Remove this Banner Ad

interchange rule

  • Thread starter Thread starter tugga
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

tugga

tugga

Hall of Famer
Veteran 10k Posts 30k Posts The Fred Medal Podcaster Ex-Moderator Richmond Tigers - 2014 Player Sponsor Richmond Tigers - 2013 Player Sponsor
Joined
May 9, 2006
Posts
36,890
Reaction score
75,463
Location
Yid army
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Tottenham,NY Rangers,Red Sox, SA Spurs
hmmm, what isnt clear is that, does the team get named with the nominated substitute?
Or do we hold up a blue flag or something to tell the umps that we are now making a substitution from one of the 4 on the bench.

i.e. can all 4 be interchanged during the game and then 1 is substituted at a given time? ;)
 
The way I see it is that there will be 4 players on the bench, but one of them will not be allowed on unless he is substitued. I don't think the player who comes off has to be named on the bench. It can be anyone.
So basically, all teams will play with a bench of 3 players next year.
 
It will be interesting how Coaches will use the rule. i.e save a player for the final quarter to have maximum impact.


I wonder if we'll have those substitute signs like in the soccer as well?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

tugga said:
The way I see it is that there will be 4 players on the bench, but one of them will not be allowed on unless he is substitued. I don't think the player who comes off has to be named on the bench. It can be anyone.
So basically, all teams will play with a bench of 3 players next year.
Click to expand...

So the brains trust needs to get all the angles right now. i.e. input all the possibilities into a computer and see how to fully exploit any loop holes. We need to be ahead of the pack in that regard. ;)
 
Don't like this rule at all.. Why does the AFL have to continually change the game? The way I see it, the game goes through cycles.. Eg. Sydney contested footy, followed by Geelong play on at all costs, Saints frontal pressure, Collingwood's around the boundary style. The game continually changes and corrects itself. Dimwittio needs to stop f****** with the game!
 
telsor said:
Short term, I think this will hurt us...

Our team is young and lacks the stamina of (most) other teams.
Click to expand...

beg to differ dude. Not saying it wont hurt us, but at the point where we are at, i.e. developing building the list, getting miles into the kids legs etc, its neither here or there. Tipping it might do some damage to the top shelf teams more than us. Why? Their whole game plan is based on having x rotations to maintain max power. So all of a sudden after getting that system right, now their whole plan needs to take into account less rotations, which could see them struggle to run out games. ;)
 
Azzleberry said:
Don't like this rule at all.. Why does the AFL have to continually change the game? The way I see it, the game goes through cycles.. Eg. Sydney contested footy, followed by Geelong play on at all costs, Saints frontal pressure, Collingwood's around the boundary style. The game continually changes and corrects itself. Dimwittio needs to stop f****** with the game!
Click to expand...

i agree lets just do away with all the rule changes that have occured over the last 20 odd yrs and get back to real footy.
they have really ****ed the game.
 
:)INTERESTING to see how it pans out.
I can see a few players becoming disgruntled.
Players around that 18-25th best mark - I'll offer names such as Matthew White, Ben Nason, Troy Taylor, Jake King, Jeromy Webberley and the like - could theoretically become the susbstitute for week's on end, which could mean up to three quarters each week on the pine!!
 
santa claws said:
i agree lets just do away with all the rule changes that have occured over the last 20 odd yrs and get back to real footy.
they have really ****ed the game.
Click to expand...

maybe they have, but at the end of the day, all the AFL cares about is what the next research report suggests should be looked into. Apart from that, the numbers in the stands and watching box is all that matters. What you or I or anyone else think, they care about the majority and the majority still goes through the gates and tunes in on the box. The end.
 
very interesting ... could this be the start of the end for the second legitimate ruckman? Sides could carry them in with 4 on the bench, but not so sure about 3 now. Maybe the Leigh brown/Tom Hawkins trend will be the way of the future.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

CoggaRules said:
beg to differ dude. Not saying it wont hurt us, but at the point where we are at, i.e. developing building the list, getting miles into the kids legs etc, its neither here or there. Tipping it might do some damage to the top shelf teams more than us. Why? Their whole game plan is based on having x rotations to maintain max power. So all of a sudden after getting that system right, now their whole plan needs to take into account less rotations, which could see them struggle to run out games. ;)
Click to expand...

All true, and I do think we'll adapt better in the medium/long term, but most of our players are a preseason or two short of having the tank to be able to adapt yet.
 
The_Gospel_of_Richo said:
very interesting ... could this be the start of the end for the second legitimate ruckman? Sides could carry them in with 4 on the bench, but not so sure about 3 now. Maybe the Leigh brown/Tom Hawkins trend will be the way of the future.
Click to expand...
This is the way I see it too. One legit ruckman in the team, say Gus, and then a floter in the form of a Post or Vickery. I think it suits us considering our ruck stocks are horrid.
 
telsor said:
Short term, I think this will hurt us...

Our team is young and lacks the stamina of (most) other teams.
Click to expand...

I think we'll be okay. We may lack a little stamina (though we've run games out OK), but what we do have is an absolutely horrid bottom 4 or 5 players. This prunes out the 22nd man (who is most likely a hack) and therefore leaves us with a higher overall level of quality.
 
Spluff said:
I think we'll be okay. We may lack a little stamina (though we've run games out OK), but what we do have is an absolutely horrid bottom 4 or 5 players. This prunes out the 22nd man (who is most likely a hack) and therefore leaves us with a higher overall level of quality.
Click to expand...

Yeah.... I tend to agree. A little bit of raw mathematics... If we agree that most quarters go for 30 mins and each game around 120 mins and at all times there are 18 players on the ground per team then:

2160 mins per match per team

2160/22 players (98.2 mins) per player

2160/21 players (102.9 mins) per player or about a 5% increase.

2160/21.25 players (assuming sub at 3qtr) is 101.6 mins per player

Now we all know that it doesn't quite work like that because certain players spend less time off the ground than others (younger legs, players returning from injury, different positions etc) but it doesn't appear to be a huge increase in workload.

I do think that the 2nd pure ruckman could be in trouble. It seems to be moving towards a pinch hit ruckman this year anyway (DH certainly favoured this in later rounds) and this rule change may hasten this trend. Regardless I am not too worried about it as all clubs have strength and conditioning coaches who will crunch the probable and available data (from games where this happened in 2010) and work out the best programs.

Furthermore, it won't effect us greatly in terms of a premiership as we are not a contender right now anyway!!!
 
I understand that the club was preparing for a 2 and 2 bench. 3 and 1 is a better outcome. I also understand from a club source that I utterly respect, that the second ruckman will be dead as a result, as previous posters have astutely concluded. Further reinforces the direction of Ty Vickery as a pure forward.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

sante said:
This is a stupid rule.
Click to expand...

:)AGREE, Sante ... ridiculous rule!

Here's a better idea, why can't they just leave the rules f****** alone for once?

Like why do they feel compelled to change two or three rules every year?

I think everyone agrees we have a pretty good product on our hands, so why do we have to continually tamper with rules every year??????

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

The only people who seem to have an issue with the interchange rotations are Demtriou and Anderson ... not the coaches, clubs or players!!
 
Yeah i don't like it...only redeeming thing about it is the other options they were considering were even worse :thumbsd:

Gonna play hell with Dream Team too!
 
Quite frankly I am sick and tired of seeing the merry go round interchange. I think it's a good rule change. At least at may stop that congo line of plyers running on and off the ground. I hope.
 
This is ****ing bullshit. Why does the AFL keep introducing/changing new rules when theres nothing wrong with them in the first place? They say it will help decrease the amount of injuries, when in actual fact it doesnt - just look at Collingwood. They won the premiership with one of the shortest injury lists in the AFL..
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

beema limapep
    • Love
    • Like
    • Haha
Herald-Sun Article on the AFL introducing the stand rule to stop Richmond (posted here)
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
PetterdHoisted
P

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom