Interchange Cap to be enforced from 2014

[doppleganger]

I'm not sure if it has ever been suggested but I'd like to see a minor change to the substitute rule. All players hate to be the sub but I understand the reason for it's existence.

Could we have a different player nominated as the substitute at the beginning of each quarter? You don't have to change the sub if you wish, but you could then have a 4 players playing 3 quarters each. If an injury occurs and the sub is activated, then the injured player don's the red vest as they do currently. It would still have the same effect as far as it's only ever 21 on 21.

This would take away substituting an uninjured player to bring on a fresh guy in the late 3rd quarter or early 4th as they do now. I'd think the sub would only be used for a game ending injury or possibly for the last 10 minutes of a match.

Can anyone pick any greater issues that may arise from this?

This is more my style of thinking than a fixed cap.

My line of thinking is that there would be a more drastic switch to something like 3 designated subs, and only 1 interchange per quarter. Need to look at practicalities of that taking into account things like blood rule and what not....as the one interchange will be required if other rules for players off the ground for other reasons. But see nothing wrong with exploring options of actually rotating the subs at quarter time.

It will actually be easy to manage, not going to get any ridiculous penalties for interchange infringements or going over the cap etc

This will increase fairness......with three subs if you get an injury early your not disadvantaged
Help reduce speed of the game......one subbed lowered time spent at top speed and overall physical exertion by players, 3 subs would further progress this you would imagine.
Reduce congestion....with players not able to swarm around the ground and then take a 72 second rest, they will have to pick and choose when they go...or risk blowing up.

Whilst also removing the potential complication that trying to actually measure, monitor and ultimately enforce an interchange cap or interchange procedure infringements.....the penalty for clubs slightly mixing up the process now is way too harsh.

The only change is that coaches and fitness staff will have to change tact, they wont be able to design all their training around maximising high impact and peak training speeds, it would again shift towards endurance for midfield with opportunity for specialised roles elsewhere. So the coaches will continue to be the loudest voice against any change to their gameplans.

 

[DaVe86]

I don't think it effects us anymore.

We have lost our competitive advantage now with high rotations as all other clubs have caught on. It still confuses opposition midfields a little bit as we rotate so many players through the midfield, but ultimately we can still do this by rotating our forwards and mids regularly as well.

If anything, it would suit us if we become super fit compared to young sides who wouldn't be able to run out the games as well.


In terms of the rule in general, I'm not against it. I think 160 rotations a game is too much and I do fear these high impact collisions caused by players running off the bench at break neck speed.

My only problem is the unwillingness to listen to opinions when it comes to rule making. Coaches say is important. If they are saying 80 is not enough, then it should be taken on board. But I do get frustrated at the amount of rotations thesedays.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Why is 160 rotations too much?
Do you count them?
How would you know what number of rotations have been used?

 

[wantok]

Interesting take Spicey, how bout an alternate view.

There has been a 25% increase in player density from 2006 to 2010. There has also been a 30% increase in stoppages in the same period. From 2000 to 2010 there has been a 170% increase in the avg tackles per game.

Some people don't wish the trend to continue and see the AFL become more and more like the rolling maul type of a game, like rugby Union.


Underwhelming evidence??

There are AFL GPS reports that go into plenty of detail regarding the player workloads and physical exertion per minute, time spent at differing playing speeds.

The player exertion per minute levels had been increasing in each season from 2005 to 2010. Taking into account the above figures relating to stoppages, ie the 30% increase, surely player exertion and avg speed levels should be coming down. No, they increased by 17% from 05 to 2010.

Why weren't the AFLPA up in arms about the extra effort that the new coaches tactics were having on them?? Who would have thought that the coaches would actively look to increase the workload on their players?

After the introduction of the sub rule for the 2011 season, despite a mass hysteria campaign by coaches, the player exertion levels actually dropped in comparison to 2010. Less time was spent at tops speeds, and there was more steady state running and as you point out, some soft tissue injury incidence also dropped.

Surely the substitute rule was a step in the right direction?? All of the sky is falling types who came out in 2010 claiming that it would destroy the players and the game...they are trotting out the same lines again now.

Who has the best interests of the players at heart....the coaches who had been steadily increasing the players workload year on year since 2005, or the governing body who was actively looking at ways to reduce speed, congestion, injuries and improve fairness and the spectacle for all.


Why do you think the AFL have been commissioning injury reports for over 20 years?
Why have they been commissioning GPS reports since 2005?

Pardon me for butting in but "Doppelganger" you are a wise man who obviously loves and understands the game. I first wrote to the AFL in 2010 about the problems with unlimited interchange. My concerns then were that the game would lose its appeal and relevance to all the kids who were a bit shorter,a bit slower or a bit bigger and end up the exclusive domain of 190cm "burst" athletes. The kids who didn't fit the mould would be lost to the game. I was also abhorred by the growing congestion and rolling packs and mauls. I have played Rugby Union and recognised what I saw. Allowing coaches to police unlimited interchange is akin to a heroin addict self medicating. They like the taste but need more and more to get then same hit.( BTW I proposed a cap of 80 with 3 interchange and 2 subs.) Anyway this debate is not about injuries. It is about congestion and the relevance of the game to all the kids in Australia who are the games future players. Coaches are famous for their AWAT approach so we can't just let things evolve in the game and actually never have.It's always been managed.
For all those who wonderwhat will happen to the game just watch a few replays from 5 years ago. You will see more one on one contests across the ground, You will see l power forwards leading up to the ball (not just running backwards on the burst) and kicking 100+a year, you will see more contested marks. There will be attractive contested footy across the competition and players and coaches will quickly adapt.
Anyway good luck on the weekend the Lions are much improved and it should be a good contest, if we get within a few goals I'll be happy.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

This has as much to do with FD spending as anything.

 

[Quicky]

This has as much to do with FD spending as anything.

In what way?

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

In what way?

Clearly, teams with bigger budgets are utilising their financial clout to gain extra on field advantage over clubs that are less privileged.

Capping the rotations minimises the endurance factor. This way the rich clubs get to keep their money and the AFL evades the controversy of FD capping.

That's my hunch anyway.

 

[Quicky]

Clearly, teams with bigger budgets are utilising their financial clout to gain extra on field advantage over clubs that are less privileged.

Capping the rotations minimises the endurance factor. This way the rich clubs get to keep their money and the AFL evades the controversy of FD capping.

That's my hunch anyway.

You don't think those same clubs aren't going to be putting those same resources into addressing the issue of an interchange cap?

 

[doppleganger]

Clearly, teams with bigger budgets are utilising their financial clout to gain extra on field advantage over clubs that are less privileged.

Capping the rotations minimises the endurance factor. This way the rich clubs get to keep their money and the AFL evades the controversy of FD capping.

That's my hunch anyway.

Think it will advantage clubs who hv a bigger FD war chest.

The point is that it will negate all players being able to swarm all over the ground...needing to ration rotations between select few instead of the free for all....

Money can/will be spent on developing specifically tailored programs, more micro management and coaching focussing on even more specialized areas, entire investigation into game plans and ground equity theory.

Currently everybody is simply doing the same ie training with heavy rotations aimed at prolonging the collective team time spent at maximum effort....if it needs to be splintered and tailored further it is the clubs with the largest FD spend that will be advantaged.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

You don't think those same clubs aren't going to be putting those same resources into addressing the issue of an interchange cap?

How?

Unlimited caps gives a greater propensity for FD spending influence.

 

[Markfs]

To me, one of the big differences between AFL and other codes is the willingness by AFL to adapt to the modern environment. When games were invented 100 years or more ago, players were less athletic and they were generally smaller.

You only have to look at a a game of basketball to see what changes bigger, more athletic players have brought to that game. Some people will tell you that they get excited by 7 foot monsters being able to place the ball in the basket. Some people like myself are impressed at the modern slam-dunking etc, but wonder about a time when there was real skill required to get the ball in the basket. In short, I wonder how the game might be played if the authorities put the ring a metre higher above the ground and the game was "modernised" to bring it back to its roots.

Another example that is relevant to AFL is the improved fitness. Players used to remain in defined areas when the various types of football codes were invented. Now, players use their improved fitness to run up and down the park and bring defensive intensity to their sport in a way that probably didnt happen a century ago. I sometimes wonder how soccer would be played with 9 players in each team. I even think about how AFL might look if there were 15 or 16 on the field for each team.

Of course, as I said initially, AFL has been willing to try different things. The VFA had 16 player teams 40 years ago. It generally opened up the game and cut down on a lot of packs developing.

In some ways, I think this willingness to adapt by AFL has been a strength. There are real fundamental problems in some sports that are not being addressed because of an unwillingness to change the game - and of course this is my opinion. The recent game of Man Utd v Real Madrid demonstrated graphically how the referee in soccer has a degree of power to determine the outcome of a game that I dont think Aussie football supporters would tolerate. I personally laughed in the face of Man Utd supporters, and soccer supporters in general, about how the referee must have had a fiver on Real Madrid in the betting.

But while a willingness to address problems is good, I sometimes wonder if we change AFL too often to fix problems that we're not sure are even problems. The other issue is whether the changes are going to affect just the thing we want changed or whether they are going to affect fundamentals of the game.

I think there are times when we should let the game and the people who play it, determine how the game develops for period of time. If there are rule changes, it should only happen when there are clear problems. I think this might be one of those times when administrators let the interchange explosion to be taken to its limit and then we revisit the discussion of whether the game needs changing.

 

[Quicky]

How?

Unlimited caps gives a greater propensity for FD spending influence.

I think doppleganger summed it up well in his post above. Surely that will benefit teams with additional resources? I guess the argument is does it benefit us as much as currently?

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

I think doppleganger summed it up well in his post above. Surely that will benefit teams with additional resources? I guess the argument is does it benefit us as much as currently?

Under the current regime the clubs with more coin are always going to be advantaged off the field, but capping the rotations limits the level of influence.

I reckon it will actually be good for the game with longer kicking and more natural footballers getting the nod ahead of athletes. I'd cap it at 40 if I had my way.

 

[doppleganger]

Under the current regime the clubs with more coin are always going to be advantaged off the field, but capping the rotations limits the level of influence.

I reckon it will actually be good for the game with longer kicking and more natural footballers getting the nod ahead of athletes. I'd cap it at 40 if I had my way.

Why a cap at all?

Just go 3 subs, which as suggested by somebody earlier can rotate at each quarter break, and one interchange.

That open it up to differing tactical moves, try going tall for a quarter to stretch a defense..

And will still give the fairness that if you get an injury you hv subs to bring on.

Anything with a cap

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Why a cap at all?

Just go 3 subs, which as suggested by somebody earlier can rotate at each quarter break, and one interchange.

That open it up to differing tactical moves, try going tall for a quarter to stretch a defense..

And will still give the fairness that if you get an injury you hv subs to bring on.

Anything with a cap

Why don't we just get blokes that can play for 100 minutes of football just like we did for over 100 years?

This modern level elite athleticism certainly hasn't made the game a better spectacle. The game has become more robotic and is played more from inside the coaches box, rather than out on the field..

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Under the current regime the clubs with more coin are always going to be advantaged off the field, but capping the rotations limits the level of influence.

You keep saying this ^ but don't explain how

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

You keep saying this ^ but don't explain how

Endurance is a huge part of the modern game.
Superior endurance is influenced by sports science.
Sports science costs money.

Are you claiming that a West Coast player isn't better served than a Bulldogs player because of FD spending?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Endurance is a huge part of the modern game.
Superior endurance is influenced by sports science.
Sports science costs money.

Are you claiming that a West Coast player isn't better served than a Bulldogs player because of FD spending?

No I'm not, I'm saying it has nothing to do with rotations... and by the way, so are you with your non-argument

 

[doppleganger]

Why don't we just get blokes that can play for 100 minutes of football just like we did for over 100 years?

This modern level elite athleticism certainly hasn't made the game a better spectacle. The game has become more robotic and is played more from inside the coaches box, rather than out on the field..

The coaches and fitness staff realized you can get so much more output by seeding an increased load across the 22 players.

They then designed game plans around swarming all over the ground as they had the capacity to push the players harder. They don't want to lose this advantage, hence the bleating.

I don't get the cap? It causes grief trying to enforce it...just go back to proper subs instead of interchange. I reckon 3 subs with one interchange is good mix. With the flexibility that the subs can change fro
Quarter to quarter.

 

[Zahki]

For all those who wonderwhat will happen to the game just watch a few replays from 5 years ago. You will see more one on one contests across the ground, You will see l power forwards leading up to the ball (not just running backwards on the burst) and kicking 100+a year, you will see more contested marks.

Correlation does not equal causation. Just because the game is changing doesn't mean the trend of higher rotations is what is causing that change. Coaches are getting smarter about the game, I'd argue the scrums and rolling mauls are simply a consequence of coaches waking up to the fact that in a game with 18 players on the field with no positional restrictions it's optimal to have as many players as you can around contests to gain possession of the ball then spread faster than the opposition to move the ball into scoring range before they get numbers back. Limited interchanges won't change that.

These rule changes are predicated on extremely simplistic thinking, "Hurr durr if we change number of interchanges back to what they were 5 years ago, game will be played like it was 5 years ago". No, thats not how things work. We have no idea what the effect a cap on interchanges will have on the game considering that the game is in a different state that it was in 2007.

Changes to the game need to be based on empirical data and hard evidence. This wishy washy tinkering with varius rules, subs, interchange caps in order to artificially revert the game back into whatever state your nostalgia says was better absolutely has to stop.

 

[DWil6]

Why don't we just get blokes that can play for 100 minutes of football just like we did for over 100 years?

This modern level elite athleticism certainly hasn't made the game a better spectacle. The game has become more robotic and is played more from inside the coaches box, rather than out on the field..

Couldn't disagree more. Today's footy is a massive improvement on football from the 80's and before. Much more exciting. Much less of the old and slow mark, go back long kick to a pack, mark or spoil... Have watched a lot of football over 40 years and I'd take today's game over the early game any day. Freaky athletic footballers who can spring for high marks, run full speed and a slot goals from 60 after a fend off. Explosive players tracking down the ball carrier and tackling them just as they go to kick. Fast ball movement with slick handball on the wing as a player marks then feeds the outside runner who doesn't have to break stride as he receives and delivers lace out to the leading forward. The game has come a long way. Let it develop as it has and let's enjoy the ride.

 

[wantok]

Correlation does not equal causation. Just because the game is changing doesn't mean the trend of higher rotations is what is causing that change. Coaches are getting smarter about the game, I'd argue the scrums and rolling mauls are simply a consequence of coaches waking up to the fact that in a game with 18 players on the field with no positional restrictions it's optimal to have as many players as you can around contests to gain possession of the ball then spread faster than the opposition to move the ball into scoring range before they get numbers back. Limited interchanges won't change that.

These rule changes are predicated on extremely simplistic thinking, "Hurr durr if we change number of interchanges back to what they were 5 years ago, game will be played like it was 5 years ago". No, thats not how things work. We have no idea what the effect a cap on interchanges will have on the game considering that the game is in a different state that it was in 2007.

Changes to the game need to be based on empirical data and hard evidence. This wishy washy tinkering with varius rules, subs, interchange caps in order to artificially revert the game back into whatever state your nostalgia says was better absolutely has to stop.

Coaches will continue to rotate but if you accept that players are reaching close to the human boundaries of aerobic capacity (as they themselve claim) then you don't need a science degree to accept that the probability of them reaching the same number of contests with 80 rotations is about half what it is with 160. Hurr Durr

 

[Zahki]

Coaches will continue to rotate but if you accept that players are reaching close to the human boundaries of aerobic capacity (as they themselve claim) then you don't need a science degree to accept that the probability of them reaching the same number of contests with 80 rotations is about half what it is with 160. Hurr Durr

So when the game turns into every team flooding their defensive 50 with 16 players to conserve energy, what then? Change even more rules? You're so certain that this arbitrary cap will change things for the better when there is every chance that they'll make things worse? The tactics that clubs use to conserve their players energy aren't neccessarily going to make the game a better spectacle.

 

[rose jam]

Why don't we just get blokes that can play for 100 minutes of football just like we did for over 100 years?

This modern level elite athleticism certainly hasn't made the game a better spectacle. The game has become more robotic and is played more from inside the coaches box, rather than out on the field..

The game is a far better spectacle than it has ever been. Please, go watch some games from the 70's, 80's, and 90's even, they're almost unwatchable.

 

[Shellz]

Interesting that bucks said we over rotated last night.