News Interchange Caps 2014

[SydCrow]

There isn't.

Which means I think eventually we will see more holding the ball decisions paid. In other words, you get tackled and you have the ball, it is holding the ball. Regardless of prior opportunity, regardless of you being the one 'making the play' and regardless of the ball being locked in.

So you take possession at your own risk. Knock the ball on if you have to.

Same as out of bounds. I reckon they will settle on a ball being kicked out (on the full or on the bounce) being a free kick. Possibly one handballed or carried out also being a free kick.

So there will just be fewer stoppages.

we are already seeing it. The NAB Cup might as well be called the HTB Cup.

how many times did we see Tex tackled by two guys, no prior, and HTB?

the other new one is paying in the back for two guys lying on the ground.

both rules wrong IMO as they favour the player without the ball.

and back on topic - the rotation limit will simply favour the endurance athletes - time to get the bikes out again

 

[seanoff]

I'm waiting for a player who has had their career shortened by these new rules to sue the pants off Vlad and his cronies. Wouldn't be surprised to see the players arse get involved in this.

didn't see any great drop off in longevity before 2008 when this extreme rotation thing came in. Fletcher has played most of his career with interchanges at a level less than 80.

the AFL are trying to revert the game to a better more open look. if i want to watch rolling mauls all day foxsports 3 has euro rugby on it.

sport is about sacrifice and testing yourself. I don't get 80km into the bike leg of an ironman tri and pull up and start crying that it hurts a bit. (that's about 5k into the run) and it does hurt at 80km into the bike. You realise that you aren't going to average 45 on the bike and do 3.2min kilometres on the run so you go at a level you think you can survive at. i'd like to see a bit of gut running, guys having to dig deep and keep going, rather than dig deep, piss off for a rest, a massage and a kiss from mummy. If AFL coaches were in charge on ironman tris it would be a 4 day event with mandatory 5 minute rests after the swim, every 10 km on the bike and every 3 on the run.

coaches will have to devise a game plan that allows players to survive on 80 interchanges, if they don't like it boohooo. if they don't, their side will be blasted after 15 mins of the 2nd qtr when they start to slow down and just cannot get to where they need to be. or the players will tell the coach what he wants done cannot be done often very bluntly. at the moment the game has ruckman, key forward, key back and 15 mids on the field who all chase the ball like 5yo at auskick.

I have a feeling there will be more than a few players that will like this sort of change, they'll get more ground time, they'll get a chance to show a skill other than pulling a ball out of a maul.


Adelaide are well placed for this change. you have a towering power forward, he'd enjoy having less than 3 opponents every contest i suspect and even if he didn't mark it, he'd bring it down more often than not. or he'd draw a crowd freeing up someone else. NM with Carey lived on this. Dangerfield with a little more space could be devastating and fun to watch. Having dangerfield with space running then kicking it to walker with an opponent (not 5) would be a wet dream if i were an adelaide supporter.

the coaches are driving the discussion about rule changes when in fact they should be about the last people consulted. they have far too much self interest which they dress up as concern for the players (laughable) and concern for the game (even more laughable), they are concerned with 2 things, winning and keeping their very well paid jobs at all costs.

 

[Godallblighty]

On the whole, I think the AFL is too short term and reactive with its rule tinkering but...I like the good rule changes and dislike the bad ones. So I guess that means I like them to tinker when it suits what I like to see in football. I don't like the rotation cap because it seems contrived and technical; however seanoff's post above mounts a pretty good argument in favour.

For the record, I like the sub, the three man interchange, and no deliberate rushed behinds. I dislike hands in the back, the slide in rule, and 50m penalties.

 

[Sanders]

You can spend a lot of time debating the rights & wrongs of the "fix" but the reality of the matter is that there isn't actually a problem that needs fixing.

 

[Vader]

And Vader - the changes to the high tackle rule; designed to protect the head, resulted in players leading with their heads.

I did forget to add the 3rd category of rule change introduced under Vlad - those designed to protect the participants from the dangers inherent in the game.

Now, I accept that the introduction of this rule had results which the AFL could not foresee, which directly contradicted the aim of the rule. However, I don't see how the rule itself is in contradiction with any other rule that they have introduced.

 

[Vader]

You can spend a lot of time debating the rights & wrongs of the "fix" but the reality of the matter is that there isn't actually a problem that needs fixing.

That in itself is highly debatable. Just because you're 12 years old and have never seen a decent game of football in your life, doesn't mean that the current brand of football is good - or even vaguely desirable. Call me old fashioned, but if I wanted to watch cross country wrestling then I would go and watch a game of Rugby Union. I want to see free flowing football, something which the coaches have done their level best to eliminated over the last 10 years. That's what this rule change is designed to eliminate.

 

[BACCS]

They are some good points seanoff, and both sides have put forward good arguments on the issue. It's the way Andy D portrays to the public what the AFL is trying to do that is the major problem for people. Rather than shouting at radio broadcasters and trying to show everyone that he's boss and nothing stops him, how about explaining exactly what the benefits of reducing rotations are, to not only the clubs, but the wider footy public. It'll cause a lot less angst with people if they understand exactly why the AFL want it to come in.

Sure, people still won't agree, but at least they can watch the game and try to accept the rule change.

 

[Sanders]

That in itself is highly debatable. Just because you're 12 years old and have never seen a decent game of football in your life, doesn't mean that the current brand of football is good - or even vaguely desirable. Call me old fashioned, but if I wanted to watch cross country wrestling then I would go and watch a game of Rugby Union. I want to see free flowing football, something which the coaches have done their level best to eliminated over the last 10 years. That's what this rule change is designed to eliminate.

When was this golden age you hark back too?

The era of free flowing, total football?

 

[Schulzycrow]

The biggest change for clubs is the sprint/burst players being ousted for the long distance runners.

Football has moved towards burst players in recent years (effort, rest, effort, rest) and the explosion in interchanges has been a big part of this.

They have gone away from the guys who aren't overly quick but 'can run all day.' Drafting has reflected this. As has obviously the fitness programs that have been developed.

Now you will need more 'stayers' who can stay on the ground.

It's our captain's dream come true.

If only we could clone VB and give him Danger's talent.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

You can spend a lot of time debating the rights & wrongs of the "fix" but the reality of the matter is that there isn't actually a problem that needs fixing.

Spot on.

It seems that the main reason to limit the number of interchanges is that they were going up.

Rodney Eade on fox said their reasoning is all over the place. First it was about injuries and tired players moving slower = less collisions... then that got vetoed by the medics. So they shifted to 'we want more contests'... tired players will just have to kick to a pack... then it was about flooding and players not having the energy to flood back... then it was that the players weren't flooding but were instead crowding the stoppages in massive numbers.

If interchange numbers 10 years ago were 200 per game and had dropped to 140, would we be limiting it to 80 now?

 

[Schulzycrow]

I just wish they would stop changing the flipping rules every year. Wait until they bring in 2 and 2 in 2014.

 

[VSTone]

another rule that could cause a silly free kick deep into a finals match that ruins a season based on administration error!

 

[King Elvis]

All they need to do is start paying HtB and stop letting players throw/drop the footy, and the rolling mauls will stop.

Simple.

 

[Sanders]

Rodney Eade on fox said their reasoning is all over the place. First it was about injuries and tired players moving slower = less collisions... then that got vetoed by the medics. So they shifted to 'we want more contests'... tired players will just have to kick to a pack... then it was about flooding and players not having the energy to flood back... then it was that the players weren't flooding but were instead crowding the stoppages in massive numbers.

I don't know how anyone can honestly argue with this.

Perhaps its because they're not being honest about it

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

What is sh!tting me is that we seem to be more acutely affected by some of these changes.

The rotation cap will hit us worst.

The interpretation on holding the ball kills us because we're first at the ball.

The new rule about a player going head first into another players legs will hurt us because Danger and Thommo just want the pill.

How about rewarding those that go in first and go hard?

Rant over.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

12 on field
each player gets a bib saying "F", "B" or "C"
Can only play in your zone, if you leave it, free against.

Perhaps we should have a league based on these modified rules established, and send Vlad off to run it.

Then the rest of us can get on with enjoying the game we love.

 

[AFC979810]

Its all a bit similar to the changes facebook always make. Everyone huffs and puffs and then after they are introduced everyone forgets about it and gets on with it (until the next changes are made).

 

[Allefgib]

Its all a bit similar to the changes facebook always make. Everyone huffs and puffs and then after they are introduced everyone forgets about it and gets on with it (until the next changes are made).

Did you just compare footy w/ facebook??

Disgraceful.

 

[Dirty Bird]

What is sh!tting me is that we seem to be more acutely affected by some of these changes.

The rotation cap will hit us worst.

The interpretation on holding the ball kills us because we're first at the ball.

The new rule about a player going head first into another players legs will hurt us because Danger and Thommo just want the pill.

How about rewarding those that go in first and go hard?

Rant over.

Actually, I disagree.
It will probably hurt us least.
Thankyou Neil Craig and your aim on building a huge fitness level

 

[skoobydoo]

For the record, I like the sub, the three man interchange, and no deliberate rushed behinds. I dislike hands in the back, the slide in rule, and 50m penalties.

Do you dislike the rules?.......or the umpire interpretations?

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Spot on.

It seems that the main reason to limit the number of interchanges is that they were going up.

Rodney Eade on fox said their reasoning is all over the place. First it was about injuries and tired players moving slower = less collisions... then that got vetoed by the medics. So they shifted to 'we want more contests'... tired players will just have to kick to a pack... then it was about flooding and players not having the energy to flood back... then it was that the players weren't flooding but were instead crowding the stoppages in massive numbers.

If interchange numbers 10 years ago were 200 per game and had dropped to 140, would we be limiting it to 80 now?

Had interview on SEN116 tonight with the doctor behind the AFL report .......he said a major factor was maintaining a teams ability to still compete if a team got more than one injury

What he said is if a team is an extra player down due to injury ....the opposition could expose them buy out interchanging the team
By capping the interchanges (whatever # is determined) each side will have a fixed number ....and the opposition cannot out interchange them to wear the team down

Interesting POV

 

[WaynesWorld19]

sport is about sacrifice and testing yourself. I don't get 80km into the bike leg of an ironman tri and pull up and start crying that it hurts a bit. (that's about 5k into the run) and it does hurt at 80km into the bike. You realise that you aren't going to average 45 on the bike and do 3.2min kilometres on the run so you go at a level you think you can survive at. i'd like to see a bit of gut running, guys having to dig deep and keep going, rather than dig deep, piss off for a rest, a massage and a kiss from mummy. If AFL coaches were in charge on ironman tris it would be a 4 day event with mandatory 5 minute rests after the swim, every 10 km on the bike and every 3 on the run.

coaches will have to devise a game plan that allows players to survive on 80 interchanges, if they don't like it boohooo. if they don't, their side will be blasted after 15 mins of the 2nd qtr when they start to slow down and just cannot get to where they need to be. or the players will tell the coach what he wants done cannot be done often very bluntly. at the moment the game has ruckman, key forward, key back and 15 mids on the field who all chase the ball like 5yo at auskick.

I have a feeling there will be more than a few players that will like this sort of change, they'll get more ground time, they'll get a chance to show a skill other than pulling a ball out of a maul.

.

Some good points ......players that previously were able to use their talent (height or endurance) have been brought down as average players get ability to rest and therefore can keep up & nullify the champions

1. Will tagging be as effective .....will Crowley be as good on Thompson/dangerfield if he doesn't get those rest periods.

They say in todays game Robert Harvey wouldn't be as great because he used to run opposition into the ground.

Capping rotations will see the best players get even better

It will however weed some speed players out as has been discussed infinitum ..........this is critical and if the AFL is serious about some of the speed players being retained my guess is the cap will be somewhere around 110

 

[Slippery Pete]

We don't know what the cap is going to be yet do we?

 

[Slippery Pete]

Its all a bit similar to the changes facebook always make. Everyone huffs and puffs and then after they are introduced everyone forgets about it and gets on with it (until the next changes are made).

Go and take a naked selfie and leave us alone.

 

[BACCS]

They just had some figures on AFL 360 comparing the percentage of soft tissue injuries and overall injuries between 1992 and today. Across all fields, the percentages are down ~20% since 1992, which is significant considering there are also a heck of a lot more players today as well.