Remove this Banner Ad

News Sub-Rule Offically Scrapped

  • Thread starter Thread starter TradeDraft
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

1892 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Doesn't just effect the game in progress but injury lists will be longer during the year.

There is nothing coincidental about various injury categories being at an all time low during the uncapped high rotation years.
 
Kappa said:
Yep... not looking forward to a midfielder going down in the 1st quarter and then losing the game because of it.
Click to expand...
How is it any different without the sub rule?You'd still have three players on the bench in either case.
 
Helfarch said:
Doesn't just effect the game in progress but injury lists will be longer during the year.

There is nothing coincidental about various injury categories being at an all time low during the uncapped high rotation years.
Click to expand...

Injury lists were at an all time high at that period which is what prompted the sub rule in the first place.

A faster game means players hit each other harder and hit each other more often. Also there is more tackles
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Like no sub but don't like reduced interchanges.
 
sirlothie said:
I hope we see more 1 on 1 footy and less zoning as a result of this.
Click to expand...
If anything, it'll get worse. Scrapping the sub is good, but reducing interchanges as well is the bad part. I get what they're trying to do in reducing congestion, but the game won't slow down. All that will happen is that it will fast forward the prevalence of bulky endurance athletes due to their ability to cover the ground and handle collisions. Short natural footballers and the traditional 1v1 outside of key position contests will become rarer to see.

Funnily enough, we've done well on stacking our midfield with high endurance guys. Freeman, Greenwood, Crisp all noted for their ability to run all day and strength at the contest.
 
Kappa said:
Injury lists were at an all time high at that period which is what prompted the sub rule in the first place.

A faster game means players hit each other harder and hit each other more often. Also there is more tackles
Click to expand...

That's false.

The number of missed games may have been elevated but that was due to clubs taking a more careful approach with returning players from injury.
 
Kappa said:
Because with the sub rule its still 21 players v 21 players. Without the sub rule its 21 v 22
Click to expand...
Not really,because when someone is subbed off,it's still 21 versus 21.Under the sub rule,you're still only allowed to use 21 players at any given time.The only difference is that if a player gets injured now then the decision to take someone off is taken out of the coach's hands.
 
Ben Kennedy will like this at his new club
 
The best football (AFL/VFL) I've seen played was in the late 90's and early 2000's.

Guess what the rules were then re subs or interchanges?

THERE WERE NONE, 18 + 4, leave it at that, let the numbers run nuts.

No need for a cap at all.

The coaches are more responsible for the increase in interchanges then anyone else, and they could have brought it back down in a natural evolutionary state of the game.

But no, the AFL keeps screwing with the rules.

I can live with a cap of 90 though, it does restrict the amount of control coaches have on a game, which is always a good thing.
 
Shpeshal Ed said:
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.
Click to expand...

Now I know who you are ol' Shpeshal Ed . You're Robinson Crusoe.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

No more sub!!!

giphy.gif
 
mattys123 said:
The best football (AFL/VFL) I've seen played was in the late 90's and early 2000's.

Guess what the rules were then re subs or interchanges?

THERE WERE NONE, 18 + 4, leave it at that, let the numbers run nuts.

No need for a cap at all.

The coaches are more responsible for the increase in interchanges then anyone else, and they could have brought it back down in a natural evolutionary state of the game.

But no, the AFL keeps screwing with the rules.

I can live with a cap of 90 though, it does restrict the amount of control coaches have on a game, which is always a good thing.
Click to expand...


Yep - leave the game alone

How this rule lasted 5 years when no one wanted it in the first place...

Next - i want to see the first "radical" coach who tells a forward or two to stay at home instead of pressing up and breaking this rolling maul / all players in a half of the field absurdity
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

mattys123 said:
The best football (AFL/VFL) I've seen played was in the late 90's and early 2000's.

Guess what the rules were then re subs or interchanges?

THERE WERE NONE, 18 + 4, leave it at that, let the numbers run nuts.

No need for a cap at all.

The coaches are more responsible for the increase in interchanges then anyone else, and they could have brought it back down in a natural evolutionary state of the game.

But no, the AFL keeps screwing with the rules.

I can live with a cap of 90 though, it does restrict the amount of control coaches have on a game, which is always a good thing.
Click to expand...

But the Idiots on the AFL Commission must make it look like they actually doing something. They want to do good but they do the Opposite
 
I applaud the AFL for ditching the Sub, but I'm surprised going by previous form they didn't introduce it immediately effective for the finals, and change the rotations next year.
 
This is almost as good as us making finals. It ruins players development, especially younger players and was a useless rule. Injuries are unfortunate but the sub rule has proved to be ineffective. What a great result, BenKen can finally play a full game! What a glorious day for the Young man!
 
Finally, great decision.

The fairness argument is a furphy. Stats show that there is no discernible difference to results with teams playing one short on the bench. With the further reduction on interchanges, the so called 'advantage' between having 3 on the bench versus 4 on the bench, is limited even further.

The key to any of these decisions is to keep KB involved, but only to know what the opposite of what he thinks is and then do that.. The game will be in great shape there after.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

thebaldfacts
Will possible changes to ruck rules help or hinder Cameron
Replies
5
Views
389
The Phantom
The Phantom
Mostfamousclub_Pies
Objectively or Subjectively, who is the best coach of Collingwood you’ve ever seen.
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
Bianconeri
Bianconeri
Maggie5
    • Like
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Rules Copyright from Media Outlets and other third parties.
Replies
0
Views
3K
Maggie5
Maggie5

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom