Jolly canes shitty sub rule

[Old Spice]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...d-two-and-two-system-20120223-1tqqd.html#poll

Jolly, one of the game's most respected ruckmen and one who is capable of pinch-hitting as a tall forward, put a forceful case against bringing the NAB Cup trial rule to the regular season next year.

''I hope to God they don't bring it in, because it's going to slow the game down and it's going to cause more injuries because blokes have to have to stay out there for longer,'' he said. ''You'd think soft tissue [injuries would happen], because they've got to stay out there for longer. So I don't want them to change it, and I hope they don't.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-two-system-20120223-1tqqd.html#ixzz1nGORqlst


There's a poll there also to vote on. The old 4 interchange no subs is killing it at the moment.​

 

[jefffff34]

The game isn't European Handball. There has to be some sort of "trench warfare" about it.

It's a matter of time for 2/2, and I am all for it. I do think it is silly during the NAB Cup though.

 

[mattys123]

I'm with you Jols, one sub is stupid, 2 subs is ****ing insane.

Injuries will increase over time, and I for one ask "WHY CAN'T THEY JUST LEAVE OUR GAME ALONE?".

Have a moratorium that states that no rules can be changed for 2 full seasons, and let's see how the game develops.

 

[Zahki]

The game isn't European Handball. There has to be some sort of "trench warfare" about it.

It's a matter of time for 2/2, and I am all for it. I do think it is silly during the NAB Cup though.

Why? Most people think the games in as good a state as it's ever been, why fiddle around with it to try and make it fit some imagined ideal instead of just letting it evolve normally? Personally I hated seeing players like Fasolo getting selected only to sit out 3 quarters of the game on the bench, the sub rule has so many detriments and adds absolutely nothing. The coaches hate it, the players hate it and a large portion of the viewing public hate it, the only people who seem to be hell bent on bringing Australian Rules back into the 80s are the morons running the AFL.

 

[TradeDraft]

I'm with you Jols, one sub is stupid, 2 subs is ****ing insane.

Injuries will increase over time, and I for one ask "WHY CAN'T THEY JUST LEAVE OUR GAME ALONE?".

Have a moratorium that states that no rules can be changed for 2 full seasons, and let's see how the game develops.

Because Idiots run the AFL

 

[MarkT2]

I prefer less rather than more interchange players and/or substitutions. I also don't care if injuries cost teams games now and then. As long as everyone has the same rules then luck will even out. The less interchanges during a game the more quality footballers will shine and the mentally strong will succeed.

 

[Old Spice]

Why? Most people think the games in as good a state as it's ever been, why fiddle around with it to try and make it fit some imagined ideal instead of just letting it evolve normally? Personally I hated seeing players like Fasolo getting selected only to sit out 3 quarters of the game on the bench, the sub rule has so many detriments and adds absolutely nothing. The coaches hate it, the players hate it and a large portion of the viewing public hate it, the only people who seem to be hell bent on bringing Australian Rules back into the 80s are the morons running the AFL.

Right with you there.

Also on the moratorium idea which Bucks raised years ago. You can't change your mind every year like some flake because long-term recruiting decisions and programs are made in advance and these fickle changes just scupper them.

Why have one player hanging around for 3/4 of a game?

And on the injury front soft-tissue should go up and the AFL NEVER proved any causal relation between any significant change in speed and high-impact collisions. Just as likely to occur when a player tires and definitely soft tissue to occur when you deny players rest.

Total bollocks.

 

[Bay Pie]

The stupid rules committee brought in rules a few years ago (quick kick-in from behinds, rather then having to wait for the flags to be waved) now they are trying to slow it down again.

If a rule requires another rule to make it work, the initial rule was a dud.

Have a look at how many of the games best missed games last year, just freshen up.

I can see the change being made nonetheless. They didn't listen in the past, why will they listen now.

It will make Pendles, Sidey & Marty Clarke better players as they all have elite endurance. We'll also have most of our side in their peak years and therefore able to run out games well. Younger teams wont have that luxury.

 

[Zahki]

I think they gave up on the injuries excuse after so many sources questioned their data, and the fact that they refused to release that data to the public (because they knew it would instantly get shot down once the public got hold of whatever fudged figures they were trying to use to mount their case). It's about 'reducing congestion' now, which is ludicrous considering the club which has been associated with ugly unattractive football for the past few years, St Kilda, had nothing to do with how interchange use has evolved.

I also laugh at the 'footballers not athletes' cry. It reminds me of that joke on Futurama, 'We no can dunk but good fundamentals, it more exciting to watch that way'. Yeah no-one enjoys watching athletic feats like speccies and long running goals, I'm sure people would appreciate a highlights reel of Luke Ball sheparding or laying a hard tackle, thats what people go to watch right? Ironically a 2-2 rule will bring athletic considerations even further under the microscope for recruiters because if you can't run a marathon with energy to spare then you won't get on a list, whether you're a good footballer or not.

 

[ipswichpies]

The reason they brought in 3 ic and 1 sub was to stop our rotations it had absolutely had nothing to do with deceasing the likelyhood of injuries,generally speaking the more tired a player is the greater chance of injury.

I agree 100% with Jolly on this the game and players are too fast for 2 and 2,we will certainly get more injuries with less rotations and the AFL should stop their spin and tell the truth because ATMit looks exactly the opposite of what they are saying.

 

[Avatar]

Yeah no-one enjoys watching athletic feats like speccies and long running goals, I'm sure people would appreciate a highlights reel of Luke Ball sheparding or laying a hard tackle, thats what people go to watch right? Ironically a 2-2 rule will bring athletic considerations even further under the microscope for recruiters because if you can't run a marathon with energy to spare then you won't get on a list, whether you're a good footballer or not.

I'll happily watch Bally do that all game.

As long as he throws in the odd game turning/winning goal

I've always been of the view that there are too many changes made and for the wrong reasons often. It is not so much that the rules have a detrimental impact on the game (they certainly can though), but that the AFL turns around and states that the changes are the reason for the game being more popular or a better spectacle, or whatever positivity is around at the time. when in fact the popularity of the game is often maintained in spite of the changes, rather than because of them.

The fact that we have the NAB cup as a testing ground is a good thing, but I feel they need to ease up a bit and let things run a more natural course.

Here's what a former Collingwood ruckman said a few years ago:

"I think the game itself is attractive enough to keep drawing people through the stands and you only have to look through the competition there's some really exciting players at the moment and they're the players people come to see not all these rule changes."

I'll await Witts' quote in a few years time as the normal cycle continues.

 

[speedytiger]

I'm with you Jols, one sub is stupid, 2 subs is ****ing insane.

Injuries will increase over time, and I for one ask "WHY CAN'T THEY JUST LEAVE OUR GAME ALONE?".

Have a moratorium that states that no rules can be changed for 2 full seasons, and let's see how the game develops.

Didn't Bucks suggest this when he was on rules board? I think he wanted 5 years to let trends develop and take their own course instead of panicking at every new stat

 

[Ed D]

The sub rule should never been brought in to start with, why make it even worse? 2-2 is a joke.

 

[ipswichpies]

Just read the thread on the main board about this very issue and there was an excellent post about it by a mod from the Crows board and I found myself in agreement with what he said re speed of the game today as opposed to the past also the size and fitness levels of players today, an interesting post and spot on IMO.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Sink the sub - keep it simple.

If they're worried about teams being unfairly disadvantaged due to injury then just expand the interchange to 4 or 5 or whatever. I think from memory this is what Malthouse was advocating.

A team with 3 on the i/c has a big advantage over a team with 1 on the i/c + 2 injuries.

A team with 5 on the i/c doesn't have such a big advantage over a team with 3 on the i/c + 2 injuries.

As for concerns about soft tissue injuries blah blah blah, I think the AFL should leave that to the AFLPA to worry about and lobby for those kind of things. If the AFLPA are happy, then what's the big deal?

 

[jonbe54]

Fatigued muscles and connective tissue are more prone to injury. Deliberately reducing the amount of interchanges increases on ground time for all. The AFL is a health hazard for its own players - not to mention a total waste of space and oxygen.

Honestly, they are sold on an idea and are willing to pervert the game and increase the injury list to players to keep that idea alive.

Morons. . . .

 

[doppleganger]

The angst over this rule is quite funny actually, its as if people actually think 4 interchanges is the norm!!

Collingwood won 8 premierships up til 1929 when a substitute never even existed, if you got an injury stiff sh1t, you played one man down.

In 1930 one substitute was introduced, and it remained this way up til 1945....in this time the pies won 3 premierships.

In 1946 they introduced the second substitute, and it stayed that way until 1977, the pies won 2 premierships with two substitutes.

In 1978 the subs were changed to interchange players, prior to that the game was about backing in the 18 blokes to get the job done.

Collingwood did better when the game was left alone 18 v 18.

2-2 makes perfect sense actually, and takes the game back to how it was always played. This fascination with rotations in a handball or ice-hockey style has been a recent fad. The game was never meant to be 22 v 22, which is what happened with the abuse of the interchange bench.

Taking the game back close to an 18 v 18 is a much better thing to do, and it still offers plenty of strategic options with the subs, interchanges etc.

 

[doppleganger]

Fatigued muscles and connective tissue are more prone to injury. Deliberately reducing the amount of interchanges increases on ground time for all. The AFL is a health hazard for its own players - not to mention a total waste of space and oxygen.

Honestly, they are sold on an idea and are willing to pervert the game and increase the injury list to players to keep that idea alive.

Morons. . . .

How did guys like B.Rose, S.Coventry ever manage to play every minute of every game???

What about guys like L.Thompson in the 70s?? He didn't come off for a rest every 10min. So why the feck cant Jolly do it?

The game was not designed to be like basketball or handball with unlimited rotations....its origins were like soccer, where you only changes players due to injury or poor form, and the 18 blokes went out and did the job.

Now it seems people want it to be 22 on 22, or even 24 on 24 because the poor players run faster and need more breaks....pahlease.

All teams play with the same rules, so who cares how many subs/interchanges there are??

 

[jonbe54]

The angst over this rule is quite funny actually, its as if people actually think 4 interchanges is the norm!!

Collingwood won 8 premierships up til 1929 when a substitute never even existed, if you got an injury stiff sh1t, you played one man down.

In 1930 one substitute was introduced, and it remained this way up til 1945....in this time the pies won 3 premierships.

In 1946 they introduced the second substitute, and it stayed that way until 1977, the pies won 2 premierships with two substitutes.

In 1978 the subs were changed to interchange players, prior to that the game was about backing in the 18 blokes to get the job done.

Collingwood did better when the game was left alone 18 v 18.

2-2 makes perfect sense actually, and takes the game back to how it was always played. This fascination with rotations in a handball or ice-hockey style has been a recent fad. The game was never meant to be 22 v 22, which is what happened with the abuse of the interchange bench.

Taking the game back close to an 18 v 18 is a much better thing to do, and it still offers plenty of strategic options with the subs, interchanges etc.

And how about all the super quick burst athletes which the AFL encouraged over the last 10 years with their 'speeding the game up rule changes'? What happens to them eh? Some will have their careers drastically shortened due to soft tissue injury.

As for 'abuse of the interchange bench' - you know full well - or you should know that human nature dictates if a loophole is there it WILL be exploited.

Armchair theorizing is all very well but I'd prefer to leave that to the flakes that run the AFL and address the mess they have made and look likely to aggravate with their knee jerk reactions to try to justify their own pet - totally unproven - theories.

 

[doppleganger]

Sink the sub - keep it simple.

If they're worried about teams being unfairly disadvantaged due to injury then just expand the interchange to 4 or 5 or whatever. I think from memory this is what Malthouse was advocating.

A team with 3 on the i/c has a big advantage over a team with 1 on the i/c + 2 injuries.

A team with 5 on the i/c doesn't have such a big advantage over a team with 3 on the i/c + 2 injuries.

As for concerns about soft tissue injuries blah blah blah, I think the AFL should leave that to the AFLPA to worry about and lobby for those kind of things. If the AFLPA are happy, then what's the big deal?

Your looking at it from the wrong perspective....a team with 5 on the bench is able to have FIVE blokes taking a breather at once. They are able to give the gun players optimal rotations etc

Injuries are felt more with a higher number of interchange positions, as rotation opportunities are missed.

In the Essendon v Carlton game earlier in 2011, Essendon lost two blokes in the opening quarter to knees. If it was a straight four interchange, Carlton would have had twice the amount of rotation opportunities for the remainder of the game. As there was one sub, Carlton only had one extra rotation spot.

Going 2-2 means injuries should not impact how teams run out a game, and it still gives the players their ability to take a breather.

People need to realise that the substitute was brought into the game to stop teams being disadvantaged by an injury, it wasn't meant to be about giving blokes a quick rest and a drink....that is why we had water boys and runners. (Both roles are redundant in the current game and also should be scrapped).

 

[Scodog10]

The game isn't European Handball. There has to be some sort of "trench warfare" about it.

It's a matter of time for 2/2, and I am all for it. I do think it is silly during the NAB Cup though.

Come on mate there were a combined 179 tackles in last years grand final. If that isn't already the AFL version of trench warfare then what is? 200? 225? 250?

Sometimes you don't know what you've got til it's gone and right now the AFL has a license to print money so why you'd want to alter that, on the basis of evidence that's flimsy at best, is beyond me

 

[76woodenspooners]

The angst over this rule is quite funny actually, its as if people actually think 4 interchanges is the norm!!

Collingwood won 8 premierships up til 1929 when a substitute never even existed, if you got an injury stiff sh1t, you played one man down.

In 1930 one substitute was introduced, and it remained this way up til 1945....in this time the pies won 3 premierships.

In 1946 they introduced the second substitute, and it stayed that way until 1977, the pies won 2 premierships with two substitutes.

In 1978 the subs were changed to interchange players, prior to that the game was about backing in the 18 blokes to get the job done.

Collingwood did better when the game was left alone 18 v 18.

2-2 makes perfect sense actually, and takes the game back to how it was always played. This fascination with rotations in a handball or ice-hockey style has been a recent fad. The game was never meant to be 22 v 22, which is what happened with the abuse of the interchange bench.

Taking the game back close to an 18 v 18 is a much better thing to do, and it still offers plenty of strategic options with the subs, interchanges etc.

Interesting point.

But why would you say 2-2 makes sense? By your reasoning wouldn't it be 0-2 that would make sense?

 

[jonbe54]

Rubbish the sub rule was brought in like every other rule the AFL has ever brought in - half-baked and ill thought out, then vacillated on week to week by the AFL applying pressure to the umpires panel on nitpicking variations of interpretation until nobody - the AFL first and foremost - knew what the f**k the rule was supposed to do.

The biggest indicator of failure is having to constantly 'improve' the rule, anyway I've got better things to do than argue with an apologist.

Happy theorising. . . .

 

[76woodenspooners]

Your looking at it from the wrong perspective....a team with 5 on the bench is able to have FIVE blokes taking a breather at once. They are able to give the gun players optimal rotations etc

Injuries are felt more with a higher number of interchange positions, as rotation opportunities are missed.

In the Essendon v Carlton game earlier in 2011, Essendon lost two blokes in the opening quarter to knees. If it was a straight four interchange, Carlton would have had twice the amount of rotation opportunities for the remainder of the game. As there was one sub, Carlton only had one extra rotation spot.

Going 2-2 means injuries should not impact how teams run out a game, and it still gives the players their ability to take a breather.

People need to realise that the substitute was brought into the game to stop teams being disadvantaged by an injury, it wasn't meant to be about giving blokes a quick rest and a drink....that is why we had water boys and runners. (Both roles are redundant in the current game and also should be scrapped).

I agree with you.

But my scenario was predicated on sinking the sub. (ie comparing 5:0 with 3:0, rather than comparing 3:1 to 2:2 as you have).

 

[doppleganger]

And how about all the super quick burst athletes which the AFL encouraged over the last 10 years with their 'speeding the game up rule changes'? What happens to them eh? Some will have their careers drastically shortened due to soft tissue injury.

Im not sure of your point?

Guys like M.Blake had his career shortened due to the speeding up of the game, blokes like S.McKee and Primus (to a lessor extent) had their game impeded by rule changes.

And actual footballers were not picked in favour of athletes for a while.

It is swings and roundabouts, one of the endearing aspects of footy used to be that all shapes, sizes were able to carve out a niche if they could kick and mark.

If a couple of 'explosive' athletes cant adapt to having no break for 30minutes bad luck.

As for 'abuse of the interchange bench' - you know full well - or you should know that human nature dictates if a loophole is there it WILL be exploited.

Exactly, the current situation is simply an abuse of a loophole....yet people now seem to except the abuse as an integral part of football??

You dont reckon new strategies will be implemented, with varying degrees of success, if the interchange situation was changed?

Would two (or three) towering rucks come back into fashion....the old saying big blokes dont get any shorter!!

Would there be more positional changes, ie CHB to CHF etc?

Resting ruck back to the BP/FP instead of an extra midfielder?
Specialist FP instead of an extra midfielder??

Armchair theorizing is all very well but I'd prefer to leave that to the flakes that run the AFL and address the mess they have made and look likely to aggravate with their knee jerk reactions to try to justify their own pet - totally unproven - theories.

You keep saying they have made a mess.....yet part of the mess is caused by the ever expanding interchange....it was never intended to be used this way.

So I dont understand the outcry when the AFL look at ways of returning the rule to the original intent?/