The Sub Rule: Yes or No?

[leondavis21]

No!! This is really ridiculous, and will cost players games and careers later on. Yes the AFL has made the games a little more free flowing, but what happens when all the superstars of the game have to retire at 27/28!

The players are not gunna slow down, they will continue to find ways to get fitter and play through more injuries.

I think the ideal thing would be 4 interchanges, with 25 per quarter, and 2 subs.

Im lovin the heart of our players at the moment, but im worried very late in the year (re. 2011), when the big ones are on!! Injuries are all that is holding us back! (AGAIN)
Thoughts?

 

[SuperSub17]

Seeing as there are already 11 players in the league with season-ending injuries, it is a point to consider. I certainly haven't seen injury rates decrease like the AFL said they would. Our run of injuries has basically spanned 12 months now and at some stage we may have to consider something other than luck is causing it (not necessarily sub rule though).

 

[Buena]

I couldn't agree more with both of you. I don't know how the AFL justified the decision the have 3 on the bench and 1 sub. Less injuries? How can having less players on the bench reduce injury?? 4 on the bench, and 2 subs. Make it happen.

 

[mattys123]

No, never have I supported any sub rule that reduces the amount of interchanges we had/have.

And the problem is, little AA and big AD want to introduce a 2 and 2 system next year, which would be even worse.

If they are that worried about fatigue type injuries, why not change some of the time on rules, such as time being stopped every time there's a ball up or a boundary throw in, we could have 25 minute quarters instead of 35 minute quarters if they used their brains.

 

[jonbe54]

Coaches won't retreat from the strategies that were employed before the sub rule debacle, players are playing at the same intensity as they were before, the strain on their bodies has to take a toll sooner or later.

If the AFL truly believes this will stop high rotation strategies they are insane.

But of course that was never the intent, like most rules nowadays its intent was purely to drag the better resourced teams down.

 

[Old Spice]

The AFL was happy to introduce the interchange rule on anecdotal evidence re reduction in injury, but no doubt won't be taking note of this years anecdotal evidence of increased injury.

Think we need to return to what we had before: no caps on interchange and 4 man bench. The AFL cannot be serious about slowing the game down wile at the same time looking to shorten quarters. Ridiculous. The decision to let play role on tackles to have to stick for longer is doing more to assst with slowing the game down.

A big no.

 

[Jelly Bean]

The actual rule was brought in to try to stop the trend of end-to-end zoning (or press) as they felt it was a less attractive game (e.g. fewer one on ones, etc) and felt that overall viewership of the game would suffer. They felt that by reducing the interchange, they would create more tired players who could not sustain the running requireed for end-to-end zoning.

All the other reasons (e.g. injury prevention, etc) is just a cover for this underlying purpose because they didn't want to be seen to be meddling with the strategy of the game for the sake of aesthetics. It is not about bringing down the better resourced clubs (in fact, it would have the opposite effect).

 

[Knightmare]

I'd like to see a bench of 8 per side. No subs.

Quicker game - more fun to watch. Less injuries.

I'd also look to decrease the number of players on the ground from each team down from 18 to 16. Less players = less players around the ball and a better viewing spectacle with less interupted ball movement.

So 16 + 8 for teams of 24 each. No subs. Better for everyone.

 

[Pera]

^^^ I hope that was sarcasm.

 

[Jelly Bean]

But of course that was never the intent, like most rules nowadays its intent was purely to drag the better resourced teams down.

This couldn't have been the intent - on the contrary (as I said in my previous post) this actually rewards the better resourced teams.

This move trends more towards fitter clubs (as the running requirements per player are higher). All other things being equal, fitter clubs are those that can afford an extra few percent on football fitness departments (and Arizona trips, etc).

Therefore fitter clubs (read better resourced clubs) are those that will benefit. I still hate the rule.

I am not sure what I am missing (I can't see the other side of the coin) - how would it drag better resourced teams down?

 

[Avatar]

Don't like it. In fact dislike it more than when it was first announced if that's possible.

Unfortunately seems like it is here to stay.

 

[Jelly Bean]

I'd like to see a bench of 8 per side. No subs.

Quicker game - more fun to watch. Less injuries.

I'd also look to decrease the number of players on the ground from each team down from 18 to 16. Less players = less players around the ball and a better viewing spectacle with less interupted ball movement.

So 16 + 8 for teams of 24 each. No subs. Better for everyone.

FULLY agree. I have been thinking this for a while.

If they want to reduce congestion, why not take a couple of players OFF THE GROUND and put them on the bench?

It seems like a logical change to trial during the NAB Cup.

I would take three players off the ground - and only two people (inc ruckman) allowed in the square at centre bounces.

 

[SuperSub17]

If they are that worried about fatigue type injuries, why not change some of the time on rules, such as time being stopped every time there's a ball up or a boundary throw in, we could have 25 minute quarters instead of 35 minute quarters if they used their brains.

That would make too much sense.

 

[76woodenspooners]

No.

Put 5 on the bench, all interchange.

Bring back white coats for the goal umpires.

And then FFS, leave the game alone!!!

 

[ipswichpies]

For myself I would like to see some of this evidence they used to justify these changes this will definitely shorten careers but those lying bastards at afl house will never admit this.

 

[jonbe54]

This couldn't have been the intent - on the contrary (as I said in my previous post) this actually rewards the better resourced teams.

This move trends more towards fitter clubs (as the running requirements per player are higher). All other things being equal, fitter clubs are those that can afford an extra few percent on football fitness departments (and Arizona trips, etc).

Therefore fitter clubs (read better resourced clubs) are those that will benefit. I still hate the rule.

I am not sure what I am missing (I can't see the other side of the coin) - how would it drag better resourced teams down?

Better resourced clubs have more quality on their lists so their interchange is better than less resourced clubs, meaning they can keep better players on the ground through the interchange. Cut the amount of interchanges possible, cut the advantage of better resourced clubs.

 

[Temploar]

Do like the sub rule, Although it increases fatigue on players, an advantage is that with the 4 and 4 interchange if a player went down then you'd effectively be down 1 player, setting the team off balance, with the sub rule you just sub someone else in.

 

[Kirby]

I would take three players off the ground - and only two people (inc ruckman) allowed in the square at centre bounces.

If that ever happened we ought to throw the cheque book at Nic Nat!!!

 

[doppleganger]

For myself I would like to see some of this evidence they used to justify these changes this will definitely shorten careers but those lying bastards at afl house will never admit this.

The information is published every year.

http://mm.afl.com.au/Portals/0/2012/2011-AFL-Injury-Report.pdf

There were multiple rationales for the institution of the substitute rule, including

1) Congestion, 2) Fairness and 3) Injury.

The 2011 data confirms the substitute rule has not negatively impacted injuries overall in 2011 (as some predicted it would), and may have arrested a long-term increasing trend in soft tissue injuries by preventing the speed of the game reaching a new level, consistent with the objectives of the rule.

To put the workload impact of the rule change in perspective, clubs were still
able to maintain the same total number of interchanges in 2011 (average of 118 interchanges in 2011 compared with 117 in 2010), and it equated to just over 1 minute extra time on ground per player per quarter, which was approximately the same increase in time on ground regardless of position played.



People crack the sooks if and when a coach opts to use the substitute rule tactically.....only then to suffer an injury. The hysteria around the rule is laughable.

The AFL want to move the game away from a 18 man rolling maul where players are running at maximum speed all of the game, which is where it was heading.....to a game that is slower, has less congestion and more one on one contests.

Look at Pendles on the weekend...in 2010 if we weren't going to play him in the second half we would have been one man down, and one rotation down for a half of football.....but because of the sub it was fair.

The stats showed that in 2010, if a team suffered a major injury in the 1st quarter, it was basically game over...as for 3 quarters they were a man, and multiple rotations down...it wasn't a fair situation.

 

[ipswichpies]

The information is published every year.

http://mm.afl.com.au/Portals/0/2012/2011-AFL-Injury-Report.pdf

There were multiple rationales for the institution of the substitute rule, including

1) Congestion, 2) Fairness and 3) Injury.

The 2011 data confirms the substitute rule has not negatively impacted injuries overall in 2011 (as some predicted it would), and may have arrested a long-term increasing trend in soft tissue injuries by preventing the speed of the game reaching a new level, consistent with the objectives of the rule.

To put the workload impact of the rule change in perspective, clubs were still
able to maintain the same total number of interchanges in 2011 (average of 118 interchanges in 2011 compared with 117 in 2010), and it equated to just over 1 minute extra time on ground per player per quarter, which was approximately the same increase in time on ground regardless of position played.



People crack the sooks if and when a coach opts to use the substitute rule tactically.....only then to suffer an injury. The hysteria around the rule is laughable.

The AFL want to move the game away from a 18 man rolling maul where players are running at maximum speed all of the game, which is where it was heading.....to a game that is slower, has less congestion and more one on one contests.

Look at Pendles on the weekend...in 2010 if we weren't going to play him in the second half we would have been one man down, and one rotation down for a half of football.....but because of the sub it was fair.

The stats showed that in 2010, if a team suffered a major injury in the 1st quarter, it was basically game over...as for 3 quarters they were a man, and multiple rotations down...it wasn't a fair situation.

I have not looked at all of that report but I did note in the last 2 paragraphs of that summery that there is no conclusive proof that the introduction of 3 and 1 sub is lessening the injury toll and if that is the case why the headlong rush into 2 and 2.They have duty to put up the facts not their interpretation of the facts,they state in that summery they have no proof and yet they are determined to push on with 2&2.

You will note that I am selecting parts of that report that do not support their conclusions just in the same way they select parts of their report to justify their position,just let them give the facts not their bias version of the facts.

 

[Pera]

FULLY agree. I have been thinking this for a while.

If they want to reduce congestion, why not take a couple of players OFF THE GROUND and put them on the bench?

It seems like a logical change to trial during the NAB Cup.

I would take three players off the ground - and only two people (inc ruckman) allowed in the square at centre bounces.

Thank god you blokes aren't on the rules committee. The game would turn to shit.

Could you imagine 15 players on the wide spaces of the MCG? Would there ever be a contested possession in the centre of the ground?

 

[Jelly Bean]

If they are that worried about fatigue type injuries, why not change some of the time on rules, such as time being stopped every time there's a ball up or a boundary throw in, we could have 25 minute quarters instead of 35 minute quarters if they used their brains.

They aren't worried about fatigue injuries (in fact the sub-rule causes fatigue) they say they the reason is because of the need to avoid 'collision injuries' by creating more fatigue and slowing the players down. Shorter quarters wouldn't have that effect.

 

[Jelly Bean]

Thank god you blokes aren't on the rules committee. The game would turn to shit.

Could you imagine 15 players on the wide spaces of the MCG? Would there ever be a contested possession in the centre of the ground?

Haha, who knows, Pera? I think it would worth trying.

 

[Jelly Bean]

Better resourced clubs have more quality on their lists so their interchange is better than less resourced clubs, meaning they can keep better players on the ground through the interchange. Cut the amount of interchanges possible, cut the advantage of better resourced clubs.

Interesting. So you are saying that it eliminates advantages associated with a club's depth... And you are assuming that better resourced clubs have better depth.

Personally, I think that better resourced clubs are more advantaged by the rule than disadvantaged (given the requirement of better fitness) but I can see your point.

Either way, I don't think it was about wanting to do anything to resourced or non-resourced clubs, but more to improve the aesthetics of the game.

 

[Stripes B and W]

How can it possibly be argued that Pendulbury going down on the weekend is 'fair' to both sides with the sub rule?
All the sub rule introduces is more chance into a multi billion dollar professional game. This element of chance is my pet HATE in our competition.
Go back to Lachie K's injury, we had enacted the sub a few minutes earlier? Is that then fair to both sides?
Of course it is not!! So the chance of timing of injury is now introduced into a multi billion dollar professional game. Injuries are random enough in our game, but from game to game at least both sides commence the contest with equal numbers, they may not end it that way.
We are decimated with injuries but each game starts with 22 on both sides. That, of course, is self evident.
Please dont argue in favour of a rule that institionalises 'luck' into the outcome of games.

All it does it add to an uneven fixture, luck of the draw in which side you play and where in our final system.....