Interchange Cap to be enforced from 2014

[the mighty T]

Not sure if theres a thread or discussion about this but i'd like to know the opinions of other supporters because frankly, it annoys the bejesus out of me.

As far as im concerned, there was nothing wrong with the way the game was played in 2010 before the 3, 1 sub came into play.. in fact i think there was a lot of attractive football being played around that time. I still think the idea of the sub is ridiculous, but i can understand the thinking of it in terms of making games more even in the event of an injury.

This cap however just seems ridiculous. Why do the AFL feel the need to change things about our came on a consistent basis when its fine the way it is? I cant see the logic behind it and it will only lead to more unnatractive football and possibly more injuries.

Do the Vlad and his cronies simply need to think of new ideas over the summer, just to give them a reason to receive a pay check?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-03-05/no-backing-down-on-cap-demetriou

 

[Wooljay]

This is the face of the evil corrupting the AFL:

Blame him.

 

[mattys123]

At face value most are outraged at this change, but I can see the reason for it, interchanges have got to the point where it's like ice hockey now where entire lines of players are changed at different times.

This is the part that is absolutely stupid though;

Under the interchange rule, a club is permitted, in theory, to make a maximum of 23 interchanges for the quarter - under the provision that those players coming off the ground must sit off for a period of 15 minutes.

So what you are telling me AFL is that a club exceeds the limit each player who then comes off isn't allowed back on. Hmm, nice way to tank, just interchange your side down to 15 players on the field and give up a lead late in the game for a number one draft pick.

 

[Shellz]

Rule changes just frustrate me in general.

 

[the mighty T]

At face value most are outraged at this change, but I can see the reason for it, interchanges have got to the point where it's like ice hockey now where entire lines of players are changed at different times.

Okay, i see that but i dont understand how thats such a massive negative. Each team chooses which players to bring off when and it doesnt affect the quality of the game. I for one dont get annoyed when Swanny or Pendles are taken off but id be downright pissed if they were out of gas come the middle of the 4th quarter and had injuries as a result

 

[RuFiO]

Do people actually notice all the changes when they go to the match?
Maybe I'm just alone here in saying that I'm just too fixated on the play when I go to the match that I'm oblivious to everything else going on, so I don't really notice anyone going on or off unless it's an injury.
I personally don't see how it's a problem even if it does look bad that people are coming on and off.

 

[sirene]

^^ Yeah, I don't notice either, generally I am following the ball and I have not seen it sit on the bench yet.

 

[Old Spice]

I sum it up thusly: Bartlett=Fartlett

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Interchanges as a spectator are irrelevant. They could quadruple the current number of rotations and it wouldn't concern me in terms of ruining the spectacle. Who is so fixated on the bench anyway?

As far as injuries go, the AFL has no conclusive evidence, but they're happy to try to improve the way the game looks on telly (increase scoring, decrease congestion etc.) under the guise of player welfare and before the game evolves to overcome the problem organically.

 

[cleomenes]

The sight of players coming on and off all the time isn't the problem they are trying to solve. They want to reduce congestion and return some of the positional play of years gone by. Every player in 1/3 of the ground is a bad look, and the congestion that stops players breaking free of a pack is a bad thing for the game in general.
That said, an interchange cap is not the solution to these problems. Two things are at the heart of it.
1. Tactical use of the interchange, allowing players to run harder than they ever could before, because they know they can get a rest.
2. The vast increase in player fitness.

The only answer to 1. is to return the interchange to it's original purpose: to allow players to leave the field for treatment and return, but not to leave for a rest.

There is no solution to 2, unless players are given handicaps in the manner of Kurt Vonnegut's scary play.

So idiot Andrew and dopey Kevin are wasting their time, because they are not addressing the real problem. They might as well leave the game alone. I would love it if they would stop trying to remove ruckmen from the game too.

 

[the mighty T]

Say they get their wish, congestion is reduced and theres more one on one contests leading to some more free flowing football, how long will it be before coaches just decide to throw 15 behind the ball at various points in games? I cant see how that will be any more entertaining

 

[juzzo]

I see both sides. Rocket is right in that they need to be transparent about what it is they're hoping to achieve. There is nothing wrong with how the game is played now.
On the flipside, the coaches complaining that it will change the game and they will only draft athletes from now on are morons. Players will revert to spending more time on the ground like they did before the interchange exploded. They won't die from fatigue.

So what you are telling me AFL is that a club exceeds the limit each player who then comes off isn't allowed back on. Hmm, nice way to tank, just interchange your side down to 15 players on the field and give up a lead late in the game for a number one draft pick.

Why would there only be 15 players on the field?

 

[eddiebankbalance]

This is the face of the evil corrupting the AFL:

Blame him.

So it will be called 'The Richmond Rule'

 

[Old Spice]

The flood precedes high interchanges. There is no relationship there. In fact there aren't that many more stoppages now and you only need to look at tackling pressure/increase to understand why there's been this f*ck all increase.

Bartlett has lost his shrivelled little mind. I'm not getting on board

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Rule changes just frustrate me in general.

49 rule changes in the last 20 years according to SEN on the weekend.
Thats about 2 or 3 a year every year for 20 years

 

[Paul.]

As far as im concerned, there was nothing wrong with the way the game was played in 2010 before the 3, 1 sub came into play.. in fact i think there was a lot of attractive football being played around that time. I still think the idea of the sub is ridiculous, but i can understand the thinking of it in terms of making games more even in the event of an injury.

Agreed. I see running around with less breaks over longer periods worse in comparison to short burts, short breaks on the bench, etc.

They'll cap it at around 120-ish if they're serious. If they're smart they'll drop the idea.

 

[TradeDraft]

Bloody Idiots at the AFL Ruining the Game

 

[RuFiO]

Bloody Idiots at the AFL Ruining the Game

But they know you'll still show up
By changing the game they might get other people to like it to, to our detriment.

 

[jonbe54]

Ask any physio about soft tissue injuries and they will tell you that soft tissue is much more prone to injury when fatigued.

Just what part of that don't the morons at AFL house understand??

 

[carnthepies19]

Honestly. I hate it. Why can't Demetriou realise that the game is not like it was when he played many years ago. The AFL is a full time job hence all the players are fitter and can run harder and more effectively. In changing the rules to make less interchanges allowed, the players will still run how they are used to and then get soft tissue injuries. Is this what the AFL wants. It was obvious in the nab cup last weekend that all the boys could hardly muster up a sprint and it was just poor viewing.

The game is going to become more a 'how are we going to use our interchanges' than the actual game we all know and love. Would we rather our coaches focus on coaching or what players can go off? I know which I'd prefer.

Also what would happen if a player got injured with 3 mins to go in the game in a tight one, there's 3 fit players on the bench (and the subbed off player) but we had used all of our interchanges. Do they just expect teams to either leave the injured player on or just keep on trucking with 17 players. The sub rule was put in to make teams less disadvantaged when injuries struck, well this rule is just going to ruin what they tried to create.

Why can't the AFL leave our game just the way it was..

 

[Temploar]

So how/when can Vlad get kicked out? Is it a Julia Gillard situation or are we stuck with him?

 

[Jelly Bean]

Ask any physio about soft tissue injuries and they will tell you that soft tissue is much more prone to injury when fatigued.

Just what part of that don't the morons at AFL house understand??

Injury reduction was never the real reason. The AFL tried to use it to justify heading towards the real objective, and that is to reduce congestion. No one really bought their story that the interchange changes were about 'reducing injuries' and so I think they have just given up. In fact, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that higher rotations actually prevents injuries.

The AFL should have just been straight about it in the first place. They want to reduce congestion. And they will continue to bring in different rules until they achieve this.

 

[legendstatus]

There is a serious lack of communication between Vlad & the coaches... This will come to ahead eventually.. I mean STRIKE !!!

 

[jonbe54]

Injury reduction was never the real reason. The AFL tried to use it to justify heading towards the real objective, and that is to reduce congestion. No one really bought their story that the interchange changes were about 'reducing injuries' and so I think they have just given up. In fact, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that higher rotations actually prevents injuries.

The AFL should have just been straight about it in the first place. They want to reduce congestion. And they will continue to bring in different rules until they achieve this.

That's just the point JB - they never will, its a legitimate tactic to even the odds for a team under pressure and no matter what the AFL comes up with in the way of rule changes the coaches will find a way to circumvent.

 

[legendstatus]

I remember a while back when I was having a chat with a well known Jurno about Bartlett.. Said he was the tightest arse he ever met and also a bit short on the soap box.. Meaning he stunk....

Very funny at the time.. Anyway tells you a bit about him in the media.