Rules "Players Push For Pure Five-Man Bench" (The Age)

Remove this Banner Ad

LukeParkerno1

Post-Human
Sep 23, 2005
158,808
67,862
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
agreed. zero logic in 5 on the bench. IMO 4 and a sub is perfect

Yes but there needs to be a stipulation that if someone is subbed out it's treated as a concussion activation and it's a minimum 1 week off. It will stop some clubs exploiting the sub rule. It's there for a genuine injury that's it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

kickazz

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 12, 2010
12,151
18,448
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Do teams then complain when its 4 v 5 if they get an injury ?
Yep, totally unfair if you get an injury.

So make it 5 + 1 medical sub.

But then the medical sub rule can get abused, or players are left not getting enough game time.

Easy fix - make it a six man bench.
 

LukeParkerno1

Post-Human
Sep 23, 2005
158,808
67,862
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
Yep, totally unfair if you get an injury.

So make it 5 + 1 medical sub.

But then the medical sub rule can get abused, or players are left not getting enough game time.

Easy fix - make it a six man bench.

It's a rule everyone is going to whinge. I hope after this year, they say, "that's it, we aren't changing it again". I'd probably go the flat 5 man bench but honestly I couldn't care less. If there is a sub there needs to be stipulations- you use it they are ruled out for a week.
 

kickazz

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 12, 2010
12,151
18,448
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
It's a rule everyone is going to whinge. I hope after this year, they say, "that's it, we aren't changing it again". I'd probably go the flat 5 man bench but honestly I couldn't care less. If there is a sub there needs to be stipulations- you use it they are ruled out for a week.
The thing is, the larger you make the bench, the less an injury should matter.

Perhaps a very big bench but tight rotation cap is the best path forward.
 

LukeParkerno1

Post-Human
Sep 23, 2005
158,808
67,862
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
The thing is, the larger you make the bench, the less an injury should matter.

Perhaps a very big bench but tight rotation cap is the best path forward.

Honestly I'm not fussed I just hope after this can we leave it for a couple of years. Don't mind the same rotations but a 5 man bench so the last one is basically an active sub anyway.
 

St Plugger

Senior List
Feb 28, 2012
272
424
AFL Club
St Kilda
I can see that it would work if AFL/football was played with 15 aside, 5,5,5, [which I quite like]. 15 on the field + 5 interchanges = 20 per team!
 

Sky

Doctor Demise
Feb 14, 2021
3,769
7,768
NT
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Raptors, Storm, Chelsea
I can see that it would work if AFL/football was played with 15 aside, 5,5,5, [which I quite like]. 15 on the field + 5 interchanges = 20 per team!
I’d rather go 16 on field and 6 on bench no sub
 

The Falcon Strike

Hall of Famer
Nov 18, 2008
36,666
28,840
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
If you only had 1 on the bench and you had an injury - the impact would be significant to a side.

The more you have on the bench, the less impact the injury has to overall team performance - so allowing for additional subs make sense - particularly when you are capping rotations anyway if the intent is to reduce disadvantage of injury.

The other alternative I like is to simply rule any sub out from playing for 10 days. There may be some manipulation the week before a bye - but it would be limited. For modest niggles, clubs may prefer to simply play one short on the bench - particularly as those niggly subs tend to happen later in the game.
 

And_ROOS

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 11, 2005
13,215
15,788
On the Road to A.G
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Geelong
My local league trialed a 5 player bench but the catch was the 5th player had to be a player 19 or under. While good in theory that you are getting experience into a kid, the issue was it meant the bigger clubs went out and poached talent from lower clubs in the league who had less cash.

But in the AFL thats not an issue, so maybe thats an idea.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

LukeParkerno1

Post-Human
Sep 23, 2005
158,808
67,862
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
If you only had 1 on the bench and you had an injury - the impact would be significant to a side.

The more you have on the bench, the less impact the injury has to overall team performance - so allowing for additional subs make sense - particularly when you are capping rotations anyway if the intent is to reduce disadvantage of injury.

The other alternative I like is to simply rule any sub out from playing for 10 days. There may be some manipulation the week before a bye - but it would be limited. For modest niggles, clubs may prefer to simply play one short on the bench - particularly as those niggly subs tend to happen later in the game.

I like the second suggestion 10 days is a perfect drawback. I'd actually make it 14 days to stop the last round things that may go on. Sub them out they miss the first final.
 

Blackhawk42

Brownlow Medallist
Feb 5, 2018
11,040
24,822
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Chicago Blackhawks Melb Renegades
I don't care what it is as long as the concept of a 'sub' disappears forever.

We had guys 'debut' without getting on the ground.
Shaun Burgoyne celebrated his 400th game in his 398th.
James Jordon has a premiership medal for sitting down for 4 quarters.
 

The 747

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 19, 2008
25,238
30,376
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
I still don't understand how a rule like this can be decided after the list management period. Rule changes of this nature for the following season should be locked in prior to player trading, drafts, delisting etc because they affect team lineups and strategies based around that.

Because it is the AFL. The most notable quality of Gill's tenure has been reactionary rule changes without thinking through the implications.
 

The 747

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 19, 2008
25,238
30,376
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
We should follow the NFL and have offensive and defensive teams. Turnover happens, switch teams - think of all the ad breaks!

In seriousness this was obvious. 2 on the bench and 2 subs would be better.
 

Freomaniac

Hall of Famer
May 3, 2007
30,142
17,268
Parts Unknown
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Man City, Valencia, Lazio, Panthers
The 1990s slowly increases the subs bench.

From 1990-1992ish, there was 2 players on the bench.

Around 1994, there was 3 blokes on the bench.

By 1997-8, it went up from 3 to 4 in the bench.

I won't be shocked by the end of the decade, there's gonna be 5 or even 6 players on the bench.

Injuries occur more often so keep that in mind.
 

Tiger2709

Hall of Famer
Aug 27, 2009
31,704
29,308
Perth
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Liverpool
Its the AFL(Gills World) what did we all expect, just be grateful they didn't make the knee jerk reac...er thoughtful change, mid season.
 

Tiger2709

Hall of Famer
Aug 27, 2009
31,704
29,308
Perth
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Liverpool
The 1990s slowly increases the subs bench.

From 1990-1992ish, there was 2 players on the bench.

Around 1994, there was 3 blokes on the bench.

By 1997-8, it went up from 3 to 4 in the bench.

I won't be shocked by the end of the decade, there's gonna be 5 or even 6 players on the bench.

Injuries occur more often so keep that in mind.
Remember when the bench was used to punish players for f@ckups and you just played on with injuries, those were the days.
 

Remove this Banner Ad