News Interchange caps are coming

[Ant85]

Bad news day for Collingwood or what?

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...n-interchange-next-season-20100726-10so9.html

Does this top the most ridiculous knee-jerk rules of the Vlad/AA era?

 

[DidakDelight]

Is definitely a knee jerk reaction.
Geelong rotate the least of any club and are en route to a 3rd flag in 4 years.

We may end up seeing more rotations through the back and forward pockets instead of the bench and the AFL will end up limiting that as well

 

[MagpieJoel]

Bit silly really. I hope they produce evidence for the reasons they wish to do this.

I seriously do not see the issue with using the interchange as a tactical tool.

 

[Pie eyed]

Smokescreen.

Focus is on Etihad.

Release statement on two contentious non-issues.

Interchange cap and Equalisation.

Collo is shitting himself.

 

[Football God]

We had something like 138 rotations last week lol. Its sad that they are capping it because some clubs choose to have a rotation policy more than other clubs..

 

[half_back_flank]

Smokescreen.

Focus is on Etihad.

Release statement on two contentious non-issues.

Interchange cap and Equalisation.

Collo is shitting himself.

Nail on the head Pie eyed.

As for the issue, substitution is a terrible idea, few things are more satisfying in football than having one fit player (or even none) on the bench and still getting up for the win.

 

[The Magnificent Seven]

...few things are more satisfying in football than having one fit player (or even none) on the bench and still getting up for the win.

...unless you happen to be one of the afore-mentioned non-fit players on the bench

Unbelievable thinking there at AFL house. They're not the government, and if they think a "tax" will solve any perceived deficiencies in the teams then they're looking in the wrong place. In what way is it right to penalise top performance by a strong management and supporter base?

Bulldoze Docklands and turn it into a DFO I say. I'd rather they went back into suburbia and supported Vic Park and Princes Park and made use of existing top-quality venues instead of building monuments to bad design.

I F**KIN HATE MIDDLE MANAGEMENT THINKING

...sorry, I'll take my tea now...

 

[jefffff34]

Interchange capping is a big tick from me.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

On behalf of all Hawthorn fans, I apologise.

(It wasn't an issue until we started doing it, and now will be outlawed).


For future reference on any rule changes - watch how Geelong plays. If they do it, it's ok. If it works against them, it is (or soon will be) illegal.

 

[DWil6]

With all due respect, Simon, it's been in the headlines for a lot longer than that. It's just now that they appear to actively be making a stand against it. I doubt it's a conspiracy against your team and I don't think you need high rotations anyway as you won a premiership without it. Having said that, I have no problem with it and I don't think it's a blight on our game having players coming off and on. Nor do I see any evidence of it causing increased cases of injury.

 

[Pie eyed]

Interchange capping is a big tick from me.

Any reason?

 

[Mickaman]

Smokescreen.

Focus is on Etihad.

Release statement on two contentious non-issues.

Interchange cap and Equalisation.

Collo is shitting himself.

I hope your right. It's bullsh1t how can you cap how may inmterchanges you make. Hypothetically you have used all your interchanges for a quarter with a few minutes left and you get an injury or 2 you can't interchange? Stupid rule with no reason for it to happen.

 

[Pie eyed]

If you look at the averages there is not that big a disparity.

The stated issues which they feel the interchange cap will address are

''We have a concern that the increased interchange could be causing more collision injuries,

They are currently looking into this but have no evidence whatsoever at the moment. This would appear to be based on a fear the NRL held over forwards being very fit still at the end of games if they were rotated which negated the advantage of the little blokes as the forwards late tired late in a game traditionally.

''There is a concern about the effect on the look of the game''

The AFL do not appear to concerned about the look of the game where flooding and or ultra defensive sides are concerned.

"and there are different opinions on that and most clubs agree that there is a fairness issue, when one team suffers serious injuries during a game and cannot rotate competitively."

Capping rotations will not make any difference to the effect losing one or more players has on the game.

All just sounds like BS to me.

Being seen to be doing something while they do nothing and remain silent on the real issue, Etihad.

 

[daics_35]

I know this will disadvantage us and the hawks and i dont see why they will cap it, its such a dumb thing to do, teams have recruited and have made a gameplan based on roating heavily, if they cap it it will be disapointing.

 

[frantelle]

They state collision injuries in the motivation but thats what they brought all these new rules in for, to protect the players? All thats going to happen is we are going to see more fatigue type injuries like hamstrings and then they will knee jerk back the other way. Getting kind of ridiculous, why change something that hasn't even needed changing for over a 100 years? I don't know what you all think but I'm of the opinion there are far less collision injuries then a decade ago

 

[shawthing09]

They state collision injuries in the motivation but thats what they brought all these new rules in for, to protect the players? All thats going to happen is we are going to see more fatigue type injuries like hamstrings and then they will knee jerk back the other way. Getting kind of ridiculous, why change something that hasn't even needed changing for over a 100 years? I don't know what you all think but I'm of the opinion there are far less collision injuries then a decade ago

This. Funnily enough one of the things that got the AFL looking into capping interchanges was the want for more contested marks etc which is going to cause more oppertunity's for collisions. The AFL's knee jerk tampering with rules and interpretations are a joke. At some stage you just have to let the game move on naturally.

 

[mattys123]

I have an "out there" idea for the AFL.

LEAVE THE GAME ALONE FOR 2 YEARS, AND SEE WHAT DEVELOPS.

Every year, the cronies at league headquarters feel the need to change the rules of the game, yet they wonder why it is so hard to sell our game to other markets.

Does Soccer changes it's rules at the end of every season?

Does Golf?

Does Tennis?

Does Basketball?

I think you get the point.

Why do we have to keep changing the rules? Because coaches are smarter then the AFL and see ways of exploiting the rules? So ****ing what, that is a coaches job, and no matter what changes the AFL makes to the rules, a coach or two will find a way to exploit that, and then the AFL will be right back to panic stations again.

LEAVE OUR GAME ALONE, it will develop in it's own way.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

(In 2008 we almost doubled our interchanges from rd.18 until finals). Cats increased significantly in 09 at finals time.

We were averaging around 65-75 interchanges until rd.10, and about 120 since with 3 or 4 140+s. At the time, I joked that as soon as we did it, they'd review and change rules. Seems they have

I'll leave you guys alone now.

What I'd give for a Pies v Hawks GF....(with a slightly different result to what you guys want)

 

[knightwheelrqr]

I'm personally not in favour. I like the way the game has been going with increased speed due to rotations and clubs being able to play our all 4 quarters as opposed years before when rotations were minimal and players would tire. Increased speed makes for far more entertaining viewing.

Collingwood are amongst the highest rotators in the league, yet our injury list is amongst the lowest in the league. So I'm not buying it.

The idea of an expanded bench/ substitute player I am in favour of, because if the AFL is so concerned about teams being hurt by not being able to rotate that 22nd player then they just bring in a substitute player and problem solved.

 

[smiddaz123]

The logic is that it should decrease the chance of doing a hammy. With higher rotations, players will be doing shorter bursts of higher intensity, rather than longer periods of lower intensity. You have a higher chance of injuring a muscle if you're going for shorter bursts at higher intensity.

Thatd be the main reason behind the capping I'd assume.

 

[Markfs]

I like the idea of caps for interchange... a lot better than those green things that they wear before the games..

 

[Go_collingwood_]

[youtube]31g0YE61PLQ[/youtube]

 

[Rohan25]

(In 2008 we almost doubled our interchanges from rd.18 until finals). Cats increased significantly in 09 at finals time.

As did Collingwood in 2007.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Yep, I'm almost certain it's related to a change in training load off-field.

Extra 'breaks' for players gives them a (psychological mainly) boost in on-field performance, which reduces over time (a few weeks maybe).

By dramatically increasing breaks, you see a temporary increase in performance.

All hypothetical, but I think the results back up the thought process.

 

[OniAu]

collision injuries in a 360 contact sport, thats madness.

it wont make us a worse team, so i dont know why people are worried.

apparently keeping players at a bette condition thru out the game isnt better than playing players fatigued.

are they next going to make each 22 do 10 sets of 400 before the match to tire them out a bit to lessen collision injuries?

seems so illogical