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.

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

Typical AFL making Rules to stop our Domination
Click to expand...
Everyone knows the rules were put in place to stop the 2010 game plan of the Pies... and now we have proof:
AFL General Manager Football Operations Mark Evans said “The interchange cap of 120 over the past two years allowed clubs to transition back to 2010 levels of interchange numbers.
“The reduced spread of rotations appears to have lowered the impact of rotation rate on success in winning a game,” he said.
 
Helfarch said:
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?
Click to expand...
That was the Cats maximum rotation between 2007-2010
 
good4footy said:
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.
Click to expand...
KB has done so much harm to the game through his time on the rules committee. Bloody menace.
 
Very glad the Sub rule has gone. Don't like the cap on interchange either.

If they are really that concerned re crowds around the ball, I'd prefer the go for "nuclear" options like starting zones for stoppages rather than these stupid tinkerings. Everytime there is a stoppage, each team must have 3 players in each 50 meter arc, and no more than 10 in one arc. After that let play flow freely as it wants and players run as far and whenever they want in play, but resetting everytime there's a stoppage.

Would significantly reduce congestion, not interfere overtly during play and protect teams from outsmarting themselves and winning the ball only for there to be no forwards to kick it to.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

speedytiger said:
Keep in mind a coach doesn't have to use 100% of his team for 100% of the game. He can keep one fresh in case of injury.
Click to expand...

That was like the Old Days of Footy
 
Sunbot said:
Everyone knows the rules were put in place to stop the 2010 game plan of the Pies... and now we have proof:
AFL General Manager Football Operations Mark Evans said “The interchange cap of 120 over the past two years allowed clubs to transition back to 2010 levels of interchange numbers.
“The reduced spread of rotations appears to have lowered the impact of rotation rate on success in winning a game,” he said.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I seem to remember it was originally sold as being about injury prevention. The AFL trotted out some pay per comment medical experts who said that having more fatigued players would slow down the game and reduce high impact injuries. Ironic thing was they conveniently ignored the rest of the skeptical medical world who were pointing out that fatigued players are also more susceptible to injury and fatigue itself can cause injury. But the really ironic thing is that while they bring in this slow the game down sub rule, they are bringing in another one every week specifically aimed at speeding it up... like the not waiting for umps to wave flags before kicking in. Gillon was a major proponent of the sub rule at the time... T#sser!
 
doodles98 said:
Interesting. I seem to remember it was originally sold as being about injury prevention. The AFL trotted out some pay per comment medical experts who said that having more fatigued players would slow down the game and reduce high impact injuries. Ironic thing was they conveniently ignored the rest of the skeptical medical world who were pointing out that fatigued players are also more susceptible to injury and fatigue itself can cause injury. But the really ironic thing is that while they bring in this slow the game down sub rule, they are bringing in another one every week specifically aimed at speeding it up... like the not waiting for umps to wave flags before kicking in. Gillon was a major proponent of the sub rule at the time... T#sser!
Click to expand...
And screaming play on after a mark or free kick before the player had a chance to get his breath.
Agree, they made stupied rule changes that in fact sped the game up.
 
Besides the Ben Kennedy trade mark on green vests, good riddance.
Just dumb it was ever introduced.
At leadt its gone now.

Surely Ben Ken wears it onemore time for a nod to history.
If he isnt then he'll get the red vest when he's off so he can keep it as it was always his
 
Just highlights that the people running the game actually have no idea about the game itself and what is constructive or not in tinkering with it. But whonalso can't stop tinkering with it. The past 10 years have seen rule change after rule change aimed at "fixing" something that wasn't broke, but that now is as a result of that tinkering.

They're like a trainee hair dresser who chops too much off one side, tries to even it up but takes too much off the other side, and repeat.
 
You know what this means?..... The AFL (and KB) are happy that the Pies no longer have any advantages with fitness or rotation.
What rule will they introduce now? NO FATHER SON BROWNLOW MEDAL WINNERS ALLOWED AT THE SAME CLUB?....Damn there goes Darcy!
 
They should have just dropped the idiotic sub rule and left rotations as they were.
Can't help sticking their dick in something....
 

Remove this Banner Ad

DAWESOME!! said:
Very glad the Sub rule has gone. Don't like the cap on interchange either.

If they are really that concerned re crowds around the ball, I'd prefer the go for "nuclear" options like starting zones for stoppages rather than these stupid tinkerings. Everytime there is a stoppage, each team must have 3 players in each 50 meter arc, and no more than 10 in one arc. After that let play flow freely as it wants and players run as far and whenever they want in play, but resetting everytime there's a stoppage.

Would significantly reduce congestion, not interfere overtly during play and protect teams from outsmarting themselves and winning the ball only for there to be no forwards to kick it to.
Click to expand...

If we want to clear congestion, I'd rather umpires pay more high tackles and rewards players for winning the ball first.
 
DAWESOME!! said:
Not a fan of players leading with the head though. More incorrect disposal /holding the ball would be good though.
Click to expand...

Tacklers should be forced to adapt IMO.
 
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...
1990 GF side went just fine with only two interchange players.

Should have never let Sheedy and the coaches campaign to increase the bench from 2 to 3 and then 4.

Take it back to 2.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Nup....should be unlimited rotations. Let's speed the game right up and see how the zones go against that.
 
Hoo-bloody-ray. Good riddance. Goneski. Hope never to be seen again.
 
good4footy said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do you have those stats or know where I can find them? I'd be interested to see that
 
ppoiter said:
Do you have those stats or know where I can find them? I'd be interested to see that
Click to expand...

Don't have them on hand but saw them presented / discussed by Gerard Healy last year (maybe year before) in an episode of On The Couch.

Edit- Mark Evans in an article in The Age earlier this year stated there was a fairness issue but did not provide any stats.
 
do you think buckley will try limiting himself to 90 rotations this week to see how he will manage it?
 

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