News Sub-Rule Offically Scrapped

[TradeDraft]

The AFL finally admits what a Joke of a Rule it was.

Though I think the Reduce to 90 subs would not make much difference from who is Picked in a team. Doubt you can play 2 Rucks like people here talk about with Playing Both Grundy and Witts

http://www.news.com.au/national/afl...field-congestion/story-e6frfkp9-1227511069641

 

[Rusty22]

Ben Kennedy doesnt like this.

 

[PieBeast]

Vale

 

[YeahNahYeahNah]

What a terrible rule that was. I reckon we would have won 2011 if it wasn't for the sub rule.

 

[Kappa]

The AFL finally admits what a Joke of a Rule it was.

Though I think the Reduce to 90 subs would not make much difference from who is Picked in a team. Doubt you can play 2 Rucks like people here talk about with Playing Both Grundy and Witts

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...field-congestion/story-fni5f22o-1227511069641

Can you post link to a site we don't need to subscribe to see?

Or quote the article in OP

 

[TradeDraft]

What a terrible rule that was. I reckon we would have won 2011 if it wasn't for the sub rule.

It was Brought in because of Dane Swan and Collingwood having so many Rotations.

Typical AFL making Rules to stop our Domination

 

[TradeDraft]

Can you post link to a site we don't need to subscribe to see?

Or quote the article in OP

Change Herald Sun to News

 

[1892]

Can you post link to a site we don't need to subscribe to see?

Or quote the article in OP

Kind of agree, it's easy to get around, but even easier if the news link is used instead of a herald sun link.

http://www.news.com.au/national/afl...field-congestion/story-e6frfkp9-1227511069641

 

[Primetime Pricey]

 

[MagpieBat]

 

[TradeDraft]

Kind of agree, it's easy to get around, but even easier if the news link is used instead of a herald sun link.

http://www.news.com.au/national/afl...field-congestion/story-e6frfkp9-1227511069641

and HS charges to read there Articles are a Joke

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

This is a stupid move by the AFL (Surprise surprise).

There was never anything actually wrong with the sub rule. The problem was that it was 3 on the bench with 1 sub. Should have always been 4 on the bench plus 1 sub. Everyone would have LOVED the sub rule had it been that configuration.

Now if we cop an injury, we're 1 player down. AFL are morons. Then on top of this stupid move, they sprinkle some insanity on top by reducing the rotations to 90. Are they handicapped? THEY CAN'T SLOW THE GAME DOWN! TEAMS WILL FIND LOOPHOLES AND THE SPEED WILL GET EVEN QUICKER.

 

[1892]

What a terrible rule that was. I reckon we would have won 2011 if it wasn't for the sub rule.

Possibly, but we also didn't use the sub well. Subbing Reid who was on one leg when Podsiadly went off or just moving Tarrant onto Hawkins likely would have changed the result.

 

[Kappa]

This is a stupid move by the AFL (Surprise surprise).

There was never anything actually wrong with the sub rule. The problem was that it was 3 on the bench with 1 sub. Should have always been 4 on the bench plus 1 sub. Everyone would have LOVED the sub rule had it been that configuration.

Now if we cop an injury, we're 1 player down. AFL are morons. Then on top of this stupid move, they sprinkle some insanity on top by reducing the rotations to 90. Are they handicapped? THEY CAN'T SLOW THE GAME DOWN! TEAMS WILL FIND LOOPHOLES AND THE SPEED WILL GET EVEN QUICKER.

Yep... not looking forward to a midfielder going down in the 1st quarter and then losing the game because of it.

 

[1892]

and HS charges to read there Articles are a Joke

Yep, once they started doing that I stopped looking at the HS site.

 

[sirlothie]

I might be biased but when we were dominant along with Geelong before all this came about the footy was the best I've ever seen, I loved the speed, bring it back, I don't think there were that many more injuries. Good riddance sub rule!

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Yep... not looking forward to a midfielder going down in the 1st quarter and then losing the game because of it.

It's like the AFL have absolutely no idea how to govern our sport. It's astonishing to see in fact.

 

[TradeDraft]

Yep, once they started doing that I stopped looking at the HS site.

That be same of a lot of people. Stuff they write most the time is not even worth Reading

 

[pablo disco bar]

I would like 4 bench players plus a sub personally

 

[1892]

This is a stupid move by the AFL (Surprise surprise).

There was never anything actually wrong with the sub rule. The problem was that it was 3 on the bench with 1 sub. Should have always been 4 on the bench plus 1 sub. Everyone would have LOVED the sub rule had it been that configuration.

Now if we cop an injury, we're 1 player down. AFL are morons. Then on top of this stupid move, they sprinkle some insanity on top by reducing the rotations to 90. Are they handicapped? THEY CAN'T SLOW THE GAME DOWN! TEAMS WILL FIND LOOPHOLES AND THE SPEED WILL GET EVEN QUICKER.

The bench should have just been extended to 5 or ideally 6 without any sub. The more numbers on the bench the smaller the disadvantage of losing a player to injury, making a sub unnecessary. 90 rotations is just dumb, it will only lead to more fatigue and more injuries, meaning that more sides will be disadvantaged by being down on bench numbers. Rotations would have found a natural balance, but if there's a restriction it should be kept at 120.

 

[eddiebankbalance]

Awesome! Was KB also scrapped

 

[sirlothie]

I hope we see more 1 on 1 footy and less zoning as a result of this.

 

[Helfarch]

Fixing the sub rule would have been a much better idea (injury emergency that's not part of the bench). Reducing rotations will fatigue players and cause more soft tissue injuries, it's science.

Also why 90?

 

[Kappa]

I hope we see more 1 on 1 footy and less zoning as a result of this.

20 players around the ball gets a bit boring.

 

[Helfarch]

I hope we see more 1 on 1 footy and less zoning as a result of this.

Nope