Sub in first quarter, your gone?

[W.C. Fry]

The sub rule was brought in to try and stop teams from being so disadvantaged from having an early injury. But does it really work?

Round 1

Carlton lose Dale Thomas in first quarter. Lose game.
Bombers lose David Myers in first quarter. Lose game.
Eagles lose Mitch Brown in first quarter. Lose game.

Round 2

Carlton lose Simon White in first quarter. Lose game.
Collingwood lose Ben Sinclair in first quarter. Lose game.
Hawks lose James Frawley in first quarter. Lose game.
Lions lose Michael Close at quarter time. Lose game.


Nothing ground breaking in the fact your team will be up against it if you get an early injury. But can we do something more to help even the balance?

 

[Quivorir]

I always wished that if you had an injury but had used the sub already, if sub is capable he should be allowed back on.

 

[The King!]

I always wished that if you had an injury but had used the sub already, if sub is capable he should be allowed back on.

Would be too open to abuse possibly though

 

[Mr_Moogle]

They should just get rid of the sub rule already. It's a terrible idea that never should have seen the light of day outside of preseason games.

 

[Quivorir]

Would be too open to abuse possibly though

So can the concussion rule though. Need your sub to inject some pace or something? Fake a head injury, let him on for 20 mins then take him back off again.

 

[Wild Bill]

The sub vest will be gone at years end. Terrible idea.

 

[master bate]

Carlton would've lost regardless (both times). Essendon might've hung in a bit longer with 1 fit guy coming on at 3/4 time but I doubt. West Coast could've done with the taller defender but the dogs smashed them between the arcs. Collingwood, no difference, in fact they won the last quarter didn't they?

Close and Frawley were KPP that likely forced some kind of tactical reshuffle. But Brisbane only had 1 key forward and the 2 rucks v Collingwood in round 1, the 2nd key forward is a hindrance as often as it is a benefit. Hawthorn used McEvoy back a bit but really the reason they suffered was Gibson was out as well. At the end of the day they led by 2 goals with 2 minutes left.

More times than not an early sub makes no difference for the first 3/4's and if it does it's because you've lost a gun player or important type of player. There's no real way to compensate for that. At 3/4 time the rival team gets a fresh sub but it's still 21 v 21 with only 1 fresh guy.

I think it's a run of losing sides getting unlucky injuries. GWS lost Tomlinson early and it worked out in their favour as Mumford stood up and rucked more (and better) and they have more run on the ground.

 

[Wooljay]

The sub rule will be gone and interchange cap down to 90 by 2016, so this'll end up being a moot point.

 

[The King!]

The sub rule will be gone and interchange cap down to 90 by 2016, so this'll end up being a moot point.

Prefer that to the bloody sub rule

 

[Ari]

Tend to agree that the sub is great in theory but in execution doesn't really work. Only works if you have a player with an injury in the third quarter subbed. If you have to use it in the first quarter then it's broken.

There's many ways you can fix it, but nearly all of them leave interpretations for the rule to be abused. Best way to fix it is just get rid of it. It's a decent initiative but it just hasn't worked.

 

[The King!]

I know its minor but i hate how it throws stats out for players, especially when a young mid is sub a lot early, like say Luke Parker was in 2012 for us

 

[basashi]

They should just get rid of the sub rule already. It's a terrible idea that never should have seen the light of day outside of preseason games.

I think the logic behind the rule is faulty.

- If a team has not yet used their sub, then an injury is only very slightly ameliorated by the use of a sub.... because their opponent has 21 players in circulation PLUS a fresh sub up their sleeve. The team with the injury has 21 players in circulation but no sub... and is therefore still almost as disadvantaged.

- If a team has ALREADY used their sub before an injury then having the sub rule significantly magnifies the disadvantage of the injury. This is because the ability to rest players is a huge asset in the game. A "post SUB" injury means you go from being able to rest 3 active players down to 2. That is a much worse position to be in than going from the ability to rest 4 down to resting 3, as you would without a sub rule.

 

[basashi]

Tend to agree that the sub is great in theory but in execution doesn't really work. Only works if you have a player with an injury in the third quarter subbed. If you have to use it in the first quarter then it's broken.

There's many ways you can fix it, but nearly all of them leave interpretations for the rule to be abused. Best way to fix it is just get rid of it. It's a decent initiative but it just hasn't worked.

No, I think critical evaluation and clear thinking should have knocked it on the head at the suggestion stage.

 

[doppleganger]

The problem with the sub rule is that it is not being used as a intended to be there in case of injury, it is being used tactically to try and introduce a 'fresh' man in the 3rd or 4th quarters.

Do people want 22 v 22, and if you get an injury or two stiff sh1t; ie how the game had gone prior to the introduction of the sub.

Or you make it say 20 v 20, and have a couple of subs who are there for a legit injury. Would need to enforce something along the lines of if a player is subbed out of a game they are ineligible to play next week.

That would ensure that the sub rule actually promotes fairness in case of early injury, which doesn't occur now and was a problem with the 22 v 22 uncapped interchanges.

 

[basashi]

The problem with the sub rule is that it is not being used as a intended to be there in case of injury, it is being used tactically to try and introduce a 'fresh' man in the 3rd or 4th quarters.

Do people want 22 v 22, and if you get an injury or two stiff sh1t; ie how the game had gone prior to the introduction of the sub.

Or you make it say 20 v 20, and have a couple of subs who are there for a legit injury. Would need to enforce something along the lines of if a player is subbed out of a game they are ineligible to play next week.

That would ensure that the sub rule actually promotes fairness in case of early injury, which doesn't occur now and was a problem with the 22 v 22 uncapped interchanges.

I want to see games determined by skill, creativity, fitness, structures, strength, technique, speed, athletic endeavour, character and determination.

I don't go to the game hoping to see a result determined by an administrative peculiarity like the sub rule.

 

[BM123]

Sub rule has really hurt Carlton lately.

Replacing our best outside runner with a debutant with no tank

Same scenario again with our third tall going down in the first quarter again.

 

[doppleganger]

I think the logic behind the rule is faulty.

- If a team has not yet used their sub, then an injury is only very slightly ameliorated by the use of a sub.... because their opponent has 21 players in circulation PLUS a fresh sub up their sleeve. The team with the injury has 21 players in circulation but no sub... and is therefore still almost as disadvantaged.

- If a team has ALREADY used their sub before an injury then having the sub rule significantly magnifies the disadvantage of the injury. This is because the ability to rest players is a huge asset in the game. A "post SUB" injury means you go from being able to rest 3 active players down to 2. That is a much worse position to be in than going from the ability to rest 4 down to resting 3, as you would without a sub rule.

The logic is sound, the application and rules surrounding it is the problem.

The substitute should not be able to be considered as part of the group of active players, it shouldn't form part of a coaching tactic with the introduction of a fresh 'rested' player.

If you don't have an injury, you should not be able to call upon the substitute, you already have 3 players sitting on the interchange taking a breather to swap a guy on the field out with.

 

[BM123]

The sub rule was brought in to try and stop teams from being so disadvantaged from having an early injury. But does it really work?

Round 1

Carlton lose Dale Thomas in first quarter. Lose game.
Bombers lose David Myers in first quarter. Lose game.
Eagles lose Mitch Brown in first quarter. Lose game.

Round 2

Carlton lose Simon White in first quarter. Lose game.
Collingwood lose Ben Sinclair in first quarter. Lose game.
Hawks lose James Frawley in first quarter. Lose game.
Lions lose Michael Close at quarter time. Lose game.


Nothing ground breaking in the fact your team will be up against it if you get an early injury. But can we do something more to help even the balance?

Stat getting thrown around here lately that only 15% of games are won by the team who had to sub a player on in the first quarter?

I have no way of backing that stat up unfortunately.

 

[basashi]

The logic is sound, the application and rules surrounding it is the problem.

The substitute should not be able to be considered as part of the group of active players, it shouldn't form part of a coaching tactic with the introduction of a fresh 'rested' player.

If you don't have an injury, you should not be able to call upon the substitute, you already have 3 players sitting on the interchange taking a breather to swap a guy on the field out with.

I take your point however you are defending a fictional model of the sub rule. I am criticising it as it stands today.

 

[doppleganger]

I want to see games determined by skill, creativity, fitness, structures, strength, technique, speed, athletic endeavour, character and determination..

Yes, as do most supporters.

I don't go to the game hoping to see a result determined by an administrative peculiarity like the sub rule.

And most supporters don't like a contest to be killed by an unfortunate early injury.

The numbers show that since the explosion in interchange that losing a player to injury early tremendously changes the chances of winning a game...it is no longer a game where the team with the best skill, creativity, fitness, structures, strength, technique, speed and character has the advantage, the team who didn't cop the early injury simply grinds out the result.

 

[basashi]

The numbers show that since the explosion in interchange that losing a player to injury early tremendously changes the chances of winning a game...it is no longer a game where the team with the best skill, creativity, fitness, structures, strength, technique, speed and character has the advantage, the team who didn't cop the early injury simply grinds out the result.

Agreed... but the sub rule as it stands today delivers no help to the team experiencing the injury and may actually exacerbate the disadvantage.

 

[doppleganger]

I take your point however you are defending a fictional model of the sub rule. I am criticising it as it stands today.

I am defending the logic of the sub rule. The logic is sound.

It is the current application which is lacking, the sub should not be an extension of the available 'fresh' men to simply rotate into the game.

The sub should be solely about replacing an injured player. Not about introducing a fresh runner for the last quarter.

 

[doppleganger]

Agreed... but the sub rule as it stands today delivers no help to the team experiencing the injury and may actually exacerbate the disadvantage.

Again due to the poor implementation.

It makes it 21 v 21 for most of the game, but one team still gets a 'fresh' bloke to come on later. This is marginally better than a team being hamstrung and having a 21 v 22 contest that occurred without the sub rule.

 

[The Swert]

Sub rule has really hurt Carlton lately.

Replacing our best outside runner with a debutant with no tank

Same scenario again with our third tall going down in the first quarter again.

It was the injury that hurt not the sub rule.

Without the sub rule you would be replacing your runner/third tall with nobody. Try winning then.



Thread title should be replaced with "INJURY in the first quarter and you're gone"

It has nothing to do with the sub rule, in fact the sub rule is helping you stay in the match.

Why do people still not understand this after 5 years?

 

[Forward Press]

It was the injury that hurt not the sub rule.

Without the sub rule you would be replacing your runner/third tall with nobody. Try winning then.



Thread title should be replaced with "INJURY in the first quarter and you're gone"

It has nothing to do with the sub rule, in fact the sub rule is helping you stay in the match.

Why do people still not understand this after 5 years?

This. I don't get it. The sub rule was never intended to make it equal - no matter how you spin it, if a player of yours is out for the match your opponent has the advantage, no matter how many subs or interchanges you have. The sub rule however is meant to lessen that advantage and make things more even.

I want to see games determined by skill, creativity, fitness, structures, strength, technique, speed, athletic endeavour, character and determination.

I don't go to the game hoping to see a result determined by an administrative peculiarity like the sub rule.

Do you support the game going back to no interchanges? Not so long ago the top level Australian rules football league had none on the bench.