Limit the Number of Interchange Rotations

[Looney]

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

 

[mike91]

No.

 

[LosBeatles]

Yes

Get rid of interchange all together, have 3 subs and when someone comes off they can't come back

 

[JohnnyFontane90]

i don't get how you think by reducing resting time you reduce injuries.

and this would mean more runners on the ground not less.

 

[Looney]

Yes

Get rid of interchange all together, have 3 subs and when someone comes off they can't come back

That doesn't solve the problem of disadvantage from injuries. If one team get 2 early injuries, they will only have 1 sub remaining against 3 for the opposition. Come the last quarter, the opposition will activate all 3 subs versus 1.

 

[I Lost My Keays]

Why don't we just scrap the cap entirely. Bloody hell I don't see why the AFL has to change the rules all the time.

 

[Looney]

i don't get how you think by reducing resting time you reduce injuries.

and this would mean more runners on the ground not less.

Players wouldn't be running as hard if they are required to stay on the ground for a longer period. Most injuries occur from speed related incidents like high impact and changes of direction.

 

[BomberBro2]

They should make it 12 players on the field and 10 on the interchange with unlimited rotations IMO.

The quality of the game would increase dramatically, and there'd be no fatigue.

 

[basashi]

None of your outcomes are logical results of the proposed action.

 

[Tuco]

Personally I found watching games destroyed by injuries over the weekend was terrible. If any changes are made from here it should be the addition of another 2 subs from the EM list. We don't need more restrictions on how teams manage their players during a game.

 

[Looney]

Personally I found watching games destroyed by injuries over the weekend was terrible. If any changes are made from here it should be the addition of another 2 subs from the EM list. We don't need more restrictions on how teams manage their players during a game.

Again, adding 2 more subs aren't going to eliminate the disadvantage of early injuries to one team. The other team will still have the advantage of more fresh legs in the last quarter.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

I'm not sure why the AFL isn't taking this proposal more seriously

Well I thought I've read that the cap will be reduced again next season, probably to 100. I think they're just trying to find the right balance for it and that's why the changes are slow.

 

[Looney]

Well I thought I've read that the cap will be reduced again next season, probably to 100. I think they're just trying to find the right balance for it and that's why the changes are slow.

Does the AFL have a desired number in mind? I think they may be gradually reducing the cap every year to eventually get down to what they have in mind. But then again, I'd love to see what happens if the AFL suddenly brings the cap down to 50.

If you were the brains trust of your club, what strategy would you employ if the interchange was capped to 50 per game?

 

[IanW]

Does the AFL have a desired number in mind? I think they may be gradually reducing the cap every year to eventually get down to what they have in mind. But then again, I'd love to see what happens if the AFL suddenly brings the cap down to 50.

If you were the brains trust of your club, what strategy would you employ if the interchange was capped to 50 per game?

When players go off for a rest, it's for a proper rest ie a whole quarter.

When players kick a goal, they go back to their position, ideally to kick another one.

When a player is a bit tired, rotate forward pocket into the midfield, and the midfield into the forward pocket.

 

[BlakeyNoFlakey]

Does the AFL have a desired number in mind? I think they may be gradually reducing the cap every year to eventually get down to what they have in mind. But then again, I'd love to see what happens if the AFL suddenly brings the cap down to 50.

If you were the brains trust of your club, what strategy would you employ if the interchange was capped to 50 per game?

I don't think we'll ever see it at 50. The clubs would kick up a stink about it. I think 100 is a realistic cap at this stage. They tried 80 in the NAB Cup a few years ago and that's as low as it would go. Basically less interchanges means the KPP's will spend more time on the ground so the midfielders can rotate as they do the most running. Sometimes players will be rested in the forward line as well.

 

[Tuco]

Again, adding 2 more subs aren't going to eliminate the disadvantage of early injuries to one team. The other team will still have the advantage of more fresh legs in the last quarter.

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.

 

[Looney]

I don't think we'll ever see it at 50. The clubs would kick up a stink about it. I think 100 is a realistic cap at this stage. They tried 80 in the NAB Cup a few years ago and that's as low as it would go. Basically less interchanges means the KPP's will spend more time on the ground so the midfielders can rotate as they do the most running. Sometimes players will be rested in the forward line as well.

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.

 

[Dom PC]

The constant running off by players is a blight on our game and the results of the massive increase in resting time means basically the whole team is able to follow the ball for the whole game, resulting in less positional and one on one play which most of the football community liked about AFL.

 

[SJ]

Personally I found watching games destroyed by injuries over the weekend was terrible. If any changes are made from here it should be the addition of another 2 subs from the EM list. We don't need more restrictions on how teams manage their players during a game.

High rotations add to the inequality once a team is suffering injuries. Reducing rotations levels the playing field.

 

[SJ]

Does the AFL have a desired number in mind? I think they may be gradually reducing the cap every year to eventually get down to what they have in mind. But then again, I'd love to see what happens if the AFL suddenly brings the cap down to 50.

If you were the brains trust of your club, what strategy would you employ if the interchange was capped to 50 per game?

You could spend a hell of a lot more time/money on playing footy rather than managing rotations.

 

[Looney]

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 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.

 

[Tuco]

High rotations add to the inequality once a team is suffering injuries. Reducing rotations levels the playing field.

Only if one team cannot replace injured players. For me that is exactly what ems should be for.

If an emergency sub replaces a bench player after the first sub is activated the fit team gains no advantage at all. An em sub would be there simply to cover injuries not add more players to the overall rotation spread. There would be zero effect.

 

[McCrann]

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

Clearly you are new to Australian Football.

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

 

[McCrann]

Personally I found watching games destroyed by injuries over the weekend was terrible. If any changes are made from here it should be the addition of another 2 subs from the EM list. We don't need more restrictions on how teams manage their players during a game.

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

 

[Looney]

Only if one team cannot replace injured players. For me that is exactly what ems should be for.

If an emergency sub replaces a bench player after the first sub is activated the fit team gains no advantage at all. An em sub would be there simply to cover injuries not add more players to the overall rotation spread. There would be zero effect.

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