The Sub Rule

[ManWithNoName]

Re: Sub-rule: A massive failure already

Also, on Thursday night what Carlton player got injured and then took up a place on the bench after Waite got subbed off?

You're blatantly inventing things in an attempt to validate your completely unjustified criticism of a rule that's actually worked pretty well so far.

 

[Glorious couch life]

Re: Sub-rule: A massive failure already

Please demonstrate one game where this has happened.

And if it did happen, that's the coaches fault for using his sub early.

Because the coach is able to predict if/when his side will lose a player to injury?

I can just imagine the criticism that will come a coaches way for not using his sub, on account of waiting on an injury that doesn't occur.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Re: Sub-rule: A massive failure already

Because the coach is able to predict if/when his side will lose a player to injury?

I can just imagine the criticism that will come a coaches way for not using his sub, on account of waiting on an injury that doesn't occur.

It's no longer 22 vs 22. It's 21 +1 vs 21 + 1. The sooner people understand and accept this, the sooner they'll start to see the sub rule is working well.

Would prefer 3 interchanges and 2 subs though.

 

[Gizza]

Re: Sub-rule: A massive failure already

You're blatantly inventing things in an attempt to validate your completely unjustified criticism of a rule that's actually worked pretty well so far.

Worked pretty well to do what? In what way has it made any improvement whatsoever to the game?

 

[ManWithNoName]

Re: Sub-rule: A massive failure already

Worked pretty well to do what? In what way has it made any improvement whatsoever to the game?

When Selwood went down, last year they would've been one rotation down compared to the Saints. Same as the Crows would've been tonight. In both cases the sub rule meant it was still 3 vs 3 on the bench. Wouldn't you say that's the rule working well?

 

[Gizza]

Re: Sub-rule: A massive failure already

When Selwood went down, last year they would've been one rotation down compared to the Saints. Same as the Crows would've been tonight. In both cases the sub rule meant it was still 3 vs 3 on the bench. Wouldn't you say that's the rule working well?

Not really. Not when you have to decide if an injury in the first quarter is bad enough that he won't be able to come back on the feild, otherwise you risk getting a more seriously injured player and then stuck with a fit guy who can't come back on.

Also, teams who don't get injuries in a game now have even more advantage than they did before. Last year an injury would make it 3v4 on the interchange. This year it makes it 3v3 + one completely fresh player to come on in the second half.

To me it's just another stupid rule created by guys who feel they need to earn their paycheck which causes more problems trying to solve a non-existent problem and not fixing anything.

 

[Glorious couch life]

Re: Sub-rule: A massive failure already

It's no longer 22 vs 22. It's 21 +1 vs 21 + 1. The sooner people understand and accept this, the sooner they'll start to see the sub rule is working well.

Would prefer 3 interchanges and 2 subs though.

So it is a coach's fault that he can't predict injuries and uses his sub too early then? Why restrict a team's ability to bring a player back on if he's sufficiently recovered from injury, and the bench is exhausted of fit players? What possible good does that do? That may be an extreme scenario but it has happened with a 4 man bench, and it only becomes more likely with a 3+1.

And I'd still like the AFL to provide a valid reason for the implementation of this rule. If it's to prevent injury then perhaps they could provide some credible evidence that it will help to do so.

Can someone enlighten me as to why the AFL thinks it's imperative to f___ with the game constantly?

 

[Stamos]

Re: Sub-rule: A massive failure already

And I'd still like the AFL to provide a valid reason for the implementation of this rule. If it's to prevent injury then perhaps they could provide some credible evidence that it will help to do so.

They already have. Repeatedly.