News Interchange caps are coming

[The Royal Sampler]

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.

What would be logical, is to actually prove a link before going ahead and changing the rules.

At any rate, I'm not going to draw a conclusion until I see what the proposed cap is. 25 per quarter would affect us, but not a great deal. 30 per quarter would affect us very little if at all...

 

[TradeDraft]

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?

More Anti-Pies Stuff

 

[Winthorpe]

Why must these ridiculous control-freaks introduce another unnecessary rule?

Just let the damn coaches decide how many rotations they want to do. If, over the course of the season, they find too many of their players are suffering soft-tissue injuries, then they can reduce the number themselves; there doesn't need to be another goddamn rule.

If anything, they should be going in the OPPOSITE direction: minimising the number of rules so that games -- especially close games -- aren't as heavily influenced by over-zealous umpires.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

AFL Board = A bunch of commies.

Aaron Sandilands is too tall, AFL should ban him because other clubs don't have the Dockers height advantage. I also want to see perfect player matchups across the comp so Geelong don't have a talent advantage, then a rotating premiership system so the poorer clubs can share the wealth. I also want to see rich clubs like Collingwood get taxed..........oh wait.

 

[mckenna6575]

rather see a rule that prevented 36 players round a bounce - spreads the game and makes it harder to kill a game in the dying minutes

 

[rose jam]

I completely blame the media for this, and I don't know why the AFL are listening to them this time.
For some reason these idiots in the media crap on about "I don't like the look of seeing people coming on and off all the time". F*** does anyone actually notice interchanges, and who gives a crap seeing interchanges happening. Most ******ed commentary you can hear, ever.
Media is full of too many old people who think footy was better when they were 25, f****g idiots living in the past can get f*****.
Today's footy is fantastic, better than it has ever been (except when St.Kilda play floodrape, but that style is being beaten more often now than it was last year)

 

[kevind]

I don't believe in a cap on interchange numbers.

What I do believe is that slipping players on the field when the other team hasn't noticed, to win an easy uncontested possession and sometimes end up with a goal makes our game look like a complete wank.

Interchanges should only be allowed in the 2 minute break after a goal is scored, or when there is stop in the game for serious injury.

 

[danielnajdek]

Is a bad look. Get lost AFL. How about you get rid of St Kilda. They're a bad look for the AFL with their flooding bullcrap gameplan.

 

[conodie05]

What I don't understand is, they are introducing other rules to speed the game up. This no doubt causes lethargy to set in quicker and more widespread than in the past where we had breaks in play, pauses until goal umpires had waved their flags, etc.

To cap the interchanges is just asking for the game to get ugly, especially towards the end of the season. Games will get scrappy and not too pleasing on the eye IMO.

You can't have your cake and eat it too Vlad. Although seeing you lately I believe you are.

 

[loki04]

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

They don't want collisions full stop, the bump is all but dead players are being banned internally by clubs to not bump as you too easily can be suspended now from it.

Dimwitriou and his goon are a disgrace to the game in how he has allowed so many rules/interpretation changes since he took over the reigns.

 

[Old Spice]

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.

I need evidence based research to make this connection seem plausible to me. In fact the Pies and Dogs have had very few related injury issues despite their high use of the bench. I don't think Gibson or Reiwoldts serious hammies had anything to do with high-rotations.

Reiwoldt's occured earlyish in round 3 match.

Why must these ridiculous control-freaks introduce another unnecessary rule?

Just let the damn coaches decide how many rotations they want to do. If, over the course of the season, they find too many of their players are suffering soft-tissue injuries, then they can reduce the number themselves; there doesn't need to be another goddamn rule.

If anything, they should be going in the OPPOSITE direction: minimising the number of rules so that games -- especially close games -- aren't as heavily influenced by over-zealous umpires.

That's right. A club and their conditioning staff know more about their players welfare than anyone else, and aren't about to jeopardise their health. If it had adverse effects, why would you keep doing it?

The only way to justify the intrusion from the AFL would be to prove that fitter players make more forceful collisions into opponents. This to me is an exceedingly flimsy argument amongst a flaccid bunch of rationales. Agin, absolutely no proof.

An the aesthetics, well I just think it's patent crap. St Kilda is amongst the lowest with interchanges and play a very defensive, often boring, game. Pies brand's exciting as is Doggies.

In terms of match ups, well you can break a tag by moving to another position on the ground. Should that be outlawed? "Ahh, Dids, you have to stay in the centre with Clint Jones, cause that's the match-up." Tags will be broken on the interchange or positional changes. Football has moved on some time ago, just deal with it.

If players come off the interchange and get a cheap kick on the wing, that option is available to both teams, but it's no easy feat to orchestrate. Someone will have to be near the bench to come off before someone comes on. If a player sees his opponent coming off, maybe he should follow him to the bench in anticipation.

Just give us a moratorium on bloody rule changes.

It fits the golden rule of the AFL and Rules Committee, if it benefits Collingwood, ban it. Aint that right Jimmy Clement?

 

[soho]

then: "lets speed up the game"

now: "lets slow the game down"

clearly no einsteins on the afl rules committee...

 

[shawthing09]

I think the more this gets discussed the more it seems clear that one of the main reasons for it is the "look of the game" the problem is the look of the game is going to be far worse with fatigued players. Defensive game plans have evolved and capping the interchange is not going to stop that, by making players fatigued it just means the defensive side of the game is improving and the offensive side will be held back by tired players not being able to take the game on or execute their skills as well. Then when the fans are no longer carrying on about "why don't we see contests anymore" and instead are carrying on "why don't we see guys take the game on and take a run" Or "Why is the kicking getting worse" etc etc etc the geniuses at the rules commitee will have to react again.

 

[smiddaz123]

I wasn't saying I agreed with the rule change. I agree that there doesn't seem to be a link between rotations and injuries.

I'm just saying there would've been some reasoning behind it happening, and that may be it.

 

[mattys123]

No surprise to see Malthouse say he doesn't agree with any interchange cap, but he also sounds like he knows it is inevitable, and is planning for next season already.

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/newsfeatures/news/newsarticle/tabid/5586/newsid/99164/default.aspx

“It’s a waste of time [talking about it] ... because none of our recommendations or considerations or data has been considered,” he said.

“If that is denied then we would still be in debate over it, but we are clearly going to be told from a long way back what to expect from next year so the only thing you can do is prepare for next year’s change.”

http://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/newsfeatures/news/newsarticle/tabid/5586/newsid/99164/default.aspx

Ratten also commented that restricting the interchanges a team can make may shorten the careers of some of our great mids, and I agree with him.

“If we’re asking them to do extra work out there and they can’t recover from that week in, week out - what’s the longevity of a Chris Judd, a Gary Ablett, the Alan Didaks of the world and those types in the game?” Ratten asked.

“We want these players to play into their thirties. It’s very critical to make sure that we keep the best players out on the park because we’re going to an 18-team competition too so the talent pool is getting less.

 

[Old Spice]

The AFL's assertions have been challenged by sports scientists http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/clubs-question-interchange-injury-theory-20100728-10uks.html who are asking for proof of the causal link between soft-tissue injury and high interchanges.

While the AFL can't provide any proof in this regard, the experience of the Doggies and Pies is that high rotations have coincided with a drop off in injuries.

We don't need to prove that low rotations are more injurious to players, just refute the AFL's particular claim pertaining to high rotations and high rates of soft-tissue injury. You don't need to go any further than the surface here because the correlation is broken already at that level.

What we have is the AFL admitting they have not undertaken any thoroughgoing analysis, but deciding anyway to push this barrow. That is just shoddy, in fact, irresponsible thinking.

I don't see the value of talking to coaches like Woosha and Bomber about it as clearly they are approaching the issue from the vantage point of their team lists. Of course we are too, but if the status quo remains, then clubs can decide themselves whether to adopt a high or low rotation strategy - i.e. it doesn't adversly effect them if they feel it's working for them, and we can do it our way. But it would be a decided advantage for Bomber if rules were changed that were proving valuable to teams like Collingwood and Footscray.

And it would seem that Geelong is not playing follow the leader, or suffering in their form for not adopting high-rotations. Each club to their own has to be the motto.

 

[the_fresh]

I posted on their talk back page because this really pisses me off.
The AFL spent many years, I think 8 of the last 10 to bring in rules to speed the game up. But now they can't keep up so they want to slow it down again and saying that the speed is causing soft tissue injuries.
Lets look at the facts,
Collingwood lead the way over the last 3 years with rotations. Yet they have also had the least number of soft tissue injuries in those 3 years.
Why is that? Its because the players at Collingwood have been taught that when you are tired you risk doing a soft tissue injury. There for the players bring theirselves off before they hit their limit.
Just picture it now, Dane Swan running on his limit because the rule has been changed, does a soft tissue injury, misses the finals. The club & Dane would be well within their rights to sue the AFL for making a playing ground an unfit work place because the players had to go past their limits.

 

[Marklar_33]

What I do believe is that slipping players on the field when the other team hasn't noticed, to win an easy uncontested possession and sometimes end up with a goal makes our game look like a complete wank.

This is ill-discipline from the opposition. If one guy comes off, another is going to come on to replace him...so you gotta go match up that new player...doesnt just appear from nowhere

 

[mckenna6575]

Interchanges should only be allowed in the 2 minute break after a goal is scored, or when there is stop in the game for serious injury.

Why not just any stoppage? Not a bad suggestion otherwise

 

[soho]

so are teams taking a player off, not putting anyone back on until there is an opportunity for the player to head out onto the wing to receive the ball from the backline?

how is this gaining an advantage? they are playing a man down until the player comes on...?

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Definite tactic, I first noticed it by the pies, who are extremely good at it.

A defender/midfielder comes off as the opposition is having a shot at goal. If it's a goal, 18th man comes back on. If it's a miss, team with ball play with 17, go short to far side (which draws men upfield away from interchange), then switch back to the near side, where a long 50m kick finds a team-mate in acres of space.

How to counter? Does a forward run off after his opponent? Or take up his place in the 'zone'.

As teams get better at this set play, and extract more value from it in terms of score, opposition will have to consider whether it's worth the risk to give up easy shots if their 'zone' is broken from a kickout.

 

[kevind]

Why not just any stoppage? Not a bad suggestion otherwise

Why not any stoppage? Because all the other potential stoppages are too brief. After a goal, there is a 2 minute break, so plenty of time for interchange players to come on, take up their position and be accounted for by the opposition.

Football has improved over the last 20 years in almost every facet of the game except for kicking for goal, contested marking and one on one contests. And it is probably the latter of those 3 areas that the AFL want to encourage the most. The problem being that many sides play with so many players stationed on their own in defence.

The original spirit of the game IMO, was that sides would line up in the traditional B,HB,C,HF,F ect manner, not with players stacked in defence. Unfortunately, coaches being desperate to win have uglified the game in many ways.

I like the idea of not only limiting interchanges to the major stoppages eg after a goal, but also require that for every centre bounce, players are required to start in a particular position. We start with 4 players in the centre square now, so with 3 umpires, the other 2 umps could ensure that, for example, 6 players from each side line up within the 50 metre arc on each forward line. It would encorage far more one on one contests.

I can't believe posters who want no changes to the rules. The centre square was introduced because Hawthorn had uglified the game to such an extent that it was almost unwatchable. Similarly, the out of bounds on the full rule improved the game to a great extent. And once upon a time in the not too distant past, there were no interchanges allowed. You had only 19th and 20th men, who once playing could not be replaced during the game. IF you can introduce a new rule to improve the game, only a fool would argue against it.

 

[Old Spice]

Definite tactic, I first noticed it by the pies, who are extremely good at it.

A defender/midfielder comes off as the opposition is having a shot at goal. If it's a goal, 18th man comes back on. If it's a miss, team with ball play with 17, go short to far side (which draws men upfield away from interchange), then switch back to the near side, where a long 50m kick finds a team-mate in acres of space.

How to counter? Does a forward run off after his opponent? Or take up his place in the 'zone'.

As teams get better at this set play, and extract more value from it in terms of score, opposition will have to consider whether it's worth the risk to give up easy shots if their 'zone' is broken from a kickout.

So your suggesting that in a kick-in, the Pies have 17 men on the field, waiting for the ball to come to the bench side of the ground?

Excuse me if I call bullshit on this one.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Absolutely. On a Pies kick-in.

Pies go left from the kick-in (opposite side to interchange actually), either short to the pocket, or about 40m out. All players upfield move accross to that side of the field.

Then the switch kick is often to the person that first kicked in (they are usually one of the better long kicks in the side anyway), who can get anywhere from 15-30m virtually unmarked, before kicking long to that boundary.

Sometimes there's an open player up the same side, so the player who receives might continue around the wing (you're "standard" gameplan of chip-chip-chip around the boundary. If there isn't an immediately obvious option, then the switch comes in.

I would say you use it more often than not (maybe 60%) of the time. Occassionally there will be two coming on, and on one occassion (raised on OTC after you played us) you had THREE unmarked players who'd come onto the field.

The other 40% (when you go down the wing), those loose players are still there, but they might push further forward to become "fat side" options. The problem is once they push forward, teams will pick them up, so they really only have a 15 second or so window to be useful.

Best/worst one I've seen was in a game between us and Richmond I think it was, we had an unmarked player on the wing, kicked long to him from defence - and in between the actual kick and the ball arriving, FOUR richmond players ran onto the field to intercept.

I've been frustrated that Hawthorn:
a) Don't use it (at all/well)
b) Are easily exposed by it (pushing defenders up into midfield leaves no-one to cover).

Since we've gone man-on-man, it's been much less of an issue for us. So perhaps it should be encouraged and applauded - other teams will copy, and zone football will not be as successsful.