Interchange - Only @ stops in play

[yebiga]

So what happens when someone is injured?

What happened for a 100 years they go off and stay off

 

[SJ]

What happened for a 100 years they go off and stay off

Agreed - but the previous poster said interchange only at a stop in play.

 

[The Blue Baggers]

So what happens when someone is injured?

good question ... they can be subbed with the same stretcher rule applying

 

[The Hobo]

Hate it when a team makes an interchange and someone comes off the bench and is suddenly free and open on the wing at the exact right time as the ball is in the right area, leaving a free runner open on the wing.

Or a team kicks to a free player, only for someone to come off the bench and intercept. Happens every now and then and absolutely should not be allowed.

Interchanges should only be allowed at a stoppage. We have plenty of stoppages, so shouldn't really make a huge impact but will stop substitutes sneaking on at opportune times.

 

[The Blue Baggers]

Hate it when a team makes an interchange and someone comes off the bench and is suddenly free and open on the wing at the exact right time as the ball is in the right area, leaving a free runner open on the wing.

Or a team kicks to a free player, only for someone to come off the bench and intercept. Happens every now and then and absolutely should not be allowed.

Interchanges should only be allowed at a stoppage. We have plenty of stoppages, so shouldn't really make a huge impact but will stop substitutes sneaking on at opportune times.

spot on & by default this rule would make rotation and sub rules redundant

 

[AFLCMG]

I would consider a back to the future move - no interchange whatsoever
2-4 reserves to cover injuries, fatigue etc

Many of the worst aspects of our game correlate directly with the introduction of interchange: the flood, huge packs repeated stoppages, hard tags with a relay of players coming fresh off the bench , zones with no positional one on one play.

The removal of the interchange offers numerous obvious and worthy improvements, the only down side is the perceived reduction in running speed (which would be imperciptable and is patently unfair)

- reduces the danger of serious injuries because collisions would occur at a slower speed
- increases positional play as players would be incapable of continuously covering both ends of the ground
- more space for the most talented to execute kicking and evasive skills
- reduction in current pack and spread method
- tips the scale towards football talent and away from pure athletes
- reinforces that any type of body size or shape can play the game at the highest level
- tips the scale towards endurance players and away from the current burst players
- encourages one on one contests
- increase in goal scoring because negative and defensive tactics would be less effective
- provdes our umpires a fraction more time to make better decisions
- reduces effectiveness of hard tags as fatigue increases
- reduces effectiveness of teams heavily reliant on team defense and complex negative coaching strategies
- passes Parkins test to increase unpredictability and enjoyment of the game
- extends longevity of older star players because of reduction in high impact
- tips the scale towards key forwards because of greater space and less effective defensive zones
- welcome back lockett and Dunstall types
- welcome back wingers like Robbie Flower, Doug Hawkins, Keith Greig
- tips the spectacle to great players and away from great coaching set-ups
- rewards the fittest and hardest workers
- in game coaching and tutoring becomes more difficult - advantages the smarter and more instinctive player
- less tackles, less stoppages
- less secondary and tertiary stoppages
- much more high kicks to one on one contests as players fatigue and resort to bail out kicks
- star players stay on the ground all the time, resting up forward not on the bench
...
There are many many more advantages
The one thing we lose is the current entirely unfair burst thru a pack by a fresh player being chased forlornly by exhausted players. Speed is relative and if everyone slows down the actual slower running speed is imperciptable to the naked eye but crucial in mitigating serious injuries.

The question we need to ask ourselves is why did we introduce the interchange in the first place?
It was not there for a 100 years. It was something Kevin Sheedy and other coaches wanted and if your a coach I can understand why you would want it. As custodians of the game our principle focus must not be to enable coaches to manipulate results - our responsibility is to make the game more enjoyable to watch and to play. To encourage skill and enable all body types to play this once great game.

If you want a coaches game their is grid iron - it is all about coaches
And we have and are copying grid iron with all of these line coaches
The removal of the interchange will not be the end of line coaches but it will make their job significantly more difficult. It will make all these defensive set-ups much less effective and empower the more skilful players.

Their is no logical purpose for interchange
Substitutes/ reserves meet the requirement to cover injuries and in the event of few or no injuries enable the coaches to make some tactical adjustments. Surely that is sufficient.

GIVE US BACK OUR GAME - at the minute it is dying
There were always dull games and great games as there is today.
But there were not always so many games which are entirely unwatchable -if not for the closeness of the scores or the significance of the result - too many games are unwatchable repeated stoppages, repeated tackle after tackle and goals are scored because of errors not because of great skill.

A pox on the AFL

 

[AFLCMG]

I would consider a back to the future move - no interchange whatsoever
2-4 reserves to cover injuries, fatigue etc

Many of the worst aspects of our game correlate directly with the introduction of interchange: the flood, huge packs repeated stoppages, hard tags with a relay of players coming fresh off the bench , zones with no positional one on one play.

The removal of the interchange offers numerous obvious and worthy improvements, the only down side is the perceived reduction in running speed (which would be imperciptable and is patently unfair)

- reduces the danger of serious injuries because collisions would occur at a slower speed
- increases positional play as players would be incapable of continuously covering both ends of the ground
- more space for the most talented to execute kicking and evasive skills
- reduction in current pack and spread method
- tips the scale towards football talent and away from pure athletes
- reinforces that any type of body size or shape can play the game at the highest level
- tips the scale towards endurance players and away from the current burst players
- encourages one on one contests
- increase in goal scoring because negative and defensive tactics would be less effective
- provdes our umpires a fraction more time to make better decisions
- reduces effectiveness of hard tags as fatigue increases
- reduces effectiveness of teams heavily reliant on team defense and complex negative coaching strategies
- passes Parkins test to increase unpredictability and enjoyment of the game
- extends longevity of older star players because of reduction in high impact
- tips the scale towards key forwards because of greater space and less effective defensive zones
- welcome back lockett and Dunstall types
- welcome back wingers like Robbie Flower, Doug Hawkins, Keith Greig
- tips the spectacle to great players and away from great coaching set-ups
- rewards the fittest and hardest workers
- in game coaching and tutoring becomes more difficult - advantages the smarter and more instinctive player
- less tackles, less stoppages
- less secondary and tertiary stoppages
- much more high kicks to one on one contests as players fatigue and resort to bail out kicks
- star players stay on the ground all the time, resting up forward not on the bench
...
There are many many more advantages
The one thing we lose is the current entirely unfair burst thru a pack by a fresh player being chased forlornly by exhausted players. Speed is relative and if everyone slows down the actual slower running speed is imperciptable to the naked eye but crucial in mitigating serious injuries.

The question we need to ask ourselves is why did we introduce the interchange in the first place?
It was not there for a 100 years. It was something Kevin Sheedy and other coaches wanted and if your a coach I can understand why you would want it. As custodians of the game our principle focus must not be to enable coaches to manipulate results - our responsibility is to make the game more enjoyable to watch and to play. To encourage skill and enable all body types to play this once great game.

If you want a coaches game their is grid iron - it is all about coaches
And we have and are copying grid iron with all of these line coaches
The removal of the interchange will not be the end of line coaches but it will make their job significantly more difficult. It will make all these defensive set-ups much less effective and empower the more skilful players.

Their is no logical purpose for interchange
Substitutes/ reserves meet the requirement to cover injuries and in the event of few or no injuries enable the coaches to make some tactical adjustments. Surely that is sufficient.

GIVE US BACK OUR GAME - at the minute it is dying
There were always dull games and great games as there is today.
But there were not always so many games which are entirely unwatchable -if not for the closeness of the scores or the significance of the result - too many games are unwatchable repeated stoppages, repeated tackle after tackle and goals are scored because of errors not because of great skill.

A pox on the AFL

Great summary agree totally this article here is a crack up and sums up another ill of our great game the PRESS! Arghhhhh
http://www.fansunite.com.au/2014/06/17/4622/the-ps-if-killing-afl

 

[Sydney Bloods]

First question ; can anyone name another sport with interchange when the i/c can be effected @ any time ??? In basketball where the idea came from i/c can only occur during a stop.

suggest the same rule apply in afl (ie start of 1/4's, after goals).... removes the need for any other i/c rules.

why? concerned abt players coming off the bench when players on the ground are not expecting ... one day there will be a serious injury !!!

Union, League, ice hockey come to mind.

as for your suggestion no, it would increase delays between stoppages and encourage more stoppages so teams can get a breather.

This is the problem with all these knee jerk solutions, your combating something coaches WANT coaches are not going to say, gee's well that ****ed our gameplan, guess we will try something else.

Coaches instead will go right this affects our gameplan how do COMBAT IT! no one's walking away from strong contested midfield battles all we will see is a slough of deliberate stoppages which then see's mass interchanges taking place.

Next the pace will not stop the game will not go back to better players, it will go further towards endurance athlete's and rioded up freaks that can just about knock someone out in one tackle (and force a stoppage)

WHY? because all your doing is further pushing things away from footballers

It's literally how the game has evolved,

first it was skill's and skill's only, then defence started getting tighter to make it harder for the skilled players, so they went for faster players to negate the tight defence,

think of it like a trinity Defence beats skill's Speed beats Defence.

adding endurance to the mix and what do you get?
A strong defence still negates a highly skilled team
Speed still can overrun a strong defence.
Endurance can take advantage when everyone else is tired.

now the best teams will do what they do now they find the best mix of everything but you go down the list and what is the first to dry up?

let's look at melbourne pretty much the same team what stopped the smashings? answer is DEFENCE defence is the building block of any team, without it you can not compete. everyone has to have defence.

and to beat defence we need? speed! to beat speed we need endurance. you push things further toward endurance it doesn't stop defensive players doesn't reduce speed players it's the moderate skills that drop in favour of low skilled athletes.

 

[Purple Suit]

good question ... they can be subbed with the same stretcher rule applying

So you then have players faking injuries and getting stretchered off so they can have fresh legs come onto the ground. This is the problem with all rule changes, especially knee jerk ones. New things start happening which is worst than the initial problem. Look at the interchange line debacle of a few years ago or score review system now.

 

[The Blue Baggers]

So you then have players faking injuries and getting stretchered off so they can have fresh legs come onto the ground. This is the problem with all rule changes, especially knee jerk ones. New things start happening which is worst than the initial problem. Look at the interchange line debacle of a few years ago or score review system now.

not if they are permanently off for 15-20 mins ... should stop faking

 

[DanWA]

I like this, will reduce the "cheap goal" tactic utlilised by some teams for carefully inserted interchanges

 

[JuddsABlue]

Any drastic long term reduction in interchanges will result in teams drafting less skillful footballers and more endurance runners because a quick team will always beat a more skilled but slower team

Coaches have learnt this over the last decade, they'll reach very deep in to other sports to find gifted runners and turn them in to footballers. The game could become more about carrying the ball than kicking it.

We need to be very careful on trying to tire the players, coaches wont just accept it, we'll see less skilled traditional footballers in the draft and more pure athletes

 

[bkozican]

The real pox on the AFL is the belief that continual rule changes attempting to "fix" the game will actually fix the game. All the rule changes aimed at speeding the game up, slowing it down, reducing congestion etc. have only increased what they've tried to remedy.

The game evolves. Leave it be, and it will sort itself out

Exactly, OP's idea is the reason why we are having these problems. We bring in the interchange cap, That isnt working so lets keep the interchange cap and then try to fix the issue that stemmed from bringing in new rules.....that should work

 

[Daveismad]

On a wet cold day at scg you could 20 minutes with no score

Silly idea

Maybe just an idea .....we should have simple rule all players can only come off 3 times in a game

Each player is listed to how many times he can come off

That's 66 subs plus qtr time changes

Then again some players might struggle to count to 3 lol ......

Look I firmly believe we need to lower the subs number to around 60

The best footy in the last 30 years was played from about 96-97 to about 2006

We would have seen about that many subs back in that time or less ...not sure ..if someone can be bothered finding it go for it ...

120 is way too many per game I think it leads to mauls, we need players fatigued ...which means mids resting in fwd pockets or a mid going to defames .....

I think it would give lesser teams a chance also ....fatigue lowers skill level a smidgen so if a team is super fit yet isn't as skilled with less subs it might actually be able to compete better ....which equals closer games

60 subs is about right

Now someone said before we would see more athletes being drafted over skill players if we reduce the subs...

Umm hello we have already been seeing that for ages ...Greg Williams wouldn't get drafted now nor would Tony locket ....skilled players will always get picked up .....20 brilliant possessions is always better than 35 meaningless ones which we see a lot now

 

[The Blue Baggers]

On a wet cold day at scg you could 20 minutes with no score

Silly idea

Maybe just an idea .....we should have simple rule all players can only come off 3 times in a game

Each player is listed to how many times he can come off

That's 66 subs plus qtr time changes

Then again some players might struggle to count to 3 lol ......

Look I firmly believe we need to lower the subs number to around 60

The best footy in the last 30 years was played from about 96-97 to about 2006

We would have seen about that many subs back in that time or less ...not sure ..if someone can be bothered finding it go for it ...

120 is way too many per game I think it leads to mauls, we need players fatigued ...which means mids resting in fwd pockets or a mid going to defames .....

I think it would give lesser teams a chance also ....fatigue lowers skill level a smidgen so if a team is super fit yet isn't as skilled with less subs it might actually be able to compete better ....which equals closer games

60 subs is about right

Now someone said before we would see more athletes being drafted over skill players if we reduce the subs...

Umm hello we have already been seeing that for ages ...Greg Williams wouldn't get drafted now nor would Tony locket ....skilled players will always get picked up .....20 brilliant possessions is always better than 35 meaningless ones which we see a lot now

Well done .. Add more sub roles !!!!!

Keep it simple

 

[Daveismad]

Well done .. Add more sub roles !!!!!

Keep it simple

Yeah I agree as I was writing it I corrected myself as you can see

The perfect number I think is 60

The game survived 100 years without hardly any subs ...so 60 is plenty enough

 

[yebiga]

I am against any interchange what so ever
but if it were after goals - it would at least encourage a more attacking game
the spectators would also get to see who is coming on and off

as for faked injuries - the 20 minute rule before you can return is sufficient to discourage simulation.

 

[kickazz]

High interchange started when they introduced the quick kick-in
Why not just go back to the old rule?

That is only a small part of it, but I like the idea of going back to that rule. We could then get rid of this stupid deliberate rushed behind rule. Rushing a behind used to be a genuine tactic to use when you were in trouble. Allowing the quick kick-in had changed it to an attacking manouver, necessatating the deliberate rule.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

That is only a small part of it, but I like the idea of going back to that rule. We could then get rid of this stupid deliberate rushed behind rule. Rushing a behind used to be a genuine tactic to use when you were in trouble. Allowing the quick kick-in had changed it to an attacking manouver, necessatating the deliberate rule.

That's the point
Several new rules are the direct result of the game being "sped up," one of which was the quick kick in