Preview New interchange rule (a post Jacob analysis)

[MileHigh]

Hey guys, hows it going? Ok, thats enough of the small talk...

With this new interchange I think it REALLY changes the dynamic of the game and associated tactics.

What I would like to say regarding Jacobs (and believe me I loved the guys attitude), I wonder how terrible a loss he would be in the context of the game with the new rules to come in.

1 less interchange to me means versatility is the key. If the dinosaur ruckman wasnt extinct, I think it now will be. I thought he was proving me wrong on this, but now I ponder it and I feel as though you are going to need two ruckmen and they are going to have to be multidimensional to stay out on the ground because you now only have 3 interchanges. So, if you can save these for your midfield rotation instead of having to bench a ruckman who (whilst tries hes damn heart out) isnt able to stay out on the ground, you are going to be a step ahead of the comp.

What im saying is, versatile Kruezer/Warnock/Hampson types are going to be worth their weight in gold if the can change quickly from a ruckman to essentially a midfielder, which I believe they can all do.

Loved Jacobs, but thinking the new rule is probably not going to benefit that type of ruckman greatly (and therefore Adelaide).

I also welcome back a type of football where we have all day match ups. I hope this eventuates.

Ratts and co have been building a side on flexibility. Do you feel this new rule will in fact benefit how we have recruited?

Discuss.

 

[Blue and Silver]

Walker is an incredibly valuable player with this rule. He can run out a game without any worries and play almost any position, will be a lock for Best 22 IMO.

I'd say our sub is likely to be Robinson in most games. Impact player who, when on a roll can bust a game open, but can go missing for a quarter or two as well

 

[Edddddie19]

Versatility is a key to our team. Other than Jamo, just about every player can play multiple lines. With the addition of this new rule some one like Walker has seen his worth increased, while the big ruckman like Jacobs' has diminished.

 

[Alice]

....or do you have a reliable type who wont let you down. Imagine having an impact player who didn't fire!!
Also - I wouldn't choose my 2nd ruck as a sub as some have suggested on other threads - ruckmen need to be interchangable in order to get a rest. Best scenario will be the ability to ruck then play as a competent forward. The continued development of Warnock/Hampson in this respect is vital.

 

[qldbluesman_43]

....or do you have a reliable type who wont let you down. Imagine having an impact player who didn't fire!!
Also - I wouldn't choose my 2nd ruck as a sub as some have suggested on other threads - ruckmen need to be interchangable in order to get a rest. Best scenario will be the ability to ruck then play as a competent forward. The continued development of Warnock/Hampson in this respect is vital.

Agree. The sub rule won't take out the 2nd ruckman but it'll mean you have a huge advantage if your second ruck is a competant forward.

 

[Blueboys7]

I'm certainly excited about the prospect of Warnock spending more time forward. He is starting to clunk those marks and is a nice kick at goal.

Having Kruez and Knockers rotating through FF will be awesome!

 

[Jeremias]

I just can't have a discussion about this rule. I'd love to, but I just can't.

Of all rules I can remember being implemented by the AFL, this is by far the most ridiculous.

For the NAB Cup, it's OK - because noone really cares about it.

But for the regular season?

Get ****ed and leave the game as it is.

I'm tipping this rule won't last 5 seasons.

 

[zeeCFC]

Do players who get subbed in and play, eg. 10 mins, get the games stat?

It's essentially made it much harder for players to get an opportunity...should've capped it at 80-100 and left it as 4 on bench

 

[Bluebear]

Walker is an incredibly valuable player with this rule. He can run out a game without any worries and play almost any position, will be a lock for Best 22 IMO.

Wouldn't that make him the perfect sub?

Forward, defender, mid gets injured, Walker can fill the spot.

I'm sure we probably have higher aspirations for him than that, but it will be interesting to see how it is used.

Do you keep the sub off into the 4th Q in case of injury?

Another example of the AFL creating something that isn't necessary that will have unseen consequences which they will then have to invent another rule for........this is the AFL's Cane Toad.

 

[SpaceCow]

I just can't have a discussion about this rule. I'd love to, but I just can't.

Of all rules I can remember being implemented by the AFL, this is by far the most ridiculous.

For the NAB Cup, it's OK - because noone really cares about it.

But for the regular season?

Get ****ed and leave the game as it is.

I'm tipping this rule won't last 5 seasons.

With all the backlash I'd be surprised if it lasted past the end of the 2012 season.

 

[ianh]

To me the most important questions about the new sub rule are :

1. What sort of player should the sub be?
2. Who do we have on our list who is suited for this role? and
3. Should we look to allocate this role to someone on a regular basis?

To me the answer to the 3rd question is no, otherwise you end up with someone who is getting very little game time which would effect form you would expect and when called upon to sub in early due to injury for example they would lack match fitness. So to my mind it should be a rotating position with the sub getting regularly elevated or eased down to the 2s to get game time, not necessarily every week, but regularly.

There may be times when the sub might be selected due to circumstances, eg a player returning from injury might be not yet ready for a full game but you want to get him some game time at firsts pace. But aside from such situations what sort of player do we want as sub? To some extent this to my mind will be dictated by the ruck situation. A team with only one true ruckman and a very much part-timer to give them a spell would it seems to me need to have a tall on the bench who can cover the "spelling" player in the event that ruckman no 1 goes down, or perhaps run in the ruck himself or spell the speller or cover for the guy who spells the speller etc. Whether that would be the sub or one of the interchange players is another question, but I think most clubs would go for the extra midfielders as interchange.However the Blues do not seem to be in that predicament as long as 2 of Kreuzer/Warnock/Hampson are around as all can play forward to some effect. All 3 could even conceivably be in the team. So assuming we do not need to have a "SPELLER" as our sub what sort of player should it be? Clearly versatility would appear to be the main criteria that the sub will ideally have. To that end I am inclined to the view that it should either be a "speller" or a player with enough height to either play a key position or a least a third tall role but also able to play a midsize role preferably back forward or middle. Who do we have who could be a "speller"? As things stand it seems to me O'hAilpin stands out as that man. Others like Waite or Henderson could do that role (with less capacity to relief ruck) but are too important to have sitting on the bench. Austin might fill the sub role if he is fit and in good enough form, in time one or both of Casboult (handy relief ruck but not much of a defender from what I have seen) and Donaldson if they are kept on might be possibles, but both are only rookies at the moment and neither likely to be promoted (in Donaldson's case must be some risk of being let go).

If on the other hand we went away from the "speller" type, I would think the logical players to look at for the role would be people like White or Thornton ie tall enough to play as a third tall but able also to take a flanking role and can play at either end at least to some degree. Or slightly smaller Walker (if not in the 21) or smaller again Davies, Collins or Anderson (if he stays) can play a third tall type role at a pinch and have versatility in varying degrees.

Lastly, if we decided our structure gave us enough tall/mid-size flexibility and we were prepared to go with a small (which I would only do if we could cover loss of a tall from within the 21) than players like Scotland Lucas or Houlihan (if they were not in the 21) or maybe in time Zac Tuohy have the versatility to play a variety of positions and in the case of Scotland and Houlihan they might benefit from the limitation of grind on their ageing bodies - conversely a teenager like Lucas might benefit from not getting battered too much by more mature bodies, although the trade off there is getting less experience into him.

All in all, I must say that O'hAilpin if he is not commanding a spot in the 21 could well be the ideal sub (although I'd like to see him used down back as our one genuinely tall defensive option) if we were going to give one the role on a somewhat regular basis.

 

[IheartCarrots]

I'd say our sub is likely to be Robinson in most games. Impact player who, when on a roll can bust a game open, but can go missing for a quarter or two as well

Very unlikely. If picked for injury cover or versatility, the sub will be somebody such as Davies, Hadley, Lucas, etc, depending on the first 21 selected. The 188cm+ midfielder/HBF who, if necessary, can cover any defensive or midfield position.

ie, Bower goes down, Davies comes on. Walker to CHB, Davies to HBF.
Henderson goes down, Davies comes on, Walker goes forward. Kruezer goes down, Davies on, Walker forward, Henderson plays backup etc etc etc

It obviously won't always involve those players, but that's how it used to be done and how it will be done again.

 

[Stamos]

With all the backlash I'd be surprised if it lasted past the end of the 2012 season.

If the rule is changed that quickly, it will most likely be to a 2 man bench + 2 subs instead of 3+1. Everyone who complains about changing the rules in relation to the interchange ignores that this has been the most changed and adapted rule. Over the history of football, this is the 6th major change to the interchange/substitute rules.

 

[Azul]

typical knee-jerk reaction to a problem of the afl's creation. After the epic swans/eagles gfs they made some changes to speed the game up. Now they complain it's too fast, i mean wtf??

What happens if your sub gets injured??

 

[Azul]

anyway, teams will pick their best 21 and make the sub a promising youngster- most likely a tall utility/midfielder

Another possibility is that we ruck warnock until he's stuffed and bring the athletic hampson on.

 

[Azul]

if they bring in this experiment, can i suggest they have a 21 plus 4 emergencies?

If your only ruck goes down in the first quarter and your sub is chris yarran you're stuffed.

So if the sub is for emergencies only - let the mc decide which of the 4 to play!

 

[Stamos]

Teams will go one of 2 ways with the sub:
1. A flexible forward/back (eg Simon White)
2. An extra runner/midfielder

I think no.2 will be the most popular option.

 

[olrac]

The reason that 3 subs works so well in football (soccer) is that 3 substitutes equals about 30% of the outfield team so you can make substantial tactical changes mid game. This is aided by having 4 - 6 different kinds of players on the bench to fill those 3 substitutions. I don't think the AFL should have 6 substitutes i.e. 30% of 18 but a bench of 3 players as rotation players and 3 substitutions would see similar effects to the tactical nature of AFL.

Example say you have to play St Kilda and you want a player to run with Nick Rewaldt but you don't have a player to do it. Instead you have two players that can do it for a half. With one substitute you can't consider the possibility of putting one of those guys as a sub with the intention of the first guy running his guts out for a half then bringing the second one on at half time to. With three you can.

Football is far more technically advanced than AFL and that is both a good and bad thing, I think the substitution rules in football should be adapted to suit AFL it would make games more tactical and potentially more interesting.

 

[Blue and Silver]

Walker is better used on the field as a high endurance player. I stand by Robinson being used as sub, with the flexibility of Gibbs, Lucas, Scotland etc allowing us to quickly change our dynamic

 

[Athomas]

People underestimate the impact this will have.

Tough decision is when do you make your sub? Early in the 4th? Mid way through the 3rd? 3/4 time?

I'm thinking mid way through the 3rd, they play 10 minutes, have a spell at 3/4 time then are super fresh for the last quarter.

Of course if you actually have an injury you can use it for that.

It's going to be a risk vs reward case scenario. I can see a lot of teams holding onto there sub till the final quarter, only to see there opposition team use it in the 3rd for a huge benefit. However the risk of somone getting injured late in the 3rd or in the final quarter could stuff things up!

 

[mark121]

Teams will go one of 2 ways with the sub:
1. A flexible forward/back (eg Simon White)
2. An extra runner/midfielder

I think no.2 will be the most popular option.

I agree that no. 2 will be the most popular option and would suggest to the afl that the sub should be selected from 2 or 3 players on game day, during the game so teams could choose tactically to suit the game.



NEGATIVES

I wouldnt want to see Riewoldt and other stars dimmed by using a player on him in the first half who runs himself into the ground then subbs him off and then bringing on a new player to do the same. Another negative we might see is the return of the flooding back into defense tactic and nobody wants to see that.


POSITIVES

I do see it evening the game up in case of 1 injury and with only 3 players on the interchange bench reducing interchanges it should open the game up allot more reducing the effectiveness of zones and many other defensive tactics.

 

[Blue since 72]

I reckon we're pretty lucky in that we have three mobile ruckmen so while some clubs may struggle to have two ruckmen in the team on game day it won't be an issue for us. Also having people like Waite and walker who can cover other positions gives us a flexibility under the new rule that we can take advantage of.

To that end I would have thought our three on the bench plus the sub would be midfielders.

Having said all that I reckon the rule sucks and it will be interesting to see if it lasts. It will certainly change the way clubs look at how they recruit the big men. Mobility and the ability to take a grab and kick a goal will be even more important. We may even see tall flankers pressed into the ruck so clubs can go with a more mobile set up.

Drawing a long bow here but I wonder if the club knew the rule was coming and were prepared to lose Sauce over Hammer to that end? Seems to have worked in our favour even though I personally didn't want to see Sauce leave.

Nah, what am I saying. He did want to go home after all so we didn't have a choice really.

Don't know whether Hammer will stick around once his contracts up though. Can't see us playing him, Krueze (once he's up and about) and 206 together and really under this rule having a surplus of ruckmen is pointless.

The AFL really need to have a good think about this one because it has the potential to really stuff clubs recruiting around if they pull the rule in a few years.

 

[Kramer1]

A ridiculous reactionary ruling...up there with having brightly coloured flag waving marching girls running on the field every time a player oversteps the interchange line by half a second prior to a player coming off.

 

[Faz 2000]

The rule won't be changed, though. A new, more convoluted rule will be introduced in 12-24 months to address whatever unexpected consequence there is of this rule.

Why?

Cos the AFL doesn't admit to mistakes. Ever. And the "Rules Committee" have to keep themselves busy, or else they'd be out of a gig.

I definitely think Carlton has the perfect style of ruckmen for the likely effects of this rule. Pick both Kreuzer and Warnock in the 21, play each something like 50% in the ruck, 30% forward and 20% on the pine. Teams with dinosaurs or only one ruckmen will really struggle to keep up with these two mobile units across 4 quarters.

Whilst I don't think Kreuzer will make a permanent forward, but both he and 206 are very dangerous drifting or pinch-hitting up forward, which is exactly what this rule encourages. Ie. Rest forward, not on the bench.

 

[Stamos]

The rule won't be changed, though. A new, more convoluted rule will be introduced in 12-24 months to address whatever unexpected consequence there is of this rule.

The only way this will happen is if they go to a more extreme 2+2 bench, rather than 3+1. I reckon the AFL would have preferred this, but went for the gentler option.