Jolly canes shitty sub rule

[doppleganger]

Pointless responding any further you are obviously so far into stats that you can't remember what the real world of footy is like have fun with your stats maybe I'll see you at a game sometime - doubt it though.

Indeed, in real footy the interchange was introduced as a mechanism to level the playing field in case injury occurs.

This is no longer its use, and in fact when injury's do occur the team was at a massive disadvantage....hence looking to bring in substitutes to return to the level playing field.

The AFL is looking to return the interchange to what its original intent was, which in turn will hopefully see the game return the the open attacking game it once was.

Today's footy is becoming like a rugby rolling maul, the game is not as open and flowing as it used to be.

Tackles have increased from 25 per game in 2000 to over 70

Stoppages, ie Ball-Ups and Throw-Ins, have increased from 45 to over 60

Player Density, the average number of players within 5m of the ball, has increased from less than 2, to closer to 3

And the injury claim is also incorrect, as injuries have been increasing in line with rotations.

Average games missed due to injury have gone from less than 130 per club, to over 150 per club in 2010.

Additionally, the stats have shown that the p-value in the relationship between an increasing rotations and increasing injuries is 0.0007, which for those that aren't aware of stats is highly significant with a relationship caused by chance occurring just 7 in 10,000 times.

Studies undertaken have shown that it is the impact from the opposition side increasing rotations that is the most significant factor in the overall rise in injuries.

 

[jonbe54]

Indeed, in real footy the interchange was introduced as a mechanism to level the playing field in case injury occurs.

This is no longer its use, and in fact when injury's do occur the team was at a massive disadvantage....hence looking to bring in substitutes to return to the level playing field.

The AFL is looking to return the interchange to what its original intent was, which in turn will hopefully see the game return the the open attacking game it once was.

Today's footy is becoming like a rugby rolling maul, the game is not as open and flowing as it used to be.

Tackles have increased from 25 per game in 2000 to over 70

Stoppages, ie Ball-Ups and Throw-Ins, have increased from 45 to over 60

Player Density, the average number of players within 5m of the ball, has increased from less than 2, to closer to 3

And the injury claim is also incorrect, as injuries have been increasing in line with rotations.

Average games missed due to injury have gone from less than 130 per club, to over 150 per club in 2010.

Additionally, the stats have shown that the p-value in the relationship between an increasing rotations and increasing injuries is 0.0007, which for those that aren't aware of stats is highly significant with a relationship caused by chance occurring just 7 in 10,000 times.

Studies undertaken have shown that it is the impact from the opposition side increasing rotations that is the most significant factor in the overall rise in injuries.

FFS it's like being trapped in a lecture hall, take your statistics and. . . .

 

[doppleganger]

FFS it's like being trapped in a lecture hall, take your statistics and. . . .

I take it you simply cant refute any of the points I raised.

That the increasing rotations have caused a rise in player injuries, a rise in stoppages, a rise in players around the ball and an uglier game.

Collingwood were one of the first teams to exploit the rules and push the limits through sports science...so it is no surprise that some Collingwood fans seem to think reducing rotations will kill the game.

The players have a vested interest in ensuring more players actually get on the field, as it increases their payments. Coaches have a vested interest in pushing causes that benefit their playing list and style.

So no surprise that Jolly doesn't like it.

Looking at the big picture and impact to the game itself, would love to get a couple of reasons why people actually think the increased rotations have increased the spectacle and improved the game??

No need to resort to throw away lines such as watch footy games etc either, if you dont have anything constructive to add just say nothing.

 

[jonbe54]

I take it you simply cant refute any of the points I raised.

That the increasing rotations have caused a rise in player injuries, a rise in stoppages, a rise in players around the ball and an uglier game.

Collingwood were one of the first teams to exploit the rules and push the limits through sports science...so it is no surprise that some Collingwood fans seem to think reducing rotations will kill the game.

The players have a vested interest in ensuring more players actually get on the field, as it increases their payments. Coaches have a vested interest in pushing causes that benefit their playing list and style.

So no surprise that Jolly doesn't like it.

Looking at the big picture and impact to the game itself, would love to get a couple of reasons why people actually think the increased rotations have increased the spectacle and improved the game??

No need to resort to throw away lines such as watch footy games etc either, if you dont have anything constructive to add just say nothing.

No

I AM BORED SH1TLESS WITH YOUR POINTLESS NUMBER CRUNCHING AND I DON'T WANT TO BE BOTHERED WITH YOUR RUBBISH.

Even for someone with your fixation on armchair theorising I think that should be clear enough.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Good onya Doppleganger,well thought out & researched & I agree.

Be careful not to post such insightful thoughts too often though.

 

[Old Spice]

No doubt if the rule came in the players would have new arrangements and strategies in place to overcome this...thus his gripe is no longer.

Of course, that's what people do. But does that mean because people are capable of adjusting that they should?

I turn the question around to the Laws of the Game Committee and say justify your view with more than speculative and breathless reasoning, or leave it on the shelf.

And I mean the endless succession of these rule changes without pause makes it impossible to measure their (nuisance) value. Quite apart from not having baselines to start from (i.e. compelling medical evidence regarding interchanges and injury) they seem to keep dropping things into the petrie dish.

Science requires an attempt to isolate causes, have control subjects and limit changes so that developments might be tracked or measured against one factor. The way the AFL go about it would be like scientists saying, 'let's conduct an experiment to what affect heat has on the aerobic capacity of an organism', then part-way through going 'hey, let's see what happens when we increase the salt levels, hey let's also increase the sugar. Let's blast it with liquid nitrogen' etc.

The VFL has never had 30 a side, who cares about origins of Australian Rules or what other codes have done.

VFL/AFL was about 18 v 18, it then introduced 19th and 20th men as a way of evening things up in case of an injury. This has had the full 180, and now teams complain that having an injury reduces their ability to rotate players....ie it is accepted that the 19th, 20th, 21st and 22nd men are now basically full on members of the team.

This flies in the face of the original intent, which was to help eliminate unfair advantages gained by injury.

Injury rates have also been increasing as the number of interchanges have increased.

Check out what the NRL did back in 2001, when they realised that the interchange system was being abused and used tactically (not unlike now in the AFL)....they capped the interchanges, and have subsequently since further reduced the number available. The % time the ball was in play improved, the openness of the game and attacking level all improved. The speed of the game reduced, and at no stage have any clubs ended up being 1 man short due to injury.

They used to wear pantaloons, wirly bird caps and polio shoes. Maybe we should reintroduce them so we get back to 'real footy'. The game is so different now in the age of the 6 figure paid professional athlete that its just incomensurable to this historical stroll.

I don't know how you measure 'openess of the game' and 'attacking level'. Is there a source?

In any case what NRL has to do with AFL I can't fathom.

Indeed, in real footy the interchange was introduced as a mechanism to level the playing field in case injury occurs.

This is no longer its use, and in fact when injury's do occur the team was at a massive disadvantage....hence looking to bring in substitutes to return to the level playing field.

The AFL is looking to return the interchange to what its original intent was, which in turn will hopefully see the game return the the open attacking game it once was.

Today's footy is becoming like a rugby rolling maul, the game is not as open and flowing as it used to be.

And yet the teams with higher rotations had the more free flowing style of play. How do you explain this inverse correlation? See St Kilda, Brtisbane WCE in 2010 V Collingwood and Bulldogs.

Tackles have increased from 25 per game in 2000 to over 70

Stoppages, ie Ball-Ups and Throw-Ins, have increased from 45 to over 60

Player Density, the average number of players within 5m of the ball, has increased from less than 2, to closer to 3

Why do you automatically assume this is a question of rotations rather than a question of tactics? For example, skirting the boundary line a la Malthouse will tend to lead to more throw ins. Forward defensive pressure similarly is likely to increase tackles and ball ups.

If you can show me the year on year percentage change in rotation numbers and the changes in other factors, then we may have something to work with. Still, I find it doubtful that the numbers you outline above would change drastically post more interchange rule fiddling.

The more likely result would be to put more of a premium on training athletes who can run all day to be footballers rather than the other way around. Something for the purists.

And the injury claim is also incorrect, as injuries have been increasing in line with rotations.

Average games missed due to injury have gone from less than 130 per club, to over 150 per club in 2010.

Additionally, the stats have shown that the p-value in the relationship between an increasing rotations and increasing injuries is 0.0007, which for those that aren't aware of stats is highly significant with a relationship caused by chance occurring just 7 in 10,000 times.

Studies undertaken have shown that it is the impact from the opposition side increasing rotations that is the most significant factor in the overall rise in injuries.

It's fine to talk in generalities but when we drill down it's a different picture. See the comparisons between Collingwood's list which was very healthy in 2010 compared to say the low rotating Lions and West Coast.

 

[doppleganger]

First off, cheers for a reasoned response. Good to have some robust discussion with somebody who has an alternate view.

I turn the question around to the Laws of the Game Committee and say justify your view with more than speculative and breathless reasoning, or leave it on the shelf.

The laws of the game committee publish injury data reports, and also reports highlighting changes and trends in the game.
These reports highlight that injuries and the speed of players has increased in line with an increase in interchange rotations…they have done the research and found that the increasing interchange has a high probability of causing the increase in injuries….hence the reference to the extremely high p-value.

And I mean the endless succession of these rule changes without pause makes it impossible to measure their (nuisance) value. Quite apart from not having baselines to start from (i.e. compelling medical evidence regarding interchanges and injury) they seem to keep dropping things into the petrie dish.
Science requires an attempt to isolate causes, have control subjects and limit changes so that developments might be tracked or measured against one factor. The way the AFL go about it would be like scientists saying, 'let's conduct an experiment to what affect heat has on the aerobic capacity of an organism', then part-way through going 'hey, let's see what happens when we increase the salt levels, hey let's also increase the sugar. Let's blast it with liquid nitrogen' etc.

Agree in some sense; however the AFL don’t have the ability to isolate causes…as coaches take advantage of new opportunities. This is outside of the AFL’s control.
Exactly what happened with interchange, in the 90s people like K.Sheedy were behind the big push to increase the bench to improve equity when injury strikes and prolong careers etc. Fact is the expanded bench has increased injuries and it is no longer used as a leveller when injury strikes….the coaches took advantage and changed the intent.

They used to wear pantaloons, wirly bird caps and polio shoes. Maybe we should reintroduce them so we get back to 'real footy'. The game is so different now in the age of the 6 figure paid professional athlete that its just incommensurable to this historical stroll.

??? Fashion has nothing to do with the fact that for almost 100 years the VFL/AFL was based around 18 v 18, with substitutes in case of injury.
Players never wore white boots, jumpers were natural not synthetic etc etc
The increase in use of interchange has changed the fabric of the game, not some periphery that is dictated by fashion and current day technology fads.

I don't know how you measure 'openess of the game' and 'attacking level'. Is there a source?
In any case what NRL has to do with AFL I can't fathom.

The NRL had this same issue in the early 2000s. Interchanges were increasing as coaches used the bench tactically, to try and speed up the game, instead of its intent as an injury aspect. They opted to cap interchanges, and since they have reported that the game has slowed, that the ball is ‘in-play’ for much longer….ie the changes were successful.
The statistics show that through-out the 2000s, the speed that players are moving is increasing, there are more tackles, more stoppages and more injuries and there have been more interchanges.

Increased interchange rotations are the cause in the new game, the move to the rolling zone and contested scrappy football has been a result of coaches taking advantage of having 22 players who they can rotate all game. They run faster and cover more ground, thus reducing the openness of the game.

The AFL has been trying to reduce packs, and increase time that the ball is spent in the open….however coaches are trying to win, so implement tactics that get Ws. The fact they had 22 ‘fresh’ players as a result of ever increasing rotations, meant more players are placed around the ball and the game is evolving to more closely resemble a rugby rolling maul. The increased player density, and tackle numbers are evidence of this.

And yet the teams with higher rotations had the more free flowing style of play. How do you explain this inverse correlation? See St Kilda, Brtisbane WCE in 2010 V Collingwood and Bulldogs.

The AFL research highlights that the increase in injury is indeed an inverse correlation. The increase in injury comes to teams who are contesting against teams who rotate with high numbers. It makes sense….if a team constantly has fresh players due to rotations, the team who is not rotating as much has fatigued players who are pushing themselves to keep up…ultimately the fatigued player can’t cope and is injured. The stats back this up.

Collingwood are correct that rotations did help them, as the research shows there is a slight benefit to the team rotating. However, this is more than offset by the impact of your opposition.

Problem is ALL teams are now increasing rotations, so instead of Collingwood coming up against teams who rotate 80 times per game….they are now rotating 140 times and advantage are lost and more injuries are the result.
To gain any benefit Collingwood, or any team, would need to be rotating at a much higher rate than their opposition. So Collingwood would need to be rotating 200 times per game, to compensate for the increase in opposition rotations.

Why do you automatically assume this is a question of rotations rather than a question of tactics? For example, skirting the boundary line a la Malthouse will tend to lead to more throw ins. Forward defensive pressure similarly is likely to increase tackles and ball ups.

The tactics have evolved as a result of the ability to rotate fresh players…..if you only had 20 players rotating through the ground, employing full ground zones / presses etc would be more physically taxing on the players.

If you can show me the year on year percentage change in rotation numbers and the changes in other factors, then we may have something to work with. Still, I find it doubtful that the numbers you outline above would change drastically post more interchange rule fiddling.

The AFL publishes injury reports, and status of the game reports. They highlight all the factors. Interchange numbers have exploded since 2000, and so have injuries, ball-ups, tackles and player speed.

It's fine to talk in generalities but when we drill down it's a different picture. See the comparisons between Collingwood's list which was very healthy in 2010 compared to say the low rotating Lions and West Coast.

Again drilling down to individual teams isn’t what the AFL are about, it is about the overall impact.
Overall injuries have been increasing, and a statistical relationship has been uncovered that shows a relationship between an increase in opposition rotations causes an increase in injury to the team.

Collingwood had good luck and management in 2010, they were one of the first clubs to adopt high level rotations….as other clubs caught on, we also succumbed to more injuries in 2011.

Reducing the number of interchange is an indirect way of reducing rotations, and research suggests this will reduce injuries, reduce player speed…..and if results from other sports, such as NRL, are taken as a guide, will open the game up and lead to less congestion.

 

[Old Spice]

Hi there DG, happy to explore as per our previous ruck debate.

Just lost 20 minutes of writing so will just summarise here.

The first point to make is that while the AFL may publish their statistics, they must hide them in a vault because they are certainly not trumpeted. You'd think give the furore last year and now about the interchange / sub rule that if there was compelling evidence it would be shouted from the rooftops.

The second point relates to your argument about Sheedy introducing the concept of the expanded bench which, as you say yourself, was based on equity and extending careers, a compelling case on its own merits.

But where we fundamentally differ is that where you suggest the interchange rules have led to an increase in injuries, I would suggest that the move to interchange rotations is a measure introduced to deal with and alleviate injuries whose causes lie elsewhere. That is, rotations are not the cause, but the response to pressures of a very changed game.

The increasing commercialisation and professionalism of the game has led to greater fitness and athleticism. Tactically it requires greater game time on average for players, greater ground coverage, multi-positional play instead of fixed position. Rule changes like tightening out of bounds, rushed behinds, quick play-ons etc are for me much more influential in increasing injuries.

These are the causes of a quickening game style and greater physical demands which lead to a higher likeliehood of injury. The rotation is a response to that.

And the problem is that if higher rotations are a useful outlet to such demands, the AFL may well be exacerbating the problem.

So really the burden of proof for the AFL is with them to prove the case, or at least engage publically with the very strong body of counter-evidence from clubs. They haven't done it and my hunch is they will shorten the careers of players and certanly reduce the number of players who might be able to play.

 

[doppleganger]

The first point to make is that while the AFL may publish their statistics, they must hide them in a vault because they are certainly not trumpeted. You'd think give the furore last year and now about the inerchange / sub rule that if there was compelling evidence it would be shouted from the rooftops.

Google 'AFL Injury Report', they have released the report for the last 15 years or so....usually come out in April/May/June relating to previous season. Ie most current report is based on the 2010 season.

The second point relates to your argument about Sheedy introducing the concept of the expanded bench which, as you say youreslf, was based on equity and extending careers, a compelling case on its own merits.

Sheedy, as with many things...was wrong. His thinking was flawed, as he didn't take into account the fact that clubs would abuse the extra man for additional rotations and speed the game up.

But where we fundamentally differ is that where you suggest the interchange rules have led to an increase in injuries, I would suggest that the move to interchange rotations is a measure introduced to deal with and alleviate injuries whose causes lie elsewhere. That is, rotations are not the cause, but the response to pressures of a very changed game.

This is where we differ.

Below is lifted from AFL injury report detailing the studies that highlight a relationship between increasing interchange rotations and injuries.

Relationship between increasing interchange use and injuries
AFL overall injury incidence and prevalence have slightly but significantly
increased over the last seven years. Over this same time period interchange use by AFL teams has substantially increased. There appears to be an association between these factors however the relationship is complicated. An analysis carried out in 2010 further explored the relationship between injuries and interchange.

A statistically significant relationship was demonstrated between risk of injury and interchange using a logistic regression model (Table 11) as detailed below.

Each interchange made by the opposition increases a team’s risk of injury by
approximately 0.8% (statistically significant relationship, P=0.005, 95%
confidence intervals 0.3% to 1.4%) (Figure 3).

Each interchange made by the team itself (in the previous week) decreases their risk of injury by 0.4% (strong trend, P=0.13, 95% confidence intervals +0.1% to -1.0%).
This logistic regression model did not find game continuity (as measured by length of the game/percentage of time in play) to be a significant predictor of injury, suggesting that the increases in injury rates in recent years were related to interchange use rather than changes in game continuity.

Although this described link does not fully explain the underlying mechanisms, a simple paradigm which is consistent would be that a player who has just come onto the ground having been interchanged is temporarily less likely to get injured (because he is rested) but his direct opponent is temporarily more likely to get injured (as he is a fatigued player competing against, and trying to run with, a rested player).

There are further consequences of this complex relationship, apart from the
increase in injuries for the competition as a whole. There is now a strong
incentive for clubs to continue to increase their interchange movements in an
‘arms race’, because they have perceived (correctly) that there are advantages to making more interchanges than the opposition.

This advantage extends to a lower rate of injuries relative to the opposition (Figure 4).
There is also an increased consequence to a team of an injury occurring during a game. Not only does the injury decrease a team’s chance of winning that match, but it also restricts the number of interchange rotations that can be made, furthering the likelihood of other injuries

The increasing commercialisation and professionalism of the game has led to greater fitness and athleticism. Tactically it requires greater game time on average for players, greater ground coverage, multi-positional play instead of fixed position. Rule changes like tightening out of bounds, rshed behinds, quick play-ons etc are for me much more influential.

Game time, time on ground is reduced as a result of increased rotations...that is the point. Instead of players playing at 80-90% effort for close to 100% game time, rotations now enable players to play close to 100% effort for 80-90% of game time.

This has been the massive change in the 2000s, which has been a result of the increased rotations.

These are the causes of a quickening game style and greater physical demands which lead to a higher likeliehood of injury. The rotation is a response to that.

The research disagrees though??

So really the burden of proof for the AFL is with them to prove the case, or at least engage publically with the very stong body of counter-evidence. They haven't done it and my hunch is they will shorten the careers of players and certanly reduce the number of players who might be able to play.

Where is the body of evidence that proves rotations are decreasing injuries and prolonging careers??

 

[Old Spice]

Google 'AFL Injury Report', they have released the report for the last 15 years or so....usually come out in April/May/June relating to previous season. Ie most current report is based on the 2010 season.

Its worth recalling that during the 2010 season when the AFL had already seemed to have made up its mind on interchanges, one of the co-authors of the yet to be released AFL 2010 report, Hugh Seward, could only draw the most flaccid conclusions in an Age report published on 12 May 2010:

“We’ve looked at various reasons for this (injury) increase in our report and we state that interchange use and player speed and tackling have increased in parallel to this injury increase over recent seasons”.

In other words, a number of factors - speed (athleticism / professionalism), tackling (tactics) - were placed casually alongside higher interchanges as though to prove the latter was the cause of injuries rather than a plausible alleviating factor. Quite limply, Seward could only intimate that speed, tackling and high-interchanges occured ''parallel" to higher injury occurence. What the predominnt factors were he didn't deign to make clear.

So, in spite of sowing big dragon's teeth, Seward could only draw the meekest of conclusions '“there may well be an association between these factors".

Reading the conclusion of the 2010 report, little headway was made between 12 May 2010 and April 2011 when the report was published. The final report on the 2010 season was sexed up as far as possible for its pay-masters but with some not very spectacular results. Flip-flopping between 2003 and 2007 and subsequent changes to interchanges, the conclusions were entirely nebulous and hopelessly confused. No clear or strong conclusions were drawn, reflective of the anemic body of research which turned up nothing you could hang even a skeletal argument on.

This is where we differ.

Below is lifted from AFL injury report detailing the studies that highlight a relationship between increasing interchange rotations and injuries.

Relationship between increasing interchange use and injuries
AFL overall injury incidence and prevalence have slightly but significantly increased over the last seven years. Over this same time period interchange use by AFL teams has substantially increased. There appears to be an association between these factors however the relationship is complicated. An analysis carried out in 2010 further explored the relationship between injuries and interchange.

A statistically significant relationship was demonstrated between risk of injury and interchange using a logistic regression model (Table 11) as detailed below.

Each interchange made by the opposition increases a team’s risk of injury by
approximately 0.8% (statistically significant relationship, P=0.005, 95%
confidence intervals 0.3% to 1.4%) (Figure 3).

Each interchange made by the team itself (in the previous week) decreases their risk of injury by 0.4% (strong trend, P=0.13, 95% confidence intervals +0.1% to -1.0%).
This logistic regression model did not find game continuity (as measured by length of the game/percentage of time in play) to be a significant predictor of injury, suggesting that the increases in injury rates in recent years were related to interchange use rather than changes in game continuity.

Although this described link does not fully explain the underlying mechanisms, a simple paradigm which is consistent would be that a player who has just come onto the ground having been interchanged is temporarily less likely to get injured (because he is rested) but his direct opponent is temporarily more likely to get injured (as he is a fatigued player competing against, and trying to run with, a rested player).

There are further consequences of this complex relationship, apart from the
increase in injuries for the competition as a whole. There is now a strong
incentive for clubs to continue to increase their interchange movements in an
‘arms race’, because they have perceived (correctly) that there are advantages to making more interchanges than the opposition.

This advantage extends to a lower rate of injuries relative to the opposition (Figure 4).
There is also an increased consequence to a team of an injury occurring during a game. Not only does the injury decrease a team’s chance of winning that match, but it also restricts the number of interchange rotations that can be made, furthering the likelihood of other injuries

How someone can seriously draw any conclusons from such marginal statistical differences, while artificially separating other inputs from the model and draw any meaningful conclusions is astounding. The anecdotal evidence of the 2010 season in terms of high-rotation teams and low injury or low rotation teams and high injury incidence by itself just smashes this flimsy premise apart.

Game time, time on ground is reduced as a result of increased rotations...that is the point. Instead of players playing at 80-90% effort for close to 100% game time, rotations now enable players to play close to 100% effort for 80-90% of game time.

This has been the massive change in the 2000s, which has been a result of the increased rotations.

This is just an extension of a false premise. Unable to prove that high-rotations caused greater soft-tissue injury to those who employed it, they hedge their bets by suggesting higher-rotating teams were a threat to opposition teams. Again, the anecdotal evidence proves this to be a statistical nonsense.

And I might add there are other much more effective and targeted means and instruments for dealing with impact injuries. Outlawing ducking, sliding into players legs, sling tackling and greater penalties for indiscretions is a much more sensible route than trying to concoct some nonsense about .8 % speed increases in the game etc.

The evidence you've produced is so full of lacunas and jumbled and crazy assertions it is no wonder the clubs have come out so forcefully against it.

As with the Biblical redactors and editors of old, the authors of the AFL Report did the best they could with the available evidence, much of which was inventively nudged along in some very strange and unconvincing directions.

I'm with the atheists.

 

[Scodog10]

The statistical proof laid out in this thread is both thorough and impressive. But why don't we just cut through the bullshit because at this stage (because high level interchanges havent been around long enough) its all negligible and arguable as to what the actual impact the increased rotations have had on the instances of injuries.

When we cut through said bullshit we always get back to the fact that the AFL don't want NHL line change style interchanges because they believe it impacts on the aesthetics of the game. Bartlett has stated this numerous times on his radio program and as the head of the laws of the game committee he has the power.

I like probably 2 thirds of the AFL community don't want further change to this rule, however I'm very much resigned to the fact that it will be implemented. I'd love to see an independent commission/ report set up to investigate this particular issue, however theirs more chance of Bartlett voluntarily abdicating his laws of the game post than their is of a proper report being done.

 

[mattys123]

Interesting to note that it's basically taken one week for the AFL to admit the 2 and 2 rule is stupid, well at least in the pre season format.

This week each team will be able to make up to 7 changes at half time, because every club, player or coach who was asked about the 2 and 2 rule in the NAB Cup said it was stupid for this time of year when you want to play as many kids as possible.

 

[doppleganger]

“We’ve looked at various reasons for this (injury) increase in our report and we state that interchange use and player speed and tackling have increased in parallel to this injury increase over recent seasons”.

In other words, a number of factors - speed (athleticism / professionalism), tackling (tactics) - were placed casually alongside higher interchanges as though to prove the latter was the cause of injuries rather than a plausible alleviating factor. Quite limply, Seward could only intimate that speed, tackling and high-interchanges occured ''parallel" to higher injury occurence. What the predominnt factors were he didn't deign to make clear.

I’m not sure how you come with those ‘other words’??

The injury reports all show evidence that injuries are increasing….that is why the AFL is looking at doing something.

Your quote highlights that….injuries, rotations, speed of players and tackling are all increasing in parallel.

You don’t wish to acknowledge the view that rotations themselves are a tactic used to speed up the game, increase congestion, tackling…and this ultimately leads to more injuries.

I ask again, where is the evidence that rotations are reducing overall injuries and prolonging playing careers??

So, in spite of sowing big dragon's teeth, Seward could only draw the meekest of conclusions '“there may well be an association between these factors".

An analysis carried out in 2010 further explored the relationship between injuries and interchange. A statistically significant relationship was demonstrated between risk of injury and interchange using a logistic regression model.

Four independent reviews of the methodology used in the research were also commissioned. Both the further research and the reviews fortified the initial concerns. Although direct cause and effect could not be proven, the evidence available suggested that if left unchecked interchange would take player speed and congestion to a new level, and there remained concern about potential further increases in collision injuries.

After extensive consultation over a four-year period and throughout 2010 involving clubs, coaches, players, club medical officers, physiotherapists and fitness staff, the AFL announced that the interchange would be reduced from four to three players, and that a substitute player would be introduced for the 2011 Season.

It is something the AFL has investigating for a while now, clearly they think there is an issue.

How someone can seriously draw any conclusions from such marginal statistical differences, while artificially separating other inputs from the model and draw any meaningful conclusions is astounding. The anecdotal evidence of the 2010 season in terms of high-rotation teams and low injury or low rotation teams and high injury incidence by itself just smashes this flimsy premise apart.

The research agrees with this. Teams that adopted extreme rotation policies earlier received a slight benefit. However, as all teams escalate rotations any benefit is wiped out and the OVERALL impact to the league is more injuries. I am not sure how people don’t realise this.

In 2009-2010, Collingwood ramped up rotations much quicker than other clubs, as a result of rotations they were successfully able to implement a new game plan of mass tackling and pressure. Because the Collingwood players were fresher, they were less fatigued than their opponents and as a result tended to suffer less injuries.

Now ALL clubs are adopting extreme rotations….Collingwood no longer has any benefit, as WestCoast, the Dogs etc are also rotating up close to 130 times per game….all that happens is there are more collisions, increased speed, even greater congestion, more tackles and more OVERALL injuries.

The slight advantage Collingwood enjoyed is gone, unless they increase rotations further to 160-170 etc. and this is what the AFL doesn't want.

It is time for Collingwood to start thinking about the next potential advantage, not bemoan the loss of our recent one.

Another report published about interchange….hopefully link works, better to let people read through for themselves than post big slabs I guess.

http://afl.com.au/portals/0/afl_docs/laws_050810_v3.pdf

It details all the concerns, and the rationale behind trying to reduce rotations to reduce injuries.

Again, where are the reports that state increased rotations reduce AFL injuries and prolong careers?? I would love to read one.

This is just an extension of a false premise. Unable to prove that high-rotations caused greater soft-tissue injury to those who employed it, they hedge their bets by suggesting higher-rotating teams were a threat to opposition teams. Again, the anecdotal evidence proves this to be a statistical nonsense.

What is this hedging their bets business….you keep referring to evidence proving rotations…would love to read it.

The AFL is concerned with overall impact….not simply impact to Collingwood.

There extensive research shows an increase in player speed, congestion and injuries....and a relationship with increased rotations has been established. Ie the increase in rotations has been the facilitator of the new tactics, player speed and resultant injuries.

And I might add there are other much more effective and targeted means and instruments for dealing with impact injuries. Outlawing ducking, sliding into players legs, sling tackling and greater penalties for indiscretions is a much more sensible route than trying to concoct some nonsense about .8 % speed increases in the game etc.

The AFL constantly try and adapt rules to reduce these injuries….and as per the injury reports, despite these initiatives injuries are still increasing.

The evidence you've produced is so full of lacunas and jumbled and crazy assertions it is no wonder the clubs have come out so forcefully against it.

Which clubs have come our forcefully against it??

J.Watson was threatening a sit in due to the sub, but funnily enough there was little complaint once the season got going…and Essendon actually benefitted in rd 3, when they lost 2 players against Carlton really early.

Apart from that it seems it is just Collingwood, or Collingwood related people like Neeld, who are opposed.

As with the Biblical redactors and editors of old, the authors of the AFL Report did the best they could with the available evidence, much of which was inventively nudged along in some very strange and unconvincing directions.

Where does this belief that there is some AFL agenda behind reducing interchange come from? If the research was in favour, injuries were on the decline there would be no problem. What do they have to gain??

Do you not think it is coaches and clubs who have created tactics designed around the 22 players operating at high impact who are the ones with the agenda….and unsurprisingly are the most vocal on the matter??

 

[jonbe54]

Jeezuz if stats were fertilizer some of us would be 15 foot tall.

Too bad they are only as good as the statisticians who write them. . .