Remove this Banner Ad

The Sub Rule

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

F

FRUMPY

Hall of Famer
Veteran 10k Posts 30k Posts Wordler
Aug 18, 2006
38,708
48,574
Melbourne
AFL Club
Carlton
1 game in and we saw the Sub rule in effect for the first time. Carlton used theirs to replace Waite under the concussion rule and richmond used theirs as what seemd a strategic move to bring connors on for foley.

Choosing the right sub will be crucial to a team's ability to cover for an injury. With Waite going down chossing lucas as a sub was not benefical. The kid can play as a HBFer or onballer but not key position.

So my theory on the sub rule should be the side chooses their 21 players and 3 emergencies. The 3 emergencies can all be available as a sub. So if a side gets an injury they can choose any one of the 3 emergencies (only one substitution allowed for the game as it is now). Most sides would have a Key Position player and a couple of mids as their emergencies. This way they can cover almost any injury with a like for like player.

It is only one game in and clubs will work out a system but thoughts?
 
Reckon Richmond made a hugeeeeeee error last night taking off Foley.

Obviously they went into the game with a pre-conceived idea that Foley would play 50%. I don't think teams should do this with players. Surely you have to coach for the circumstances.

When Waite went down, Astbury no longer had an opponent. He was forced to go forward.

Then Carlton blew the Tigers away in the last quarter through the middle.



I know Foley is on the comeback trail. But if you can't afford to play a guy for more than 50%, then he should come back through the VFL.

The circumstances suggested that Richmond needed midfielders. They took off one of their better players. I know he wasn't having a major influence...but he is still a good player.


I would not be carrying guys in the team who can't run out the match. You need to anticipate at least 1 injury and use the sub accordingly.


I agree however with both sides electing to use pace off the bench. I think that's how most sides will go.
 
Also, in response to the OP:


I hate that idea. It sounds good in theory...but at the end of the day a coach has to be held accountable for his selection.

What you propose means if a coach brings in a poor side, he can recover by bringing on a good substitute and he gets away with it.


The team you name should be the team you bring onto the field. If you make a mistake, you cop the consequences.

Having the choice of 3 emergency will allow coaches to cover up selection mistakes.


The only situation I agree with your idea is when a concussion happens. Waite could've played last night but was not allowed. In that situation, a coach shouldn't be tied.
 
FRUMPY said:
1 game in and we saw the Sub rule in effect for the first time. Carlton used theirs to replace Waite under the concussion rule and richmond used theirs as what seemd a strategic move to bring connors on for foley.

Choosing the right sub will be crucial to a team's ability to cover for an injury. With Waite going down chossing lucas as a sub was not benefical. The kid can play as a HBFer or onballer but not key position.

So my theory on the sub rule should be the side chooses their 21 players and 3 emergencies. The 3 emergencies can all be available as a sub. So if a side gets an injury they can choose any one of the 3 emergencies (only one substitution allowed for the game as it is now). Most sides would have a Key Position player and a couple of mids as their emergencies. This way they can cover almost any injury with a like for like player.

It is only one game in and clubs will work out a system but thoughts?
Click to expand...

The Waite situation was not affected by the substitute rule. He would have been unable to come back on the field last year if the concussion rule had been in place last year. Waite was not allowed back on because of the new concussion rule.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

And if there was no sub rule who would have replaced Waite? Same as last night - restructuring to compensate for an injury. Coaches still need to pick a balanced side that can cover injuries to players, the sub is meant to help but it is up to the coaches to get the balance right.
 
I don't mind trying this sub rule, its something different and it may well only last a year in its present form.

Perhaps there'll need 2 subs in future, one reserved for concussion and one for general injuries / tactics?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
McCrann said:
The Waite situation was not affected by the substitute rule. He would have been unable to come back on the field last year if the concussion rule had been in place last year. Waite was not allowed back on because of the new concussion rule.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with my question, i know waite went off with the concussion rule and carlton subbed a player for him. I reckon clubs should be able to choose their sub from 1 of 3 emergencies
 
I don't like the rule, its just one more complication to a game that is already hard to explain to new followers.

Personally I don't think it was broken-footy was good to watch last year leave it alone.
 
Worst.Rule.Ever

comicbookguy.gif
 
DaVe86 said:
Also, in response to the OP:


I hate that idea. It sounds good in theory...but at the end of the day a coach has to be held accountable for his selection.

What you propose means if a coach brings in a poor side, he can recover by bringing on a good substitute and he gets away with it.


The team you name should be the team you bring onto the field. If you make a mistake, you cop the consequences.

Having the choice of 3 emergency will allow coaches to cover up selection mistakes.


The only situation I agree with your idea is when a concussion happens. Waite could've played last night but was not allowed. In that situation, a coach shouldn't be tied.
Click to expand...

I think the opposite, allowing multiple options will show the better coaches. Much like in soccer, choosing the correct sub can win you a game. As a spectator I woud rather a more suitable sub be brought in and the game to continue to be competitive then a samll forward be brought on for an injured ruckman cos they don't have any more options.

People gotta stop thinking of the negatives of this rule. Yes it's there and nobody wanted it but we all have to deal with, I find it highly unlikley they'll change it back.
 
strengthwithin said:
I think the opposite, allowing multiple options will show the better coaches. Much like in soccer, choosing the correct sub can win you a game. As a spectator I woud rather a more suitable sub be brought in and the game to continue to be competitive then a samll forward be brought on for an injured ruckman cos they don't have any more options.

People gotta stop thinking of the negatives of this rule. Yes it's there and nobody wanted it but we all have to deal with, I find it highly unlikley they'll change it back.
Click to expand...

Aye. Should have more subs available than you can use.

When they go to 2 next year (and they will) I would like to see 4-5 players who can be used as subs.
 
Carlton's issue was too many injuries/suspensions to KPPs before the game, which made Waite going off much more damaging. You should be able to cover your KPPs with the selected 21, and have an extra mid as the sub.

My understanding was that Foley was subbed off because he was ill.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Subprime said:
I don't mind trying this sub rule, its something different and it may well only last a year in its present form.

Perhaps there'll need 2 subs in future, one reserved for concussion and one for general injuries / tactics?
Click to expand...
I'd say it's highly likely that we'll be moving to a 2+2 bench next year. Having 2 subs would give the coaches the flexibility to have 1x runner + 1x KPP waiting to go. This allows them a greater degree of flexibility if/when they cop the first injury.
 
Vader said:
I'd say it's highly likely that we'll be moving to a 2+2 bench next year. Having 2 subs would give the coaches the flexibility to have 1x runner + 1x KPP waiting to go. This allows them a greater degree of flexibility if/when they cop the first injury.
Click to expand...

Seems to be heading that way.

Liked the suggestion earlier of having all emergencies available to be subbed. Not sure on the practicalities though.
 
DaVe86 said:
Reckon Richmond made a hugeeeeeee error last night taking off Foley.

Obviously they went into the game with a pre-conceived idea that Foley would play 50%. I don't think teams should do this with players. Surely you have to coach for the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Foley was vomiting and had diarrhea at half time according to Hardwick.

He was never planned to be the one that had to be subbed.
 
Sub-rule: A massive failure already

Wasn't the point of the rule to prevent collision injuries due to the increased speed of the game caused by multiple rotations?

In 2.5 games we have already seen 2 players knocked out from collisions and one player stretchered off with a serious looking knee injury in another contest.

If the trend continues this season looks like we'll go to 2 on the bench and 2 subs next year with Adrian Anderson in charge. :thumbsdown:
 
Re: Sub-rule: A massive failure already

GuzzLG said:
Wasn't the point of the rule to prevent collision injuries due to the increased speed of the game caused by multiple rotations?

In 2.5 games we have already seen 2 players knocked out from collisions and one player stretchered off with a serious looking knee injury in another contest.

If the trend continues this season looks like we'll go to 2 on the bench and 2 subs next year with Adrian Anderson in charge. :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...
Um, the sub rule has worked perfectly, the knocked out players were gone due to the concussion rule, and had it been last year their teams would be a man down on rotations.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Re: Sub-rule: A massive failure already

It has actually worked perfectly. Neither Carlton or Geelong had a reduced interchange bench after their players had to go off. It was 3v3 rather than 3v4.

It will still go to 2+2 next year most probably. :thumbsu:
 
Re: Sub-rule: A massive failure already

It's actually evened up the game for the side taking the injuries in most cases, meaning they don't have to play with a man down.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The Sub Rule

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top