News Interchange Caps 2014

[Kane McGoodwin]

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

Yet to be decided ... though if they are trialling 80 a game, that's likely to be around the mark.

 

[Sanders]

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.

Why would the percentages change because of how many players there are?

 

[AFC979810]

Go and take a naked selfie and leave us alone.

Great post. Although you forgot to FAP about Spackler like you do in 95% of your other posts.

 

[Jars458]

All sides of this debate are all over the place. I am one who is happy that the code tries to improve using rule changes. To stand still would be dumb IMO. As to whether this is a good change I am yet to be convinced either way. I am sure the cap will be well over 80, probably 120 to 150. Vlad's attitude to the whole thing is an entire other question. The man is clearly drunk on power and that never ends well.

If umpires blow the whistle earlier and throw the ball up, that would be much better IMO. The amount of HTB early in the season is always insane.

As to any notion of golden eras, what a load of shit. There was some great football and some crap footy last year just as there always has been.

 

[Team DJ]

Surely the number of interchanges has risen by a shit load in the past few years becasue there is one less bloke on the bench?

So in order to get the same amount of rest they did with 4 on the pine, they have to interchange a lot more.

 

[seanoff]

Surely the number of interchanges has risen by a shit load in the past few years becasue there is one less bloke on the bench?

So in order to get the same amount of rest they did with 4 on the pine, they have to interchange a lot more.

No!!!!!!!!!!

http://mm.afl.com.au/Portals/0/2012/2010-rotations.pdf 4 interchange 115.5 / game WB leading at 128
http://mm.afl.com.au/Portals/0/2012/2011-rotations.pdf 3 + sub 117 /game, geelong leading at 134 (change a massive 1.3%)

"But those predicting the end of the world should take a reasoned look at stats from recent years.​

In 2003, teams averaged only 26.8 a game. (4 interchange)

As recently as 2008, teams averaged 80.3 - the same as the looming cap. (4 interchange)

Granted, coaches still had four interchange players at their disposal four years ago, but it would hardly be a seismic shift to limit moves to 80"
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/analysis-counting-the-cost-of-rotations/story-fn7shx05-1226496620157

currently the benches are being cleared, simply 3 off, 3 on 10 times a qtr. once every 3 minutes.

i wouldn't be against the AFL mandating 60 i/c as the cap. or 5 X / qtr.

 

[Team DJ]

No!!!!!!!!!!

http://mm.afl.com.au/Portals/0/2012/2010-rotations.pdf 4 interchange 115.5 / game WB leading at 128
http://mm.afl.com.au/Portals/0/2012/2011-rotations.pdf 3 + sub 117 /game, geelong leading at 134 (change a massive 1.3%)

"But those predicting the end of the world should take a reasoned look at stats from recent years.​

In 2003, teams averaged only 26.8 a game. (4 interchange)

As recently as 2008, teams averaged 80.3 - the same as the looming cap. (4 interchange)

Granted, coaches still had four interchange players at their disposal four years ago, but it would hardly be a seismic shift to limit moves to 80"
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/analysis-counting-the-cost-of-rotations/story-fn7shx05-1226496620157

currently the benches are being cleared, simply 3 off, 3 on 10 times a qtr. once every 3 minutes.

i wouldn't be against the AFL mandating 60 i/c as the cap. or 5 X / qtr.

That actually looks like a YES!!!!!!!! to me, not a NOOOOOO!!!!!

 

[Slippery Pete]

Great post. Although you forgot to FAP about Spackler like you do in 95% of your other posts.

Hey, I wasn't knocking the naked selfie.

 

[AFC979810]

Hey, I wasn't knocking the naked selfie.

You would be if you could see what my selfie looked like.

 

[Slippery Pete]

You would be if you could see what my selfie looked like.

Ha.

You're wrong anyway, it's JP Sauce I fap over.

 

[Vader]

Surely the number of interchanges has risen by a shit load in the past few years becasue there is one less bloke on the bench?

So in order to get the same amount of rest they did with 4 on the pine, they have to interchange a lot more.

As shown above, the number of interchanges was increasing dramatically long before the 3+1 bench was introduced.

The introduction of the 3+1 bench had barely any impact at all on the number of interchanges, which had already pretty much hit saturation point. By this I mean that the benefit of having fresh players was equally countered by the lost productivity of having players constantly running to & from the bench, away from their normal positions.

 

[Team DJ]

As shown above, the number of interchanges was increasing dramatically long before the 3+1 bench was introduced.

The introduction of the 3+1 bench had barely any impact at all on the number of interchanges, which had already pretty much hit saturation point. By this I mean that the benefit of having fresh players was equally countered by the lost productivity of having players constantly running to & from the bench, away from their normal positions.

Disagree i think youre wrong.

 

[seanoff]

That actually looks like a YES!!!!!!!! to me, not a NOOOOOO!!!!!

oh dear.

3 + 1 was brought in in 2011. so tha afl tracked from 27 - 115 in the preceding 7 years and grew 50 / game over a 2 yr period (09 - 10) still with 4 interchange and it's the fault of 3+1 which was introduced in 2011.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

LOL. logic fail

a closer look at the massive growth of 1.3 / game from 10 - 11 is all on Geelong. both sets of data are bi-modal with modes at around 110 and 120. If bomber thompson stays at geelong the stats do not change (at all) within 0.1 from 10 - 11. so 3+1 had no effect on the number of interchanges made. none.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Disagree i think youre wrong.

Didn't see that coming.......

 

[Team DJ]

oh dear.

3 + 1 was brought in in 2011. so tha afl tracked from 27 - 115 in the preceding 7 years and grew 50 / game over a 2 yr period (09 - 10) still with 4 interchange and it's the fault of 3+1 which was introduced in 2011.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

LOL. logic fail

a closer look at the massive growth of 1.3 / game from 10 - 11 is all on Geelong. both sets of data are bi-modal with modes at around 110 and 120. If bomber thompson stays at geelong the stats do not change (at all) within 0.1 from 10 - 11. so 3+1 had no effect on the number of interchanges made. none.

Disagree.

It couldve leveled out you never know. Didnt get the chance to find out. 3 and 1 forced it to continue that way.

 

[Vader]

Disagree i think youre wrong.

Fair enough.. but what basis do you have for your argument? seanoff has given you the figures, which makes your position pretty hard to justify.

 

[Vader]

Disagree.

It couldve leveled out you never know. Didnt get the chance to find out. 3 and 1 forced it to continue that way.

What point are you trying to make?

The number of interchanges was skyrocketing long before the 3+1 rule was introduced. Actually, the increase in interchanges was one of the driving forces behind the introduction of the 3+1 rule.

Seanoff has shown you that the number of interchanges has stabilised since the 3+1 rule came into effect. Sure, it may have stabilised without the 3+1 rule, but it certainly didn't rise as a result of the 3+1 rule which was your original assertion:

Surely the number of interchanges has risen by a shit load in the past few years becasue there is one less bloke on the bench?

So in order to get the same amount of rest they did with 4 on the pine, they have to interchange a lot more.

Somewhere along the line you seem to have suffered an epic failure of logic.

 

[Team DJ]

What point are you trying to make?

The number of interchanges was skyrocketing long before the 3+1 rule was introduced. Actually, the increase in interchanges was one of the driving forces behind the introduction of the 3+1 rule.

Seanoff has shown you that the number of interchanges has stabilised since the 3+1 rule came into effect. Sure, it may have stabilised without the 3+1 rule, but it certainly didn't rise as a result of the 3+1 rule which was your original assertion:

Somewhere along the line you seem to have suffered an epic failure of logic.

Cool story bro. Couldve usd a dragon.

Like i said. Had we stuck with 4 interchanges, even bring in the 5th player as the sub. Interchanges couldve leveled out or dropped back down. Thanks to the 3 rule, it was forced to continue upwards.

Stats are great, but they are just stats not reality. Ricky Ponting finished his career with an avergae of 50+ But in his last few years he was barely a 20+ player.

Stats only show what is history.

 

[Vader]

Cool story bro. Couldve usd a dragon.

Like i said. Had we stuck with 4 interchanges, even bring in the 5th player as the sub. Interchanges couldve leveled out or dropped back down. Thanks to the 3 rule, it was forced to continue upwards.

Stats are great, but they are just stats not reality. Ricky Ponting finished his career with an avergae of 50+ But in his last few years he was barely a 20+ player.

Stats only show what is history.

But it didn't continue upwards. You keep asserting that it did.. but it didn't happen - have you even bothered to read seanoff's posts?

It's not that hard to look at the history from 2003-2010 (4 man bench), when the number of interchanges went from 28 to 130, and 2011-2012 (3+1 bench) when it went from 130 to 131. There was no increase, despite your assertions to the contrary.

Which bit of this do you not understand?

 

[Team DJ]

But it didn't continue upwards. You keep asserting that it did.. but it didn't happen - have you even bothered to read seanoff's posts?

It's not that hard to look at the history from 2003-2010 (4 man bench), when the number of interchanges went from 28 to 130, and 2011-2012 (3+1 bench) when it went from 130 to 131. There was no increase, despite your assertions to the contrary.

Which bit of this do you not understand?

Howd did you go in maths?
130 to 131 is no increase?

 

[King Elvis]

Introduce the cap, get rid of the Sub.
Keep the Sub, get rid of the cap.

Don't need both.

And am I the only one who wants to see the best players going at it as hard as possible, for as long as possible?

 

[Vader]

Howd did you go in maths?
130 to 131 is no increase?

Less than 1% is statistically meaningless. It's within the background noise level. In other words, no increase.

 

[cm_perfect]

Less than 1% is statistically meaningless. It's within the background noise level. In other words, no increase.

4 players rotating 130 times vs 3 players rotating 130 times appears to be an increase to me..

 

[Vader]

4 players rotating 130 times vs 3 players rotating 130 times appears to be an increase to me..

It's an increase in the number of rotations per bench position. There is no difference in the number of rotations overall.

 

[cm_perfect]

It's an increase in the number of rotations per bench position. There is no difference in the number of rotations overall.

You are correct when you say there is an increase..