Manipulating Rotations = Injuries

[Robroy22]

The AFL must be so proud....just about every team has team crippling injury lists and its only round 6.
I'm not one that subscribes to injuries being "manageable" since some (read ACL's and fractures) just aren't but the reduction in interchange rotations coupled with new rule changes designed to keep play flowing almost uninterrupted are killing several clubs.
They had to limit rotations to stop Swanny and his mates in 2011. Then it was to limit the number of "contact injuries" now it's to stop negative coaches locking up the play with numbers behind the ball. Well pretty soon clubs will be playing with 15-16 fit players each and the run and gun style will really go out the window then!
I always enjoyed the unlimited rotations period of play. Its worked well in Hockey forever and the standard of play continues from start to finish because players are able to freshen up and then go back on any number of times.
Deliberately fatiguing athletes can only lead to MORE injuries and the strategies of deliberately saving energy for peak times in games. It's always been a dumb call and it continues to be. Look after the athlete's and the game will look after itself.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

There's not enough data to make that link after 6 rounds, but I guess that's the problem as to my mind there wasn't enough data supporting the initial change either.

The AFL thought that reducing interchanges would fatigue players, which would slow the game down, which would reduce collision injuries... later they threw in some shit about soft tissue injuries (particularly hamstrings) potentially being reduced also... I just don't see it personally. I guess we'll have to see whether it's borne out over the course of the season.

 

[1892]

In the article about increasing finals to 10 sides a few days back the AFL said they wouldn't reduce it further next year, but in the next breath they said they were considering limiting interchanges to only after a goal. That would mean a reduction for any game where 22 goals or less are scored. There's been a couple of games this year with just 15 goals, which would be 60 interchanges or a 33% reduction.

One of the silliest suggestions I've heard as it would create an unlevel playing field with sides likely entering matches having had different interchange numbers to their opposition. A small difference wouldn't have a massive effect, but we could be talking a difference of 15 to 30 across one week and the problem would be compounded if a side has a run of low scoring games.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

It might also bring about unnecessarily defensive or negative playing styles.

Imagine North Melbourne are four goals up early in the 4th quarter of the GF against Geelong, and Dangerfield goes to to bench for a much needed break, after being his team's standout player for the day. North switch to play possession with three loose players in defence, so Dangerfield can't get back on after his breather and influence the outcome.

 

[domin8tors]

I believe that clubs will always push the players for a better and longer performance therefore the hunt for genuine footballers will drop off and athletes more so distance athletes AKA Blicavs from geelong will become the norm. I fear then the skills will also drop off.

 

[Robroy22]

Great analysis Gents. Are we the only sport you can think of where administrators are "going backwards in time" to implement game improvement?
FWIW I saw a player yellow carded in a schools carnival today for laying a side to side bump which left his opponent winded.
I just shook my head in disbelief.

 

[KrispyKremePie]

It might also bring about unnecessarily defensive or negative playing styles.

Imagine North Melbourne are four goals up early in the 4th quarter of the GF against Geelong, and Dangerfield goes to to bench for a much needed break, after being his team's standout player for the day. North switch to play possession with three loose players in defence, so Dangerfield can't get back on after his breather and influence the outcome.

haha - if this scenario did occur and boomer harver maked the ball 30m dierctly in front, would he delibratetly kick a behind so that dangerfield stays on the bench?

 

[mattys123]

Any rule change that increases injuries can't be good for us, we were buggered already.

 

[TheSierBear]

I have to disagree with this. The game hasn't been this good for about 20 years since Rocket Eade introduced the flood in Sydney.

 

[Robroy22]

I have to disagree with this. The game hasn't been this good for about 20 years since Rocket Eade introduced the flood in Sydney.

Dunno about you, but the footy we played in 2010-11 when rotations weren't capped and players could gut run and then recharge certainly beat the flood. High rotations meant the flood was basically over. Geelong style footy 2007-2009 was pretty good too? I don't particularly like watching AFL players playing soccer like they are now....all about conserving energy and backpassing to protect the ball. They didn't need to constrict rotations to stop the back passing and flooding...just call "Play On" for any passes that go backwards. Watch the backmen kick forwards then!!

 

[Lockyer24]

I agree this year it's better to watch as teams can't keep up anymore flooding back and forth. Sadly we are just crap but that's for another thread.

 

[doppleganger]

???

Limiting rotations was designed to reduce time players spent at maximum velocity.

It also was about reducing congestion, hindering the overly defensive tactics which were increasing stoppages a seeing scoring drop to the lowest levels in 40 years.

Collingwood fans liked footy in 2010-11 coz we were winning...nothing beats winning, the test being would you watch neutral games?

Our injuries this year, how many are the result of fatigue??

Swan was 1st minute of game
Berg and Ramsay did knees at training
Elliott has a back problem
Goldy a busted thumb
Witts split webbing in his hand

We have one soft tissue injury, rest are just bad luck things that happen and have nothing to do with rotations and a supposed increased load on players.

 

[Robroy22]

I actually wasn't just referring to "Our" injuries, moreso to the abundance of injuries being suffered by all clubs. It's only round 6 and yet Hawthorn, Freo, Bulldogs, Brisbane, Collingwood, Gold Coast, Port and Richmond have all suffered large numbers of both "accidental" and over use injuries. Cutting rotations means more work for every player. Its not rocket science, the more you pressure you put on athlete's bodies the more prone they are to injury. I just wonder why our game's officials thought it applicable to hurt our athletes in order to change the appearance of the game?

 

[doppleganger]

I actually wasn't just referring to "Our" injuries, moreso to the abundance of injuries being suffered by all clubs. It's only round 6 and yet Hawthorn, Freo, Bulldogs, Brisbane, Collingwood, Gold Coast, Port and Richmond have all suffered large numbers of both "accidental" and over use injuries. Cutting rotations means more work for every player. Its not rocket science, the more you pressure you put on athlete's bodies the more prone they are to injury. I just wonder why our game's officials thought it applicable to hurt our athletes in order to change the appearance of the game?

Do you have any actual comparable injury stats from 2011? Or is it just some vibe you have?

Cutting rotations means more work...define work. There are less physical stoppages and packs, GPS data indicates a reduction in time players spend at peak exertion. I would imagine both of these would be included in a definition of work.

 

[Robroy22]

There are less stoppages because the umpires refuse to call the ball ups they used to. They allow the maul to continue until the ball gets out .... eventually. "Work" in this scenario refers to the amount of time players are actually involved on the field. To my knowledge not many get injured whilst recharging their bodies on the interchange bench. Allowing players to rotate as they see fit (unless they're being dragged or required to come off for strategic purposes) means they control their fatigue and they work as a team to cover player movement on field. Did you notice the Richmond forward Vickery being "managed" tonight. After kicking two goals in two minutes he was told to come off the field for rest and recovery. In the 11 minutes he was off the field the Hawks kicked 3 goals to regain the lead.
Peak exertion ( does that mean running flat out?) would be better able to be maintained if players could come off for rests when they deemed fit, not when the sports scientists told them to (based on the GPS data).

 

[Mukesh]

There are less stoppages because the umpires refuse to call the ball ups they used to. They allow the maul to continue until the ball gets out .... eventually. "Work" in this scenario refers to the amount of time players are actually involved on the field. To my knowledge not many get injured whilst recharging their bodies on the interchange bench. Allowing players to rotate as they see fit (unless they're being dragged or required to come off for strategic purposes) means they control their fatigue and they work as a team to cover player movement on field. Did you notice the Richmond forward Vickery being "managed" tonight. After kicking two goals in two minutes he was told to come off the field for rest and recovery. In the 11 minutes he was off the field the Hawks kicked 3 goals to regain the lead.
Peak exertion ( does that mean running flat out?) would be better able to be maintained if players could come off for rests when they deemed fit, not when the sports scientists told them to (based on the GPS data).

My gut tells me less rotations equals more fatigue. I dunno about the correlation with injuries but I bet that fatigue has a compounding effect over a six month season. Seems like this years rotation cap is too low, last year seemed to work fine. What I've never understood is why a guy sprints to the bench immediately after kicking a goal... doesn't that just add to his workload ?

 

[Kappa]

My gut tells me less rotations equals more fatigue. I dunno about the correlation with injuries but I bet that fatigue has a compounding effect over a six month season. Seems like this years rotation cap is too low, last year seemed to work fine. What I've never understood is why a guy sprints to the bench immediately after kicking a goal... doesn't that just add to his workload ?

It's a different type of fatigue, either way the players spend 100% of their energy however with more rotations they do it in more explosive short sharp bursts, while with less rotations they spend it a little slower... this slowing down of players should in theory result in less serious collision injuries.

People have been complaining about the amount of injuries for 7-8 years now, the OP has no proof whatsoever it's gotten better or worse with the latest change.

 

[Robroy22]

Geez mate, requiring proof on BF? Next you'll be Showing us all your "proof" that Cloke's a has been and Buckley's a never was?
If you can't see all the injuries that lots of clubs are having (by round 6) then proof's gonna be a little bit difficult.