Interchange Rule

[Swans120]

What do you guys reckon?

Do you want the rule changed? If so, to which option?

I don't want a change, FWIW.

Oh and also, WTF are they on about regarding a goal counting if it hits the post and goes through? Why don't they just change the entire game and landscape? **** tradition.

 

[TRAWP]

Leave it the F' alone.
Your team doesnt have enough depth in its emergency's and interchange then it's not the rest of the leagues issue.

 

[BarneyBent]

I went for leaving it alone. It's not that I'm actually opposed to the change, but I just don't trust the AFL to do it.

 

[RUNVS]

I just wish the AFL would stop making rule changes as 95% of the time all they are doing is making things worse. Adding a interchange cap will only make things more confusing as the AFL try and count the number of interchages per match.

I love the sport but i hate the organisation in charge.

 

[MickyG]

I support the substitute idea. In the Freo game (I think) we lost 2 players early and the game was over. I remember a post from a Freo supporter saying that had happened to them the week before.

I support leaving the interchange alone unless they have clear evidence that the current situation is a significant risk for increasing injuries.

I think they've already made up their minds and are paying lip service by calling for thoughts. In the last few years the rule changes targeted the Sydney and West Coast stoppage style. Are they now targeting the Collingwood high rotations? (NB I hate Collingwood)

 

[BarneyBent]

Just with regard to substitutes, I'd like it if emergencies could be brought in mid-game, if needed. We're all talking about putting substitutes on the bench and all that, well, screw that. They could knock it back to two emergencies, but those emergencies are "active" not just in the days/hours preceding the game, but also the game itself?

 

[TRAWP]

Think about this chain reaction though, Team A puts two elite players in half way through game as a plan to smash other teams strats.... Team B then does the same, it will turn into one big joke.

 

[BarneyBent]

Think about this chain reaction though, Team A puts two elite players in half way through game as a plan to smash other teams strats.... Team B then does the same, it will turn into one big joke.

Why on earth would you only play two elite players for half a game?

 

[TRAWP]

Why on earth would you only play two elite players for half a game?

I mean like Bradshaw and Seaby pretend the rumor was that they'll be back in two weeks but then Roos throws them in for half of the match without anyone realising they were playing.

 

[mark121]

Wouldnt be against the introduction of a substitute to the game and possibly limiting the interchange numbers if it is necessary to slow the game down but not at the cost of the a spot on the bench.

Balls that deflect through the goal counting is just a rule change but im not in favor of this.

If they limit the number of interchanges then injured players may need to stay on the ground and cause a serious injury as a result. If interchanges are limited then they should be limited on a whole game basis not quarter by quarter but further injury is still a concern late in the game. An injured player often returns to the field under the current rules to test themselves only to find that an injury is to severe and need to go off the field again or only play for shorter bursts, this would count as further interchanges and hurt the team even with the sub teams can have three or four injured players in any game.

 

[BarneyBent]

I mean like Bradshaw and Seaby pretend the rumor was that they'll be back in two weeks but then Roos throws them in for half of the match without anyone realising they were playing.

That makes no sense. If they're named as substitutes, they're ready to play, and everybody will know that. And if they're ready to play, they'll play the entire match anyway.

 

[TRAWP]

But you spoke of emergencies, this is what I meant.

 

[BarneyBent]

But you spoke of emergencies, this is what I meant.

What? Why on earth would you name Bradshaw as an emergency/substitute? If he's fit to play, he's going to play the entire match.

 

[TRAWP]

What? Why on earth would you name Bradshaw as an emergency/substitute? If he's fit to play, he's going to play the entire match.

/facepalm.

Bradshaw is CURRENTLY not fit to play, but they say two weeks...
What if that was a bluff and under that ruling they could play an Emergency. Meaning in a shock they put Bradshaw in to play against Freo this weekend...

Understand?

 

[barry fu]

^^^^^^ Is this an Apu moment Agent S120.

 

[Dangas]

leave it alone imo

 

[CAS79]

Im on my own here but Im all for capping rotations.

The whole reason we have 4 interchange spots is because coaches have constantly whined about not having sufficient injury protection if a couple of players get hurt. They get what they want and they don't use it to protect the injury situation but change the game to the point of so many rotations that an injured player hurts the side more than it ever did before.

I like seeing the champions like Robert Harvey who would run all day and of course Paul Kelly, the special players who can play through the fatigue and hit the packs as hard in the last as they did in the first, because there hard players and super hard workers. Not because they've spent 10 minutes on the bench like an ice hockey player and come on to do one thing and have another break.

 

[TheGoatBaron]

I don't mind the cap interchange rule idea, the rule that really irked me, I read in the Herald-Sun was, when the ball hits the post and continues to go through the goals, it'll be awarded as a goal and if the ball goes through the behind area, it'll be awarded as a behind. That rule was the main one that really irked me, when I read that. At least the Interchange cap rule has merit, that rule does not.

But, if they bring in too many stupid rules like this, I'll seriously switch over to Metal Music full time and give up sport altogether, I'm fed up with the rule changes, even though, I think the Interchange Cap Rule is a good idea and has merit.

 

[BIGBEZ]

My Dad used to speak of the days when he would have to lean over the boundary line to receive stitches because if you came of you stayed off.
Gone are the days of one on one battles as Cas says, nothing better than watching two champions going head to head all day, running and working each other over for the entire game like prize fight to the end.
As for the actual rotations, I would prefer to save my energy for contests, sprinting off like they do to rotate would have stuffed me more, also you get into a zone when you play, rotating would have been just a distraction to me but modern sports science says it works to cater for the needs of the current game.
Saying that no change, but I gotta admit it looks ridiculous these days its getting out of hand.

 

[BarneyBent]

Just thought of something: a capped interchange might be the making of Ed Barlow!

 

[TheMase]

My Dad used to speak of the days when he would have to lean over the boundary line to receive stitches because if you came of you stayed off.

Thankfully someone brought this up.

This isn't a traditional thing really.

The AFL could consider limiting the interchanges to say 100-120. Also adding one/two substitutes that can be put in/out of the game once. (as someone on this thread mentioned).

I would accept that.

 

[TRAWP]

^^^^^^ Is this an Apu moment Agent S120.

lol doesnt anyone understand what I mean?

 

[TRAWP]

I don't mind the cap interchange rule idea, the rule that really irked me, I read in the Herald-Sun was, when the ball hits the post and continues to go through the goals, it'll be awarded as a goal and if the ball goes through the behind area, it'll be awarded as a behind. That rule was the main one that really irked me, when I read that. At least the Interchange cap rule has merit, that rule does not.

But, if they bring in too many stupid rules like this, I'll seriously switch over to Metal Music full time and give up sport altogether, I'm fed up with the rule changes, even though, I think the Interchange Cap Rule is a good idea and has merit.

Fully F'N agreed, its that bloody Demetriou. Ever since he became CEO one stupid rule change after another! This goal post rule gets changed I will seriously consider starting to watch the NRL! Oh and of course go listen to some Disturbed, In Flames, Nightwish and Pantera with Lone Wolf

 

[TheGoatBaron]

Fully F'N agreed, its that bloody Demetriou. Ever since he became CEO one stupid rule change after another! This goal post rule gets changed I will seriously consider starting to watch the NRL! Oh and of course go listen to some Disturbed, In Flames, Nightwish and Pantera with Lone Wolf

I don't listen to Disturbed dude. Too mainstream and Metalcoreish.

More like Dark Fortress, Draconian, Immortal, Behemoth, Dark Tranquillity, although, Pantera are quite good. You know, the type of music that'll scare the everyday average person.

I would like to know, what's Demetriou's fascination with these rule changes for?

 

[TRAWP]

I don't listen to Disturbed dude. Too mainstream and Metalcoreish.

More like Dark Fortress, Draconian, Immortal, Behemoth, Dark Tranquillity, although, Pantera are quite good. You know, the type of music that'll scare the everyday average person.

I would like to know, what's Demetriou's fascination with these rule changes for?

1: Demetriou is Italian.
2: Demetriou is a former Kangaroos supporter.
3: Demetriou wants to either make the game like soccer, or kill it forever.