The Sub Rule: Yes or No?

[Jelly Bean]

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.....

It does reduce the chance of injury impacting the result. In fact, if the injury occurs prior to the side having used the sub, it reduces the impact of the injury up until the point where the other team uses their sub. If the injury occurs when the team has already activated their sub, then it creats the same situation as the 'no-sub' rule.

Therefore, in relation to exposure to chance, the game either has less exposure to chance, or no difference. It does not have greater exposure to chance. So it basically 'reduces' the impact of luck on our game - isn't that what you want?

 

[Pie eyed]

Sub rule has been a dismal failure in my opinion.
I have not heard too many coaches squealing about it though.
I think the change has simply been absorbed and is in most instances irrelevant now, having done nothing to slow the game, reduce interchange numbers or reduce injury.
Exposed as the "change for change sake" it was.

 

[ipswichpies]

Sub rule has been a dismal failure in my opinion.
I have not heard too many coaches squealing about it though.
I think the change has simply been absorbed and is in most instances irrelevant now, having done nothing to slow the game, reduce interchange numbers or reduce injury.
Exposed as the "change for change sake" it was.

The biggest worry is if they do actually bring in 2+2 without any factual evidence to support their position as they did when they changed from 4 ic to 3&1.

 

[Pie eyed]

The biggest worry is if they do actually bring in 2+2 without any factual evidence to support their position as they did when they changed from 4 ic to 3&1.

Those up at AFL house do as they wish.
They make pretense at justification but in the end the changes they make are fete accompli decisio made generally for reason unknown.

Luke Darcy is on the rules committee.
If that is not thumbing your nose at reason and logic then I don't know what is.

 

[cleomenes]

There are few things that I support in the constant tinkering game that the AFL have played in recent years, but the sub rule and its possible extension to 2+2 are among them. I would even suggest 2+4, with the 4 being subs, not interchange. Interchange has been a blight on the game and a major cause of the decline in spectacle. Coaches (as is their job) have exploited a rule change aimed at managing minor injuries as a tactical weapon, distorting the game irrevocably. It may be possible to claw back some of the loss, but mostly we are left with a bastardised game.

The impossibility of keeping the game fair is illustrated by the current problems with the duckers, divers , shruggers and now sliders in tackle situations. The umpires have managed to deal with the duckers (no free kick), have always tried to avoid rewarding divers, but have no mechanism to control the shruggers, and have only managed to make the sliders change from feet first (danger to others) to head first (danger to themselves). Perhaps there should be only one rule ; a free kick awarded if player behaviour is dangerous, and leave it to the umpire to decide. This would at least eliminate the shruggers, without providing an in for any of the other cheats. The high tackle rule exists to prevent injury. A limb that slips high because the tacklee pushed it there is not likily to cause injury. Therefore, ignore it.

 

[doppleganger]

Sub rule has been a dismal failure in my opinion.

Why?

I have not heard too many coaches squealing about it though.

Exactly....when mentioned a few coaches were extremely vocal, as it removed a game strategy that for many had been extremely successful. Players came out with hysterical comments and threats of sit downs etc.

But then as it was introduced everybody realised that it actually worked as designed, and the squealing stopped as there was nothing to fear anymore.

I think the change has simply been absorbed and is in most instances irrelevant now, having done nothing to slow the game, reduce interchange numbers or reduce injury.

GPS statistics prove the game slowed, the first time since 2005.
Interchange numbers plateaued, after an almost exponential increase in the previous few seasons.
And soft tissue injuries did decrease.

Exposed as the "change for change sake" it was.

The change has worked.....and get ready for 2 and 2, as it is coming....and again will work just as designed....despite the wowsers who harp on about some AFL conspiracy theory.

 

[doppleganger]

Interchange has been a blight on the game and a major cause of the decline in spectacle. Coaches (as is their job) have exploited a rule change aimed at managing minor injuries as a tactical weapon, distorting the game irrevocably. It may be possible to claw back some of the loss, but mostly we are left with a bastardised game.

Exactly...coaches have one intent...to find a way to win at ALL costs.

They dont care about the spectacle of the game, the fairness or the safety of the players.

 

[Old Spice]

There are few things that I support in the constant tinkering game that the AFL have played in recent years, but the sub rule and its possible extension to 2+2 are among them. I would even suggest 2+4, with the 4 being subs, not interchange. Interchange has been a blight on the game and a major cause of the decline in spectacle. Coaches (as is their job) have exploited a rule change aimed at managing minor injuries as a tactical weapon, distorting the game irrevocably. It may be possible to claw back some of the loss, but mostly we are left with a bastardised game.

The impossibility of keeping the game fair is illustrated by the current problems with the duckers, divers , shruggers and now sliders in tackle situations. The umpires have managed to deal with the duckers (no free kick), have always tried to avoid rewarding divers, but have no mechanism to control the shruggers, and have only managed to make the sliders change from feet first (danger to others) to head first (danger to themselves). Perhaps there should be only one rule ; a free kick awarded if player behaviour is dangerous, and leave it to the umpire to decide. This would at least eliminate the shruggers, without providing an in for any of the other cheats. The high tackle rule exists to prevent injury. A limb that slips high because the tacklee pushed it there is not likily to cause injury. Therefore, ignore it.

This lack of action on ducking, James Kelly T-Bones, head in first, makes a mockery of the interchange rule. Attacking these specific problems are more important and targeted than some vague, unproven, sledgehammer waffle regarding interchanges. When Jelly Bean talks about the interchange rule being about aesthetics, but cloaked in OH&S language, he is correct.

The collision danger remains high and unmolested, but in addition to that we much more strain on joints and muscles by limiting the interchange. Sure, you can say Pendles injury is not interchange related although there was a pressure for Pendles to return to the field when we hadn't yet put GC away), but in general you have to say that bodies are ebing pushed to their limit.

I think there are other ways to slow the game up. I'd suggest the umpiring this year has been great in terms of letting the play go on in a scrum before balling up. I prefer it aesthetically because the ball ends up popping out, but it also requires more tackling and energy sapping efforts.

 

[Knightmare]

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.

I probably wouldn't go as far as just one ruck + one mid for the starting bounce, but I wouldn't mind reducing down to the 3 for the centre bounces (1 ruck, 2 mids per side) if we reduced the field from 18 per side to 16 per side. Would really change the dynamic of the game.

I'd very much like to see 16+8 per side trialed in the NAB. Great chance to get an extra two into a NAB Cup game which is a great opportunity to give some of the younger players an opportunity. Hopefully it could eventually move into the season proper with some luck.