Remove this Banner Ad

Sub rule

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

Do you like the sub rule?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Indifferent

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Baz_hawk

Baz_hawk

Norm Smith Medallist
Veteran Hawthorn Hawks - Conor Nash Player Sponsor 2019 Hawthorn Hawks - James Cousins Player Sponsor 2019 Hawthorn Hawks - Conor Nash Player Sponsor 2018 Hawthorn Hawks - James Cousins Player Sponsor 2018 Hawthorn Hawks - Kaiden Brand Player Sponsor 2018 Hawthorn Hawks - Conor Nash Player Sponsor 2017 Hawthorn Hawks - James Cousins Player Sponsor 2017
Joined
Sep 5, 2008
Posts
8,654
Reaction score
13,075
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Do you like the current sub rule or prefer having 4 on the bench?


Your opinion should be based on whether you like the sub rule more than the 4 on the bench rule and not just on the rule alone.

Just looking to see where everyone stands on the issue.
 
I don't like it, but it did have elements of interest that at least countered my initial complete objection.

I don't like the way it restricts players taking part in the game, I don't like that most blokes sit there until the last quarter purely as injury insurance, I don't like that it impacts on players careers - ruckmen for instance, I don't like the way some guy comes on fresh and plays against half-cooked players.
 
I'm still not sure how I feel about it. One aspect that I like about it is if a team gets an early injury they are still more or less on an even playing field (or close enough) so one team can't just out rotation them and win easily (multiple injuries will still be a factor but even then the impact is relatively reduced).

On the negative, greater levels of fatigue is more likely to cause injuries (of course the AFL argue that the pace of the game due to all the rotations was causing injuries as well), my personal take on it is the fatigue related injuries is more of an issue but I don't have stats to back that up only my general feel. Not quite sure how I feel about the one guy running around fresh when everyone else is exhausted either. Also it means that one of your players only gets to play a small portion of the game and will lose fitness after a while if not rotated onto the first 21 regularly so that's a small negative as well but is manageable.

Overall I probably fall in the indifferent category.
 
Probably should have given my opinion. I'm on the fence at this stage. I like how it can add some strategic change to a game, like bringing on a player capable of kicking a few quick goals and lifting a team. Also it works well when a player goes down injured and can be replaced.

On the other hand, it fatigues players more with one less rotation available, it can take away from the excitement of being a first gamer if you are the sub. You'd like to be out there the whole time and not watch on for 3 quarters before you get a chance to play your debut game.

I'd rather a system where its 4 on the bench and one can be replaced if and only if a player goes down injured. If you lose a secon player then bad luck.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

I like the strategic element of it as well as back up due to injury. The fatigue it creates is also good for lessening the effectiveness of zones and floods.

Regarding the negatives, the increase in injuries is pretty limp theory one way or the other and regardless I cant imagine it being significant anyway. I see it more as the detractors primary avenue of attack, it has been very effective considering there is not much to stand on and the media will of course gobble it up lustily.

I dont consider the pressure on careers of second ruckman a negative, if they are not good enough to be first ruck, a forward or a back then they are simply not good enough to play AFL just by virtue of being tall. I have no problem with the extinction of the gumby.

About the lack of excitement of being the sub first game or not or the unfairness of having a fresh player amongst knackered ones, I couldnt even begin to care.

I am for the rule.
 
DarwinRoo said:
It should have been 4 on the bench and 1 sub from your emergencies.
Click to expand...


Came to post this. But that would make sense, wouldn't it?

Monkeys at AFL house don't deal in sense.
 
How anyone would prefer to go back to a system with no subs is beyond me. If a midfielder went down early on in the game in previous years it was almost game over straight away for that time. Having a sub made the competition much more fairer in the event of injuries. All other pros and negatives of the rule are irrelevant compared to this fact.

The only question is wha the ultimate make up should be 3+1. 4+1, 2+2 or 3+2. I think I would prefer 2+2. Don't want too many on the interchange. The games opened up much more this year as a result of the fatigue factor setting in towards the end of games. Reminded me much more of the early nineties games.
 
I like the look of the game a lot more. More positional play, more long kicking & pack marking, and a lot of sides running 2 1/2 or 3 full-time talls.
Only real problem has been watching some guys run through the ruck who really aren't ruckmen.

I can see why people are wanting 3+2, though.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

DarwinRoo said:
And it should be for injuries only. Not because one of your players can't get near it.
Click to expand...


Would be difficult to enforce- what do you define as injury? A player could easily be told to "pull up short" and have to come off injured with general soreness.
 
Hate the rule. Bring back 4 bench players. Someone gets injured well then tough it's footy. It's a traditional game and the AFL keeps bringing in crap rules and it ruins footy.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom