Limit the Number of Interchange Rotations

[McCrann]

Only activate the extra 2 subs after a medical assessment if you want to restrict their use to limit 'tactical' subbing.

But from a player welfare perspective nothing is worse than forcing players with a pcl injury like Bird on the weekend to play out a game because the sub is already activated. It's happening every round.

And when you get an a avalanche of injuries like the Coll game the result is compromised.

So you want to go back to the system pre about 1980?

No interchange, just reserves/ subs?

 

[McCrann]

But who does the medical assessments? The team doctors?
You'll just get tired players faking injuries just to get fresh legs into the game

Agreed - adding a medical assessment just adds another layer of complexity that isn't required. It is why when the sub rule was initially brought in there was no injury requirement. Just adds needless complexity.

I am happy with current rotations, but I would also add an extra 2 subs.

3 on the bench
3 subs.

 

[Looney]

Clearly you are new to Australian Football.

People don't want Rules Changes. (Full Stop).

If you don't like rule changes, then you can keep on watching your VCR recordings of 80's matches.
Rules change all the time to keep up with the changing game. People have to deal with it.

 

[Tuco]

So a team who hasn't activated their extra subs can just fake injuries to tired players and sub in fresh players in the last quarter? Who does the medical assessment?
If a player is injured, then you don't have to play them any more. If the cap is very low, then the opposition will not have that much advantage over you.
The avalanche of injuries to Collingwood was just a freak of nature. On average, there's probably less than 1 injury per game where a player cannot return to the ground.

The disdain for the integrity of team doctors is a bit cynical. We're talking about game ending injuries after the sub is activated.

And the definition of injury is also a bit flakey. There might be 1 injury on paper. But how many players are getting needles to play on, how many with tightness are doing hammies after continuing? We've seen players with twisted ankles running back out then missing 6 weeks when the pain killers wear off. It's not even close to best practice. Until the concussion rule came in players were regularly playing on with potential brain injuries. Why not extend the bench and save all this trouble?

Playing injured players to avoid 'what if' tactical subbing is no excuse. And limiting rotations further just makes it even harder to assess an injury properly.

Less rotations is more work for each individual and that extra workload in an environment of constant injuries is a major concern. And if injuries occur that workload just gets worse.

 

[Tuco]

Pretty sure the Giants were happy with the sub rule existing otherwise Melbourne would have swarmed all over them with a potential interchange advantage!

The sub rule is okay. But only just okay. Where multiple injuries occur it falls down..

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

But isn't that what we want to see though, the KPP staying in their positions instead of running up and down the ground creating congestion? If I was running a team, I'd probably have 4 mids and 2 talls (only in case of injuries) and mostly just rotate the mids who will be doing the bulk of the running.

With the way teams rotate players on the ball, and zoning, there aren't really many position players anymore apart from KPP's. Most teams are full of midfielders these days.

 

[Tuco]

So you want to go back to the system pre about 1980?

No interchange, just reserves/ subs?

No. I want to see additional subs and the current interchanges maintained. The sub rule was about trying to protect fairness. I'd rather see that extended rather than simply drop interchanges numbers. If the AFL want to artificially fatigue players with lower and lower caps extra subs would have to be the quid pro quo.

 

[replicant]

There's a good chance there were threads like this before and it's been brought up many times but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to limit the number of interchanges. And I mean limit the number to as low as 10 per quarter. I think this will solve many problems we have in the modern game. I'm not sure why the AFL isn't taking this proposal more seriously because if I was running the AFL, this would be one of the first rule changes I'd implement.

Pros:
- It will slow the game down (less injuries)
- It will open up the game (more goals, less congestion)
- No need for a sub. Just have 5-6 players on the bench.
- Encourages teams to play positional footy again.
- Even contest even after injuries to one team
- Less Runners on the ground

Cons:
I can't think of any

Not necessarily. Most accidents happen when people are tired/exhausted, and co-ordination and judgement suffer. The injuries might not be so high-speed (but not that much different), but there will be more of them.

 

[SJ]

Clearly you are new to Australian Football.

People don't want Rules Changes. (Full Stop).

What if the changes are reverting somewhat back to the way Australian football was played between 1858 and 2006?

 

[JuddsABlue]

All this will do is force clubs to recruit more runners and less footballers

Speed/endurance > skill

A faster fitter team will beat and more skilled side, its easier and more effiecent to run the ball from one end to the other than to kick it. Players in the pre 2000 era were lazy drunks who didnt want to run, so they didnt

Running is better, it'll win more games, its the way of the future. The more we try to kill this the stronger it will get. We need to encourage running and fitness even more to allow naturally skilled players in the game, otherwise they'll just be shut out and only pure runners will be drafted and taught to hold the footy

 

[SJ]

All this will do is force clubs to recruit more runners and less footballers

Speed/endurance > skill

A faster fitter team will beat and more skilled side, its easier and more effiecent to run the ball from one end to the other than to kick it. Players in the pre 2000 era were lazy drunks who didnt want to run, so they didnt

Running is better, it'll win more games, its the way of the future. The more we try to kill this the stronger it will get. We need to encourage running and fitness even more to allow naturally skilled players in the game, otherwise they'll just be shut out and only pure runners will be drafted and taught to hold the footy

Would you say the 2013 premiers were the fastest or the most skillful?

 

[JuddsABlue]

Would you say the 2013 premiers were the fastest or the most skillful?

I dont think its that important whos faster than who in each year, because every team is fast. All of todays team will beat the teams of the previous decade because of how fast and fit they are, and the teams of the next decade will be faster than ours and for that reason they'll beat them

Id say that all teams are now at an acceptable level of speed and endurance compared to the past, and unless we do something to increase the demand of skill, then the endurance war will continue.

 

[Looney]

All this will do is force clubs to recruit more runners and less footballers

Speed/endurance > skill

A faster fitter team will beat and more skilled side, its easier and more effiecent to run the ball from one end to the other than to kick it. Players in the pre 2000 era were lazy drunks who didnt want to run, so they didnt

Running is better, it'll win more games, its the way of the future. The more we try to kill this the stronger it will get. We need to encourage running and fitness even more to allow naturally skilled players in the game, otherwise they'll just be shut out and only pure runners will be drafted and taught to hold the footy

Not necessarily. Every club will have their own philosophies on which strategy is the most effective. The Bulldogs built their team around the philosophy that KPPs are redundant and stacked their team full of runners. Is it working? Collingwood had the belief that ruckmen weren't important. That philosophy hurt us until we got Jolly, and now that deficiency is hurting us again.

An optimal game style will eventually emerge from the chaos when one team starts to dominate with a certain game style and everyone will try to copy them.

 

[IanW]

Hawthorn have done extremely well with a game plan based around precise kicking rather than gut running.

 

[JuddsABlue]

Not necessarily. Every club will have their own philosophies on which strategy is the most effective. The Bulldogs built their team around the philosophy that KPPs are redundant and stacked their team full of runners. Is it working? Collingwood had the belief that ruckmen weren't important. That philosophy hurt us until we got Jolly, and now that deficiency is hurting us again.

An optimal game style will eventually emerge from the chaos when one team starts to dominate with a certain game style and everyone will try to copy them.

The base level of fitness has improved between all teams, making skill and KPP an important factor now, but less so than they were 20 years ago, where today we have so many small running midfielders/defenders and less wingmen/half forwards etc

Your plan is to make players more tired, this will increase the demand for fitter players and decrease the demand for skilled players

At the moment we have a balance, but as we know its nothing like the balance we had 20 years ago, and if we continue to push the game in to a corner todays balance will be nothing like it is in 20 years

 

[JuddsABlue]

Hawthorn have done extremely well with a game plan based around precise kicking rather than gut running.

everybody is gut running, you think the Hawks arent?

If everybody pushes the extremes of fitness (which they are) then skill will be the decieding factor (hawks kicking)

If we limit interchanges, then the demand for fitness increases, so if were to say at the moment its 80% fitness and 20% skill, and that 20% allows better kicks, taller players, more positions, then less interchanges could force the balance to be 90% fitness 10% skill, and we wont have enough room in that 10% for everything we have now

So what will we lose? Will kicking become less important, or will each team require 1 less tall etc

 

[SJ]

everybody is gut running, you think the Hawks arent?

If everybody pushes the extremes of fitness (which they are) then skill will be the decieding factor (hawks kicking)

If we limit interchanges, then the demand for fitness increases, so if were to say at the moment its 80% fitness and 20% skill, and that 20% allows better kicks, taller players, more positions, then less interchanges could force the balance to be 90% fitness 10% skill, and we wont have enough room in that 10% for everything we have now

So what will we lose? Will kicking become less important, or will each team require 1 less tall etc

Define "fitness".

As far as I can see you have no evidence for those claims.

 

[JuddsABlue]

Define "fitness".

As far as I can see you have no evidence for those claims.

lol does anybody on this board have any evidence on any thing they discuss, particularly this topic? Does the OP have evidence that less interchanges will make the game play better? We are all going off experience here from watching the game, I am using the contrast of the game 20 years ago and the game today, and the changes between those two games. To me, the biggest factor is fitness.

When I say fitness, I mean speed and endurance.

So while I cant point you to a study or survery to back up what I'm saying, I can point to the fact that the biggest emphasis on todays modern teams is fitness, and we all know majority of preseason is spent on fitness. If skills were the demanding factor, dont you think more time would be spent on skills than running?

Its quite clear the biggest difference in todays game is the running, and the more we try to tire the players, the more the coaches are goin to try and increase their endurance and resistence to becoming tired. This will result in more pure athletes over skilled footballers

 

[BomberBro2]

What's wrong with 12 on the field? Remove the wings and flanks - they're superfluous when players can run all day now.

 

[F_therest]

There's a good chance there were threads like this before and it's been brought up many times but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense to limit the number of interchanges. And I mean limit the number to as low as 10 per quarter. I think this will solve many problems we have in the modern game. I'm not sure why the AFL isn't taking this proposal more seriously because if I was running the AFL, this would be one of the first rule changes I'd implement.

Pros:
- It will slow the game down (less injuries)
- It will open up the game (more goals, less congestion)
- No need for a sub. Just have 5-6 players on the bench.
- Encourages teams to play positional footy again.
- Even contest even after injuries to one team
- Less Runners on the ground

Cons:
I can't think of any

Really. You can't think of ANY cons. Not one.
And a lot of your pros don't actually make sense...i mean how would this lead to less runners on the ground???

You really are Looney.

 

[Furn2]

lol does anybody on this board have any evidence on any thing they discuss, particularly this topic? Does the OP have evidence that less interchanges will make the game play better? We are all going off experience here from watching the game, I am using the contrast of the game 20 years ago and the game today, and the changes between those two games. To me, the biggest factor is fitness.

When I say fitness, I mean speed and endurance.

So while I cant point you to a study or survery to back up what I'm saying, I can point to the fact that the biggest emphasis on todays modern teams is fitness, and we all know majority of preseason is spent on fitness. If skills were the demanding factor, dont you think more time would be spent on skills than running?

Its quite clear the biggest difference in todays game is the running, and the more we try to tire the players, the more the coaches are goin to try and increase their endurance and resistence to becoming tired. This will result in more pure athletes over skilled footballers

But whos going to win the ball and whos going to be able to get it to these pure athletes ?

Youre assuming that coaches will use the same gameplans they use today, which they will to begin with but tactics will evolve to having less interchange. One tactic could be to recruit a team of Tim Clarkes and Blicavs along with the Kenyan track team and outnumber and outrun the opposition all over the ground but Id back 8 Sam mitchells to win the ball against 12 Tim Clarkes anyday and coaches will eventually just start playing players permanently in defence and attack so they can rest them and wont concede easy goals out the back if they get outrun.

 

[passmark]

Just do it in stages.

Nobody is having a sook about unlimited interchange down to 120.

I doubt they give a stuff if it goes from 120 down to 100 or 80 or whatever.

It's the same for all sides.

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

never like the idea of restricting what coaches can and can't do.

 

[passmark]

never like the idea of restricting what coaches can and can't do.

Like sending out knuckle men or sending concussed players back out on the field?

 

[didaksrightfoot]

I always felt that the 4 man bench, with no sub and no cap, was working really well - and adding the sub and now cap have led to a lot of extra problems.

Losing 1 player to injury when you have a 4 man bench wasn't a huge deal... lose a player now after you've made your sub and it is very hard - lose 2 now and you are screwed, stuck with a 1 man bench.

The idea that decreasing interchanges decreases injuries is the biggest load of crap I have ever read - it does not make any sense from a medical point of view. I would love someone to compile numbers, but my eyeball view has been that soft-tissue have gone up since the 3+sub was introduced (although that might just be at Collingwood). But the logic of it is this: most soft tissue injuries occur when your body and muscle groups are tiring and you are trying to over-exert: no club or club doctor would want tired bodies out there - you want guys to be able to have regular (and often just brief) rests when they need it. And "high impact" injuries will occur regardless, and a body that is tired would have a slower reaction time and be more comprimised in its ability to brace itself for contact. If you are worried about collisions that are occuring in a high-paced game - you don't slow the pace of the game, you properly enforce the rules that are already there to punish illegal/dangerous collisions.

Personally, I don't have an issue with what people call the "rolling scrum" - because what it does is highlight players who are skillful/tough in a close environment, as well as allow well trained and skillful teams to take advantage of all the extra space that opens up on the ground. Also, like any sporting tactic/scheme, it will go through it's own dynamic transition, without really needing any outside intervention.
But - if people do think it is a problem - then having more tired players on the field is definitely not going to improve that. When teams get tired, they lose that ability to use the whole space of the field, and you would just get everyone aggregating around the ball. (and the only time that doesn't happen is when one team is significantly fitter/healthier than the other, and you just see a whitewash - also something nobody wants to see).