News Interchange Cap

[SaintLex]

Thought it was worth starting a new thread to note other posters opinions on the new interchange cap rule that the AFL have announced today, and the potential affect it will have on the side.

The rotations will be capped at 120 per game, with no specific restrictions per quarter. Apparently this is not significantly less than the league average and the North twitter account tweeted their average and they weren't too far off.

However, with a much younger team, i'm somewhat worried about the affect it will have on us. We seem to run out of legs quite quickly as per the norm with inexperienced players, so this may perhaps exacerbate the problem we already have? Thoughts?

On the other hand, guys like McEvoy have just significantly increased in worth.

 

[Highlander35]

Big advantage with big tanked players. Macca, Hickey, Rooey, Dempster, Geary etc. Will need very few interchanges.

Disadvantage comes with a young midfield. Does this eliminate the sub as well? Don't really see the point with a cap, considering you now can't just turn the bench into a turnstile.

Sent from my AMAZE-731 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Manimal_Dunstan]

Hate it. Roo would probably love it

 

[hayes]

Anyone know what our average is?

 

[Saint_Dos]

Read that Leunberger reckons clubs will need 2 out and out Ruckman. Leaves us in good sted.

Not a fan of yhe rule to be honest. Think we will see an increase in soft tissue injuries due to players havibg to runout games through cramp etc as no subs left. Wont end well.

 

[maanco]

Might not have any effect if they are still keen on reducing the length of qrts. (no time on until the 17minutue mark)

 

[hayes]

Read that Leunberger reckons clubs will need 2 out and out Ruckman. Leaves us in good sted.

Not a fan of yhe rule to be honest. Think we will see an increase in soft tissue injuries due to players havibg to runout games through cramp etc as no subs left. Wont end well.

Not sure about that. Less players on the bench has already killed off the second genuine ruckmen as both need to be able to play forward which wasn't required before the sub rule, less rotations will only exacerbate that IMO.

 

[Squizz]

Anyone know what our average is?

Dunno about average, but we've had 140 quite a few times.

AFL “In 2012 and in the first half of 2013 interchange numbers averaged approximately 130 per game. Over the past four-six weeks it appears that interchange numbers are once again on the rise, averaging 135-140 per game.”

 

[Squizz]

Would be nice if they fix the ridiculous interchange infringement rule. A free kick (without the 50) will do for players having long toes* thanks.


* poor Lenny (given he evidently has extra fingers on his feet)

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

Might not have any effect if they are still keen on reducing the length of qrts. (no time on until the 17minutue mark)

I don't think they will.

 

[SaintLex]

Hate it. Roo would probably love it

If only it was introduced 5 years earlier. Roo would have about a 100 more goals to his name

 

[SaintLex]

I can't see this being any good for us.

The top 8 sides could probably make it work for them once they get used to it, due to having more experienced players but I think it will just serve to tire out our young players faster. Wouldn't surprise me if it led to a greater discrepancy between the top and bottom sides.

 

[Rors]

Would be nice if they fix the ridiculous interchange infringement rule. A free kick (without the 50) will do for players having long toes* thanks.


* poor Lenny (given he evidently has extra fingers on his feet)

Squizz, it's the same penalty if you exceed the amount of capped rotations now too...

"Free-kick & 50m penalty against infringing team"

Totally agree though, this is the most ridiculous rule in the AFL, considering the interchange official never gets it right anyway!

 

[Kildonan]

...and what happens after a team has broken it once, paid the penalty and then needs to rotate another player off? Do they have the same penalty again?
Is it a free kick and 50 every time you interchange after the first 120 are used up?

 

[Periphery]

...and what happens after a team has broken it once, paid the penalty and then needs to rotate another player off? Do they have the same penalty again?
Is it a free kick and 50 every time you interchange after the first 120 are used up?

What would happen if someone gets injured and has to come off putting you over the cap? Seems like a pretty s**t rule if that results in you giving away a free and a 50.

 

[Baldur]

As the changes at qtrs are not counted, 3x3 plus the sub=10, so 120 is really 130.

Frankly I doubt it makes much diff and wonder if its really worth the hussle if its going to be around the avg anyway.

 

[sauce_head]

Like it. Just wish it happened at 80 five years ago.

 

[Hugh Jars]

Might stop the ridiculous practice of players coming off every time they score a goal, thus 120 will be more than enough!
I think a free kick without a 50 would be a harsh enough penalty for breaching the cap.

 

[Squizz]

I think a free kick without a 50 would be a harsh enough penalty for breaching the cap.

Bloody hell - it should be just a fine (the level being determined by how many interchanges there are above 120 - with $5k being the minimum)!!!

 

[L_W_P]

Will be 100 for 2016/17 and then capped to 90 (20 per qtr, 3 bench changes at each break + 1 sub) from 2018 onwards I think.

We are in a good spot because they young guys we've been drafting all have either great tanks for young guys or are flexible enough to rest on the flanks or in pockets.

Agree with the calls that Macca's worth goes up because of this.

 

[SaintLex]

Will be 100 for 2016/17 and then capped to 90 (20 per qtr, 3 bench changes at each break + 1 sub) from 2018 onwards I think.

We are in a good spot because they young guys we've been drafting all have either great tanks for young guys or are flexible enough to rest on the flanks or in pockets.

Agree with the calls that Macca's worth goes up because of this.

The AFL are going to re-assess after 2015. They could scrap it entirely if they want to or they could change the number of rotations like you said. Given how arrogant the rules committee are and their unwillingness to concede anything, I doubt they'll scrap it

 

[FlyingSledghamer]

rotation cap is stupidity extremis. This caps off a stellar year at AFL house.

 

[Rors]

...and what happens after a team has broken it once, paid the penalty and then needs to rotate another player off? Do they have the same penalty again?
Is it a free kick and 50 every time you interchange after the first 120 are used up?

Pretty sure I read a Patrick Keane tweet saying that everytime the cap is broken, the free kick & 50m penalty is paid. Thus if you make 134 rotations, that will be 4 free kick & 50m penalties against...

However, I think there is a loophole to allow for injuries though. Think KB mentioned it on SEN this morning

 

[L_W_P]

The AFL are going to re-assess after 2015. They could scrap it entirely if they want to or they could change the number of rotations like you said. Given how arrogant the rules committee are and their unwillingness to concede anything, I doubt they'll scrap it

Itll lower for sure.

120 seems ok now but it's just to condition people to the idea of a cap. They will bring it down slowly.

Terry Wallace (for what its worth) said earlier in the year that 90 was the number they wanted from the start, not 80.

20 changes per qtr = 80
3 at each break = 9
1 sub = 1
Total = 90.

I think they will come down to at least 100 in 2 years. Not entirely sure they will put a per qtr cap on, but I can see it dropping to 100 or 80 as a final number. Im not all that fussed though. It was only 5 years ago that the numebr were at about 80 or 90 so it';s not like they are throwing it back to the 60's or something.

The sub was a bigger game changer than a rotation cap will be.

 

[Hugh Jars]

Bloody hell - it should be just a fine (the level being determined by how many interchanges there are above 120 - with $5k being the minimum)!!!

My point was that a free plus a 50 was way too harsh! Having said that I hadn't considered a fine for the penalty, but I think that might be the best suggestion yet mate.