Substitutes

[HugeJohnson]

There have been calls from the likes of Neil Craig, Rodney Eade and Dean Bailey this round suggesting that a substitution rule be implemented. I don't think that it is a fair rule if it works when one player is injured, a substitute can come on and play he rest of the match. It benefits the team with the injury really, giving them a fresh player. But I can see it working if some restrictions are placed, maybe like this:

Definite:

• Substitutions can only be made when 2 or more players are injured.
• The player being replaced can not return to the match.
• Substitutions can only be made by the end of half time. (maybe a slight change on this one?)

Some other possible restrictions could be:

• The other team can make a change as well, or gain an extra player to their interchange, whether a player is injured or not, so to rule out the unevenness of having a fresh player running around for the other team.
• Player coming off must miss the next game?

What are your thoughts?

 

[Dormammu]

The opposition or an independent medico to rule that a player or players is/are injured to the extent that they cannot return to the game.

This would overcome the problem that occurred in European rugby a little while back where players were being substituted with minor injuries that were later discovered to have been deliberately self-inflicted.

 

[jimmy_b]

Its definitely a great idea but the AFL needs to devise a way to stop players faking injuries, otherwise the teams will use it the wrong way

 

[Brilliant]

Just extend the bench again. Or do nothing.
I don't like the idea of substitutes.

 

[Perry Pie]

Not needed. The interchange players are enough to cover any problem.

 

[Dormammu]

Not needed. The interchange players are enough to cover any problem.

Nonsense.

In the game against Richmond last year Freo had 4 injured players on the bench and another (MJ) stuck in the goalsquare with what turned out to be a season-ending ankle injury.

All by half-time. And we lost by less than a kick.

So can well understand and empathise with the Crows on this, and little wonder so many coaches are in favour of substitutes (in fact, have any spoken out against it?)

 

[crownie]

whatever happened to injuries being apart of the game and having a little bad luck here and there?

coaches these days are just to precious and need to suck it up.

another problem with this is more players will be played with injuries and just sub off when they want.

it should only come into place when a team loses its whole bench.

may as well just make the sport non contact if you all cant handle it.

harden the $!$# up

 

[The Swert]

We need to reduce the bench not increase it. The only reason they are making so many interchanges these days is because they can. It's a good strategy to try to keep your players fresh by resting them so often but people are misusing it. Football should be about the fitness of your players not the number of times you're able to rotate your team. If your starting 18 isn't fit enough to run the game out then that's your own problem. If teams aren't fit enough to play at the current speed, they should slow down their gameplay and work on their fitness. I don't see why the game needs to get so fast anyway, umpiring can barely keep up.

However of course there is the possibility of injuries. That's why I'd much rather see 2 interchange players and 2 substitutes. That way a team won't be able to use the interchange as a tool to outlast the opposition and if a player gets injured he can be swapped. If by bad luck 3 injuries occur, then the team will be down 1 rotation, but if the starting 18 isn't fit enough in the first place then they should slow down the gameplay.

 

[Dormammu]

whatever happened to injuries being apart of the game and having a little bad luck here and there?

coaches these days are just to precious and need to suck it up.

Them days are long gone. Started when Carlton got sued by an injured player who argued that his now-permanent injuries were a result of their doctor ruling that he was good to go back on the field.

And as with coaches, pretty much the same. It's not like the days of Yabby or Parkin when coaching was a part-time affair and most of their day was spent on the beat or in the classroom.

 

[Andrew Mc]

In the game against Richmond last year Freo had 4 injured players on the bench and another (MJ) stuck in the goalsquare with what turned out to be a season-ending ankle injury.

So what? Injuries are part of game. And where does it end? What if your 2 subs or others get injured after you've used them up?

 

[strategy]

Leave it as it is.We dont need 10 reserves , imagine 10 on 10 off

Injuries are part of the suspense , game play etc.
Too many players are treated like babies .
Imagine any of them being brickies, truckies etc they just couldnt cut the mustard.

 

[Dormammu]

So what? Injuries are part of game. And where does it end? What if your 2 subs or others get injured after you've used them up?

Better a 2 man buffer than no buffer at all. And any move that helps reduce the risk of players seriously aggravating what might otherwise have been a minor injury is to be commended.

Expect to see more coaches and clubs pushing for it.

 

[Furn]

Should be 18 on the field 2 interchange and then 2 subs, once you swap you are off. That way if you wanna gain some fresh legs you have to do it at the expense of bring off a superior player for a lesser one.

 

[Dormammu]

Imagine any of them being brickies, truckies etc they just couldnt cut the mustard.

Brickies, truckies etc can look forward to a 40-50 career (sheez, I have a close relly who's a brickie and struggles with arthritis in his arm and shoulders, yet despite the time he loses because of it he still pulls down close to six figures a year).

Not really comparing like with like here.

 

[Lensen]

Should be 18 on the field 2 interchange and then 2 subs, once you swap you are off. That way if you wanna gain some fresh legs you have to do it at the expense of bring off a superior player for a lesser one.

I like this, providing you mean the "once you swap you are off" bit only applies if one of the subs comes on (i.e. not the two interchange blokes)

 

[Andrew Mc]

Better a 2 man buffer than no buffer at all. And any move that helps reduce the risk of players seriously aggravating what might otherwise have been a minor injury is to be commended.

Expect to see more coaches and clubs pushing for it.

You're still going to have players who don't come off the field and further aggrevate injuries - perhaps they'll even be worse because if a player comes off the field (for a rest/check out) he might instead be more inclided to stay on the field instead of risk not playing out the game (don't underestimate the players competitiveness). The only thing substitutes will do is make the game faster. And don't think it won't be rorted, because it will.

 

[Dormammu]

Should be 18 on the field 2 interchange and then 2 subs, once you swap you are off. That way if you wanna gain some fresh legs you have to do it at the expense of bring off a superior player for a lesser one.

Not a bad idea, but I still reckon subs should be used for injured players, with the opposing team or an independent doc confirming the injury is legit.

 

[Dormammu]

And don't think it won't be rorted, because it will.

See above.

 

[Furn]

Not a bad idea, but I still reckon subs should be used for injured players, with the opposing team or an independent doc confirming the injury is legit.

Ideally that would be fairer but its impossible to tell if someones really injured without scans etc. If a player says he's got a sore calf, what can you do ? What if an opposition doctor says he's fione and then he tears it later on ?

People have won payouts faking work injuries and thats after seeing multiple specialists.

If you have 2 subs your going to keep them till the lat qtr in case you get n injury like we see in soccer. If you get one earlier then you swap and if you dont get any you use them in the last quarter but you have to take off one of your best 20.

 

[Dormammu]

Ideally that would be fairer but its impossible to tell if someones really injured without scans etc. If a player says he's got a sore calf, what can you do ? What if an opposition doctor says he's fione and then he tears it later on ?

People have won payouts faking work injuries and thats after seeing multiple specialists.

If you have 2 subs your going to keep them till the lat qtr in case you get n injury like we see in soccer. If you get one earlier then you swap and if you dont get any you use them in the last quarter but you have to take off one of your best 20.

Some good points there. One way to reduce the risk of faked injuries is that a subbed player cannot play the following week (at least).

And re your point about subs taking place in the last quarter, then there are probably antidotes to this as well - maybe prohibit them after 3/4 time, allow them only in games where the score differential at 3/4 time is say, 40 points.

The system can never be perfect (e.g., the salary cap and Carlton/Visy) but there are always ways to eliminate/minimise the majority of the serious abuses.

 

[McCrann]

Some good points there. One way to reduce the risk of faked injuries is that a subbed player cannot play the following week (at least).

And re your point about subs taking place in the last quarter, then there are probably antidotes to this as well - maybe prohibit them after 3/4 time, allow them only in games where the score differential at 3/4 time is say, 40 points.

The system can never be perfect (e.g., the salary cap and Carlton/Visy) but there are always ways to eliminate/minimise the majority of the serious abuses.

Too complicated mate. Far too complicated.

Heard of KISS?

Keep It Simple & Stupid?

If the AFL brings in substitutes, perhaps 2 or 3, and reduces the interchange part of the bench - perhaps back to 2 - you simply can't put any injury type restrictions, or playing next week on the substitution.

What if a team has a bye the next week? As is the case next year. That in effect means a team with a bye coming up suddenly has an unfair advantage over the team its playing.

Just gets far too complicated and you get into the area of faking injuries. Why create a rule that has so many holes in it?

Keep it simple and it will be most effective.

Substitutes can be used at any time - even in the first minute - but once a player is subbed off he can play no further part in the game none.

You'll be wary of using your subs early because (as said above) if you sub off a fit player and then you get a couple of injuries you'll be dirty on yourself for having injured players sitting on the pine who could play whilst a fit player is sitting there who can't play (subbed off).

As also said above - this will mean teams will likely save their subs for the last quarter - an injection of fresh legs. Nothing wrong with that. Besides, are teams really going to have good players sitting on the substitutes bench? Unlikely.

Perhaps a back-up ruckman, an up and coming midfielder and a utility player - you have to cover all options.

 

[Tas]

Funny that Laidley mentioned this last year when we had 6 players go down against the Saints and nobody said anything.

 

[El_Scorcho]

I really like the idea that you have to trade off 2 players to bring 1 on. You still might see teams doing it late in games, but it's a signficant disadvantage to do so.

You could even up that to 3 injured players (that can nolonger come on the field) for 1 bench player. That would definitely only see it used when it is needed.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

- Just One Substitute (ala your "travelling Emergency").
- Only if they can't continue playing.
- A player who is injured can't return to play if a Sub replaces him in the 22.
- Independent doctor approves the Subsitution.

Extended benches and Subs are a dangerous and stupid idea that will turn AFL into nothing but a running fest.

 

[Kickin_Goals]

I would stipulate 5 players be subbed out before you get 1.
The idea is to simply have players injured not being on the field
There is no on-spot diagnosis for many injuries there needs to be a substantial penalty.
Giving them fresh rotations is not the intention here.
To field players with injuries at the start which is definitely going on shouldn't be given any insurance.