Sub Reactivation - Too logical Adrian?

[PieNSauce]

Good morning Adrain.
Just thought I'd drop you a quick note about something you could do to make the sub rule a bit more fair and equitable and guess what, it's based on logic and not anecdote like your as yet unproven theory on soft tissue injuries which seems to be copping a bit of a pounding this year.

The fact is that when teams activate their sub to give a fatigued or minorly injured player a rest they run the risk of being two men down if they subsequently cop a serious injury to another player as has happened to a number of teams this year. I know you will argue that fatigue is not a condition for which clubs should be using the sub but then that just shows how clearly out of touch with the real world you are. Go and ask your doctor if fatigue amounts to a genuine condition. I'm pretty sure he'll tell you you're a dill to think otherwise.

But wouldn't clubs have a tendency to abuse such a rule change I hear you ask. Well oddly enough, I suppose they could but then unlike clubs flagrantly abusing the salary cap rules with third party invisyble ambassodorial roles, this one actually has some merit in promoting equity and in the area of player welfare of the health (rather than financial) variety. If memory serves me correctly, abuse of rules is not something you've particularly taken umbrage to in the past so I can only guess that such a question is designed for the purpose of protecting your unsupportable position on this rule in the first place.

I'm sure I will be corrected if wrong but it seems not too long ago you and/or your cohort were expounding the virtues of the sub rule as being more fair when a club loses a player to injury and so I'm guessing that we can draw from this that you have a belief that fairness and equity are valued things in this context. With that knowledge, we can only assume that you would support a minor tweak of the rules that would allow a substituted player who is deemed by a doctor to have a genuine health concern which is not regarded as necessarily match ending to return to the field if his team does happen to subsequently suffer a match ending injury to another player.

Of course the problem with this theory is that it assumes that rather than basing decisions and rule changes on anecdotal evidence, you might consider provable fact as having some merit. A big ask I know but there you have it, a perfectly logical tweak to the sub rule which factually, not anecdotally, would promote fairness and equity without actually having a huge impact on the stated aims of the sub rule. What do you think Ando? Any chance of clubs catching a break here? Didn't think so!
Regards,

PieNSauce.

Here's an interesting question for the rest of us. Could we (or should we) try to make things more equitable for all clubs in this type of scenario? It certainly seems a big ask for clubs not to activate their sub late when we all know that plenty of players play on with injury in every match. Should they really be disadvantaged if they subsequently suffer a serious injury to another player? I'm not convinced they should although I'm sure some would disagree. Of course those who have seen this scenario play out for their club in an important match will know exactly what I'm talking about and it does seem that it adds an area of inequity in the game which is at least undesirable. I'm interested to hear other people's thoughts on the issue.

 

[LordJimmy]

Nothing is going to stop teams using the sub for more rotations if you do that. You may as well go back to another interchange spot... speaking of which that's what is really needed and what worked.

If they want subs they have to go the whole yard. A bench of four and then three subs from a pool of any number of nominated players. Cutting down the bench has just messed everything up.

 

[Wallaby]

Well, if 'Fatigue' is classified as a medical condition treatable by a doctor, i guess we will have full-forwards being subbed due to depression after missing a goal, HBFs with self-esteem issues due to not being good enough to play in the midfield, and the entire GWS team requiring counselling because of workplace bullying.

 

[kosifantutti]

Yes I'd like to see the rules become even more complicated.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

...so you mean, can we just have a 4th interchange player ???



Could have said this in far less words rather than give us the smug lecture Einstein !!

 

[PowerForGood]

Misses the whole idea about the sub - to remove the impact of losing a player through serious injury.
In the past, you would be one man short on the bench. Now you aren't.
If a club decides to play with fate and use their sub for tactical reasons rather than serious injury, then they suffer if they subsequently get one.
The rule isn't optimal because teams often use it for reasons other than what its there for. Clubs will always do that.
Offer reactivation, and then clubs will start using the sub for more tactical reasons (eg changing from two key forwards to one when kicking into a strong breeze, then changing back to two the next quarter).

 

[stugots]

Dont see why one sub reactivation shouldn't be allowed, hardly will lead to abuse of the system.

But as there will be 2 subs from next season, it wont ever happen.

 

[Honeyboy Wilson]

I think there should be a sub activation allowed each quarter.

- The start of each quarter the coach can pick whoever he wants the sub to be.

- Can only be used once per quarter.

- Keeps the 3 proper interchanges.

- Helps out when a team isn't sure if a player can come back on or not (doesn't leave them a player down while they're analysing the situation - kind of like a stretcher situation where if a player is stretchered off, they're not allowed back on that quarter).

I can't see anything but positives from that. But I'm sure someone will find something negative.

It's not complicated.

 

[Falchoon]

Good morning Adrain.

That won't get you far

 

[Baldur]

Malthouse has left. Buckleys game plan does not require as many interchanges. No need for the OP to continue to fight Malthouses battles for him.

 

[UrLordUnbeliever]

Easier solution = go with 3 interchange players and 2 subs.

If a player gets injured early (which often happens) the club can activate the 1st sub, and still have a 2nd available for use tactically or should another injury occcur..

I remember last season watching as several clubs got more than one game-ending injury during the course of a game, and Essendon had that happen at least twice..

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I think there should be a sub activation allowed each quarter.

- The start of each quarter the coach can pick whoever he wants the sub to be.

- Can only be used once per quarter.

The NAB cup had the subs re-set at half time and that worked fairly well.

One of the major selling points from the AFL was the fairness aspect of the sub that when one player went down early, the side wouldn't be overly disadvantaged by being out-rotated off the bench.

For mine the re-activation has merit, but their needs to be safeguards. An easy one would be the person who is being subbed out for the re-activation can't play the following game. This would ensure (with the exception of the grand final) that players wouldn't be re-activated will nilly.

It would still be open to abuse, because you could simply sub off an older player who was scheduled for a rest or perhaps a rookie who you plan to drop anyway. The bigger issue would be the grand final where the consequences of missing the following game are irrelvant as compared to the potential benefit

 

[donbooger]

Adding another sub will lessen the risk and detriment of injuries as well as widening the scope of tactical uses, no need to get to fancy with rules. As long as they reduce the interchange again next year as the game desperately needs more slowing, the impact injuries have been numerous this year at the new pace set by frenetic gameplans.

 

[Roby]

Easier solution = go with 3 interchange players and 2 subs.

If a player gets injured early (which often happens) the club can activate the 1st sub, and still have a 2nd available for use tactically or should another injury occcur..

I remember last season watching as several clubs got more than one game-ending injury during the course of a game, and Essendon had that happen at least twice..

It's not about player welfare, it's about the aesthetics of the game.

 

[JuddsABlue]

Can someone count how many times anecdotally is written in the OP? Pretty sure we have a world record on our hands here

I have no doubt something along these lines will be implemented within an appropriate time frame, not overnight as everyone seems to want.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

OP was too hard to read.

Guessing from the title it’s about being able to reactivate a player you’ve subbed off in the event of an injury.

Nah don’t agree – it’s just more needless complication on top of complication.

It’s not a huge issue, subs that aren’t forced by injury don’t happen until later in the game anyway – if they do it’s just stupidity or desperation by the coaches.

 

[telsor]

It's not about player welfare, it's about the aesthetics of the game.

It's both, although the aesthetics is the biggest part.

Having 36 guys running around in one big pack is hardly appealing, so the idea is to tire them out more by giving them less time on the bench to rest and consequently have them following the ball less.

The upside is the return of positional play and players 'resting' on the ground (Richmond have taken to resting Martin/Cotchin in the FP for example).

As a bonus, less congestion would probably mean fewer impacts and consequently fewer injuries.

 

[Roby]

It's both, although the aesthetics is the biggest part.

Having 36 guys running around in one big pack is hardly appealing, so the idea is to tire them out more by giving them less time on the bench to rest and consequently have them following the ball less.

The upside is the return of positional play and players 'resting' on the ground (Richmond have taken to resting Martin/Cotchin in the FP for example).

As a bonus, less congestion would probably mean fewer impacts and consequently fewer injuries.

I was directing a backhanded and flippant comment at the AFL. Dry wit is difficult to do on a forum.

 

[Off The Couch]

Nope, it's the risk you take. There is no hard and fast rule that says that the said sub has to be introduced to the game - a coach at this stage uses it to try and gain an advantage over the opposition - if that backfires and you use it and then end up with a serious game ending injury - well as Ben would say "such is life".

 

[keepzitreal]

4 interchange, 2 subs, let more kids live their dream.

 

[MarkT2]

If you want to end arguments about the sub then just drop the sub and leave it at 3 on the bench. If a club loses a game due to injury then bad luck. It’s been happening for more than 100 years. Bad luck is supposed to be part of life's obstacles.

 

[Superfist]

4 interchange, 2 subs, let more kids live their dream.

1 million interchange - every kid gets a go!

I thought the sub furore had died down. More subs/less subs, whatever it takes for Ross Lyon to not be able to put 18 players within 50 metres of the ball, that should be the AFL's aim!

 

[tonkapies]

Nothing is going to stop teams using the sub for more rotations if you do that. You may as well go back to another interchange spot... speaking of which that's what is really needed and what worked.

If they want subs they have to go the whole yard. A bench of four and then three subs from a pool of any number of nominated players. Cutting down the bench has just messed everything up.

bingo absolutely the way it should be 4 interchange and then a pool of 6 players but 2 subs then clubs can have talls forwards backs mids sitting there just in case. I like my footy fast and ballistic just like it is at the first bounce, to the very end of the game. It also brings fringe players into the main team makes them hungry to get on, dagging around in the reserves serves little purpose. Also all those who crave for one on one footy , kick to kick between the half forward and half back line, dust off your VCR and watch thugs from 70;s and 80;s boring mindless footy. The AFL are fools to think that they control the game, coaches, players and fans demand, footy to constantly evovle, pity some backwards people in society, and at the AFL dont see the way it should be.

 

[Collingwoodity]

1 million interchange - every kid gets a go!

I thought the sub furore had died down. More subs/less subs, whatever it takes for Ross Lyon to not be able to put 18 players within 50 metres of the ball, that should be the AFL's aim!

oh Ross..

 

[IanW]

No interchange, just substitutes.

Once you're off, you're off.