New interchange rules - super substitute

[Pure_Ownage]

Scenario

Friday night game. Sub does not get used.
Can he play VFL?

Yep he can. I reckon when we play friday nights you'll routinely see the sub play a half in the VFL on Saturdays/Sundays.

The problem comes if the VFL game is first, and the AFL sub is unused but then gets no match time anywhere else.

 

[The rabbi]

Chapman and Stevie J will take two spots but the other two are up for grabs rabbi.

I prefer Stevie in the forward line but at training he was doing center clearance work, as was also the Bald Adonis.

Who knows what Scott has in mind?

 

[witsend]

I reckon most coaches will roll the dice and use the sub as a 2nd half rotation until enough of them get "burned" by a late injury and they'll have used up the sub already, thereby severely hampering their 2nd half mf rotations.
By mid-season the rotations will have begun to diminish in the way the AFL wants.

 

[OldStyle2007]

I reckon only 2 real options:

1. Goal kicking impact player (e.g. Milne, Riccardi type)

2. Defensive minded utility who can also go forward (e.g. most of St Kilda's list)

You wouldn't want a ruckman because most likely he would be useless in face of an injury

And you wouldn't want just an ordinary midfielder because he's either good enough to start in the 21 or he's not going to protect you from an injury to a taller player

 

[AM]

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=107166

 

[witsend]

The new sub rule

I think this new sub rule is being misunderstood.
The point of it is to limit rotations.
Effectively what the AFL is saying is that each team only has 21 players, not 22, but one of their listed emergencies is available in the event of a game ending injury.
Initially coaches are gonna role the dice and get cute by using the sub as part of a rotation policy at some point in a game, but the problems will develop with that when (a) they get an injury to a key structural player ie a ruck/CHF/FB etc and have no back up on the bench, and (b) they rotate just as much and find they are running out of gas at the end of games because they have one less player....at the least!
I actually believe this rule will start to rein in excessive rotations which has turned footy into a game of keepings off and smart arse hide and seek mf rotations.
The traditional 2 ruckman policy was gone long before this new rule came in. Ottens was a ruck/forward. Blake was our only true ruckman only player.
His role was always tenuous if we found a better option.
With one less player, teams will have to have a better back up plan for ALL key positions with talls as they always have.
I think the sub will pretty much always be a utility type player. There is no way to guess who will be injured sufficiently to be replaced, so coaches will have to have all their key backups in the 21.The replacement will be to plug the hole one or 2 players further down that the injury creates.

 

[candiehappy]

Re: The new sub rule

I think this new sub rule is being misunderstood.
The point of it is to limit rotations.
Effectively what the AFL is saying is that each team only has 21 players, not 22, but one of their listed emergencies is available in the event of a game ending injury.
Initially coaches are gonna role the dice and get cute by using the sub as part of a rotation policy at some point in a game, but the problems will develop with that when (a) they get an injury to a key structural player ie a ruck/CHF/FB etc and have no back up on the bench, and (b) they rotate just as much and find they are running out of gas at the end of games because they have one less player....at the least!
I actually believe this rule will start to rein in excessive rotations which has turned footy into a game of keepings off and smart arse hide and seek mf rotations.
The traditional 2 ruckman policy was gone long before this new rule came in. Ottens was a ruck/forward. Blake was our only true ruckman only player.
His role was always tenuous if we found a better option.
With one less player, teams will have to have a better back up plan for ALL key positions with talls as they always have.
I think the sub will pretty much always be a utility type player. There is no way to guess who will be injured sufficiently to be replaced, so coaches will have to have all their key backups in the 21.The replacement will be to plug the hole one or 2 players further down that the injury creates.

thanks for that, I'm prepared to put my hand up as a bit confused.

does that mean that the 22nd player is truly a 12th man? ie if picked as no 22 say for 3 weeks in a row, and no injuries, you don't have actual game time?

 

[Farmer2Goggin]

I don't mind stokes. He offers pace.
And I like his running onto balls that are kicked over the top. It cuts teams open.

Good point , but Stokes isn't the only player that does this - I have seen Byrnes , Duncan, Menzel and Varcoe do the same. I think it's more of a Team Rule or tactic rather than the province of Stokes.
I used to admire Stokes in the 1:1 contest in 2007 but really feel he has dropped off in this area - particularly marking.
This is why I'm advocating Duncan/Menzel or Motlop in his role. Stokesy has been a great servant but he is on the decline.

 

[witsend]

Re: The new sub rule

thanks for that, I'm prepared to put my hand up as a bit confused.

does that mean that the 22nd player is truly a 12th man? ie if picked as no 22 say for 3 weeks in a row, and no injuries, you don't have actual game time?

I'm not totally sure how it will pan out...just offering an opinion ;-)

I just believe the Coaches/Match Committees will get cute early and try to gain an advantage by rolling some dice. But over time I think the rotations will have to diminish somewhat as more will be asked of fewer. And there will come times when teams have used their sub, then find they get a later injury and have no backup. Ergo rotatations diminish in value as players are tired.
At least I hope so!
The sub is a concession to coaches complaining that an injury that ends a player's day is a huge disadvantage considering how hard they push the players. Which kind of proves my point.