Stupid substitutes rule - why????

[mrmatt]

Why on Earth can you only field 3 subs when there are 4 positions on the field?

Does anyone know why - I really want to know the thinking behind it. It makes no sense to me.

And I'm sure I was one of thousands burned this week by naming Cox in the ruck - while having their subs covering Forwards, Centres and Backs.

 

[trueblue_91]

Why on Earth can you only field 3 subs when there are 4 positions on the field?

Does anyone know why - I really want to know the thinking behind it. It makes no sense to me.

And I'm sure I was one of thousands burned this week by naming Cox in the ruck - while having their subs covering Forwards, Centres and Backs.

its like afl.

18 on the field + 4 on the bench = 22 players. and the 3 subs are emergencies.

 

[Kramer]

its like afl.

18 on the field + 4 on the bench = 22 players. and the 3 subs are emergencies.

yeah but in AFL you can replace a ruck with any of your emergencies. this is a game and matt makes a good point. you get no tactical advantage from being able to select more emergencies. as far as i'm concerned you should be able to select as few or as many emergencies as you want.

that would come in handy this week when lockout is thursday and you'll only see squads at best for the games played sunday and monday.

 

[magpies03]

SHUT DOWN lol

 

[borgy]

A couple of years ago you could get away with that because the forward could have covered the ruckman.

Last year they changed it. I would imagine people would have been getting crap rucks and getting superstar reserve mids so they could cover for them and get good scores each week.

 

[mrmatt]

...yeah - your emergencies used to cover all positions and people were rigging it in that matter - so they then switched it so that if emergencies were required the lowest scoring emergency's score would be included.

You could try to get around this by playing a back you knew wouldn't play and fielder only 1 emergency - say a high scoring midfielder. But you would run the risk of another player not playing therefore you play 1 short.

I don't see why they don't just let you field an emergeny in each position - especially when (as trueblue said) Sunday's are a guessing game.

 

[lion_gooner]

LUCKILY i had hudson as a emergencey

 

[J-Ro-20]

i do agree 4 emergencies would be a better idea, this way you can have a emegency for each category if needed be...

 

[BlueZippy]

And a vice captain... It seems very unfair on all those that had Cox.

 

[DanA]

I think it rewards those that do their homework.

People who had Reiwoldt, Embley, Gibson, N.Brown (Rich) deserved to lose points. Cox was one of the rare case which are just unfortunate.

 

[Dazman]

the stupid thing is you will always get burned if a ruckman is a late exclusion.

Who is going to put a ruckman as an emergency when there are 7 forwards, 7 backmen, 6 midifelders and 2 ruckmen in the chosen side. You would not do it unless the player had abit of doubt over their fitness like Embley had prior to the match and prior to lockout.