward. Plus Mckernan is very quick, agile, strong and has a great contested mark when in form. Because of his ability to play KP better than Sellar imo he gets the nod as 2nd ruck because for the majority of the time they will be playing KP rather than ruck.

Also I think our list has a plethora of medium sized tall utilities in Otten, Henderson, Gunston and Shaw. I see this type of player being our sub. They can all play as running players (wing, HFF, HBF) or if we get an injury to a tall defender or forward they can step up and play as a slightly undersized KPP. Plus being able to play forward or back gives us great flexibility to cover injuries and to maintain rotations. However Gunston and Shaw are still probably a year off being best 22 so they probably aren't ready for sub role and I'd rather Otten and Hendo be starting 18. Maybe the following year (our premiership year ) our list will be perfectly placed for this setup.

Tippett being in the side also gives us huge flexibility. If our 1st ruck was to go down, we simply use Tippett to share ruck with Mckernan/Sellar with the other resting forward. Also if a KPP got injured ie Davis we have the luxury of Mckernan/Sellar (2nd ruck) playing CHB while Tippett can relieve Jacobs for short bursts in ruck. Having the mobile 2nd ruck capable of playing KPP and having Tippett capable of rucking gives us so much flexibility and ensures we stay strong even with injuries. This is why our sub doesnt need to and shouldnt be a ruckman. We have 1st ruck. 2nd mobile ruck/KPP plus Tippett.

Sub must be a medium tall running utility 190-192cm. As I said though possibly a year away from really making it work for us.

Nice work Lunacy - agree with pretty much everything you've said.

I reckon McKernan needs to look at this as a career-making opportunity to grab a spot that he might not have yet earned on form/merit and then make it his own. We'll see I guess...

 

[dplggr47]

Otten and Hendo are too good to use for only half a game though.

 

[Pietmans]

Otten and Hendo are too good to use for only half a game though.

Agree!

But we can use Will Young (who has plenty of leg speed), Talia who has played on the wing for South and maybe this is one of the reasons that Luke Thompson got the nod as an upgraded rookie as well.

These type of guys might just go in to the third tall in defence or attack when they come on releasing the likes of Otten or Henderson into the midfield.

 

[Smithalicious]

Surely the Ruck situation won't change. Unless you have a premium ruckman, they can't ruck the whole game. So we still need 2 ruckman. Surely it was still preferable when there were two ruckmen that one was a swing player that can play a variety of roles.

I believe the Sub should be a midfielder or taller player that can play a variety of roles but still rotate through the midfield.

Jack Gunston, Ricky Henderson, to a lesser degree Symes would be perfect for a sub. (Henderson will be best 21 anyways and im hoping Norman comes along like we all hope and will be best 21 soon enough).

As for this 3 bench and 1 Sub. does anyone else believe that VB will become better due to his ridiculous endurance??

Will be fun to see how the different teams deal with the 3 bench.