Rotation Tactics?

[HairyO]

I think people have forgotten that back in only 2007 teams were using around 50-60 rotations a game. Its only recently it skyrocketed. Im sure teams/players will be fine. We used under 90 on the weekend in the heat and powered through the game.

You were playing a Division 2 Under 16 team. Sunburn was the only risk for your players.

 

[hawkman]

If going by the NAB, the low scoring games were from clubs that stuck with the limited interchange numbers. I think there's no doubt that there will be less scoring and the game will be more defensive.

The last round of the NAB challenge nearly everyone stuck to the interchange limit and most were good scoring games

 

[Micksy]

I wonder if we'll see teams resting 4 guns in blocks and implementing a shutdown until they return.

 

[Valixir]

What is the penalty if they exceed the limit in a game?

 

[Milanista28]

What is the penalty if they exceed the limit in a game?

Has to be forfeit surely?

 

[10571z]

I wonder if we'll see teams resting 4 guns in blocks and implementing a shutdown until they return.

Yep these are the sort of things in curious about. Tactics like these could be intresting

 

[SJ]

I think people have forgotten that back in only 2007 teams were using around 50-60 rotations a game. Its only recently it skyrocketed. Im sure teams/players will be fine. We used under 90 on the weekend in the heat and powered through the game.

And in 2005 it was about 25 per team a game.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

I think people have forgotten that back in only 2007 teams were using around 50-60 rotations a game. Its only recently it skyrocketed. Im sure teams/players will be fine. We used under 90 on the weekend in the heat and powered through the game.

And thats when they started drastically changing the rules
In 2004 they changed the kick in rules, interchanges went front around 20 to 40 in a season
Coincidence?

 

[F_therest]

I'm wondering: is fewer interchanges actually going to lead to a better spectacle of a game for us? My suspicion is 'no'. However, at least it's an attempt to bring back old fashioned footy, and the different tactics surrounding it will definitely be intriguing. Another consideration is the old saying: 'As the game nears its end and the quick players get slower, the big players don't get any smaller.'

I agree I don't think it will lead to a better spectacle.

We saw glimpses in the nab, where near the end of the third and last half of last quarter many players were spent and so skills were poor due to fatigue and some players couldn't even chase a guy with the ball 2 metres away from them

 

[F_therest]

If going by the NAB, the low scoring games were from clubs that stuck with the limited interchange numbers. I think there's no doubt that there will be less scoring and the game will be more defensive.

Definitely. If you are too tired to run but have a set time for your rotation on the bench, you'll always lean to sitting in the defensive side of the ground and not bothering to run forward, than sit in the forward half and not help defensively

 

[Pugz89]

Has to be forfeit surely?

You would think the AFL folks on the bench monitoring it would clearly articulate they've hit their quota and prevent anymore changes.

 

[SJ]

And thats when they started drastically changing the rules
In 2004 they changed the kick in rules, interchanges went front around 20 to 40 in a season
Coincidence?

To be honest I think it would have happened anyway. It was only a matter of time as clubs, staff and players became more professional.

 

[darthbards]

Hopefully after a player kicks a goal he will stay on rather than running straight to the interchange.

 

[hazard]

Every team used the cap in round 3. Most teams went close to it in NAB 2 using no more than 100 or so. More of the teams used the NAB 1 to just give a whole bunch of players time. Any evidence a team used more than 100 or even 120 in NAB 2?

Didn't your team, Melbourne, use about 150 rotations in NAB 2?

 

[Mitchell Madness]

To be honest I think it would have happened anyway. It was only a matter of time as clubs, staff and players became more professional.

From 2003 until 2008 the league introduced rules to speed the game up, failing to look at what could happen

Since 2008 theyve been introducing rules to counter their own stuff ups

Teams will exploit the rules again, and the cycle will continue

They need to let the game evolve naturally
What made it great was teams didnt have to play the same style

 

[JPetro83]

I just wonder which coach will be the first to call for the sub back when they lose a player early and lose a game.

Im sure a coach like Brad or Chris Scott will.. they are the biggest sooks in the coaches box.

 

[SJ]

From 2003 until 2008 the league introduced rules to speed the game up, failing to look at what could happen

Since 2008 theyve been introducing rules to counter their own stuff ups

Teams will exploit the rules again, and the cycle will continue

They need to let the game evolve naturally
What made it great was teams didnt have to play the same style

Maybe, but the unlimited bench was a loophole that was just waiting to be exploited (once coaches had enough resources to do so).

 

[The 747]

I'm torn on this one, on one hand I wish they would just leave the rules alone because they never correctly anticipate the effect of those rules; but on the other I could see interchanges just continuing to increase to the point that it becomes a farce.

 

[Rotayjay]

If going by the NAB, the low scoring games were from clubs that stuck with the limited interchange numbers. I think there's no doubt that there will be less scoring and the game will be more defensive.

Just what we needed

 

[SJ]

I'm torn on this one, on one hand I wish they would just leave the rules alone because they never correctly anticipate the effect of those rules; but on the other I could see interchanges just continuing to increase to the point that it becomes a farce.

1. If they left rules alone we'd still have two subs and no interchange (or fewer).
2. It already was a farce.

 

[Jtree]

I wonder if we'll see teams resting 4 guns in blocks and implementing a shutdown until they return.

Only applies to teams that have 4+ 'guns'. Not many out there at the moment.

 

[Ocha905]

Good thread. I think the standard approach will be a 20/20/20/30 split across the four quarters if the game is close and no injuries.

 

[telsor]

What is the penalty if they exceed the limit in a game?

I dare say when they hit the limit they're told no more can go on....

If they send a player on when they're not allowed to, then the rules for having too many on the field would presumably apply.

 

[syl97]

I dare say when they hit the limit they're told no more can go on....

If they send a player on when they're not allowed to, then the rules for having too many on the field would presumably apply.

What happens if you get injuries in the last few minutes and you have hit your cap? Do you have to play with less than 18?

 

[telsor]

What happens if you get injuries in the last few minutes and you have hit your cap? Do you have to play with less than 18?

Yes.

Clubs will know to keep one or two in reserve, and if they don't, they'll soon learn.