Rumour No more Sub

[Bone71]

Can live with it being scrapped as long as they only have three on the bench and limit rotations to the 80 mentioned above. Much prefer seeing players rotating through the lines not through the bench.

 

[Schulzycrow]

Man I hate the sub...
Have heard no sub 4 on the bench and limit of 80 rotations...give with one hand take with the other...Would like to see a gradual reduction in rotations. Maybe 100 next year, 90 after that.

 

[Cap]

Gillon > Andy D.

 

[Elite Crow]

Didn't we used to have just two on the bench? We've all gone soft!

It's more the bullshit of having to make some poor bloke sit on the bench for 3 qtrs.

 

[Messiah]

You could remove exploitation from (say) a 4 + 1 rule by saying anybody who is subbed off is banned from playing the following week.
I reckon it should be up to +3 or so as you often get more than one injury in any game which tends to ruin it.
So a 4 + 3 would suit me fine with the privisos -

1) Subs may play reserves the same week.
2) Subbed players are banned for at least one week.

This would leave a bench of 4 for x rotations (don't care how many).

 

[Vader]

The only way they will removed the sub is if they also reduce the rotation cap. Dropping it to 80 sounds about right. This would go a long way towards eliminating the need for the sub anyway.

The sub was introduced to counter the secondary effects of high interchange rates. Teams which lost a player to injury early in games were at a massive disadvantage, because they were unable to rotate their players off as regularly as their opponents, and thus they became more fatigued. By introducing the sub rule, teams were no longer at such a disadvantage. In that regard, the sub rule was a massive success.

The downside to the sub rule was always obvious. If teams didn't lose a player to injury, then the sub frequently only played around 1/4 of the game and quickly lost form & fitness if repeatedly selected in the role.

By capping the number of interchanges, then dropping it by 1/3 (the limit is currently 120 per game), the disadvantage problem is minimised. Teams should still be able to achieve close to 80 interchanges with only 3 players on the bench (i.e. after losing one to injury), so the remaining players should be able to continue to match their opponents. By eliminating the sub, all players are available for the entire game, so nobody is stuck playing just one quarter (unless that's what the Coach wants to do).

The AFL have actually been really clever about this. They copped a bit of heat when the initially introduced the interchange limit - but it didn't upset too many people, because the limit set was close to the average number of interchanges anyway. It was only the few teams with really high interchange numbers that were affected, with most teams being only minimally affected. Now they're reducing those numbers by 1/3, but actually being praised for it, because they're taking away the sub rule at the same time. It's a win-win situation for the AFL, who reduce the number of interchanges (thereby increasing the player fatigue level and opening up the game), without disadvantaging teams which lose a player to injury.

 

[Draft Bored]

Love it

 

[DangerSloane]

It's more the bullshit of having to make some poor bloke sit on the bench for 3 qtrs.

Which happened ten times as much when we only had 2 on the bench.
Coaches would only put a player on and remove another player on a pretty permanent basis.

 

[DangerSloane]

The only way they will removed the sub is if they also reduce the rotation cap. Dropping it to 80 sounds about right. This would go a long way towards eliminating the need for the sub anyway.

The sub was introduced to counter the secondary effects of high interchange rates. Teams which lost a player to injury early in games were at a massive disadvantage, because they were unable to rotate their players off as regularly as their opponents, and thus they became more fatigued. By introducing the sub rule, teams were no longer at such a disadvantage. In that regard, the sub rule was a massive success.

The downside to the sub rule was always obvious. If teams didn't lose a player to injury, then the sub frequently only played around 1/4 of the game and quickly lost form & fitness if repeatedly selected in the role.

By capping the number of interchanges, then dropping it by 1/3 (the limit is currently 120 per game), the disadvantage problem is minimised. Teams should still be able to achieve close to 80 interchanges with only 3 players on the bench (i.e. after losing one to injury), so the remaining players should be able to continue to match their opponents. By eliminating the sub, all players are available for the entire game, so nobody is stuck playing just one quarter (unless that's what the Coach wants to do).

The AFL have actually been really clever about this. They copped a bit of heat when the initially introduced the interchange limit - but it didn't upset too many people, because the limit set was close to the average number of interchanges anyway. It was only the few teams with really high interchange numbers that were affected, with most teams being only minimally affected. Now they're reducing those numbers by 1/3, but actually being praised for it, because they're taking away the sub rule at the same time. It's a win-win situation for the AFL, who reduce the number of interchanges (thereby increasing the player fatigue level and opening up the game), without disadvantaging teams which lose a player to injury.

This makes perfect sense.
I dont mind hte sub personally, but I can see its benefit being limited by the interchange cap, so why not use that method instead.

 

[Team DJ]

If true its the smartest thing to come from AFL house since Freo got the thumbs up, in the early 90s.