Opinion Unsubbing the tactical-sub in place of an injury, yay or nay?

[John Who]

I saw the second half of the Power vs Lions game in yesterday’s Qualifying Final. Port were ridiculously unlucky to have called a tactical sub for Boak to replace DBJ early in the second half. I think it was literally within minutes after the sub call, that 2 injuries had occurred within succession, with a hamstring injury to Dylan Williams and a rolled ankle to McKenzie.

Unsurprisingly, Port became hamstrung in that second half and the Lions rolled on a surge of goals to effectively kill off the game in that crucial third quarter. Effectively, what I felt was that the sub change in this particular case, placed Port at a significant disadvantage. The issue being Port had 1 completely injured and 1 partially injured player, with a fit player subbed off but unable to be called back on.

Getting to the point of this thread, I have a thought that might help to make the playing field more fair if such instances occur again, and this applies mainly for tactical sub changes:
- if a tactical sub is called, the sub that comes off can come back on again if there is a significant injury to a player.

What does BF think about the above thought?

 

[ibd77]

Yeah, nah. Just drop the sub and have 5 on interchange.

 

[John Who]

Yeah, nah. Just drop the sub and have 5 on interchange.

I’ll add that as a poll option.

 

[Headless]

Seems like a poor tactical choice. Win some, lose some.

 

[Outtatym]

Bad luck is bad luck.

 

[Viceregal]

You left out 'No, I think the rule is fine as it is and you live with the consequences of your decisions' or something of some such nature ... I am sure your presentation of the 'no' case as either a luddite or a grumpy old man was purely conincidental to your preferred outcome!

 

[Corn Cobbers]

Went way too early with the sub, sloppy and greedy, not "Oppenheimer standard"

 

[Blackhawk42]

The sub shouldn't exist and this is a great example of why.

 

[John Who]

You left out 'No, I think the rule is fine as it is and you live with the consequences of your decisions' or something of some such nature ... I am sure your presentation of the 'no' case as either a luddite or a grumpy old man was purely conincidental to your preferred outcome!

I added your suggested answer to the poll. That should cover most bases for “no”.

 

[Shane Heard]

The sub is a stupid pointless idea.

Have 5 on the bench and let the “out of the game “ injury situations have less effect on the match.

This would also allow teams to go with 2 rucks if they wish with the lesser light ruckman spending a fair amount of time on the bench ..if you so wish.

 

[HairyO]

I saw the second half of the Power vs Lions game in yesterday’s Qualifying Final. Port were ridiculously unlucky to have called a tactical sub for Boak to replace DBJ early in the second half. I think it was literally within minutes after the sub call, that 2 injuries had occurred within succession, with a hamstring injury to Dylan Williams and a rolled ankle to McKenzie.

Unsurprisingly, Port became hamstrung in that second half and the Lions rolled on a surge of goals to effectively kill off the game in that crucial third quarter. Effectively, what I felt was that the sub change in this particular case, placed Port at a significant disadvantage. The issue being Port had 1 completely injured and 1 partially injured player, with a fit player subbed off but unable to be called back on.

Getting to the point of this thread, I have a thought that might help to make the playing field more fair if such instances occur again, and this applies mainly for tactical sub changes:
- if a tactical sub is called, the sub that comes off can come back on again if there is a significant injury to a player.

What does BF think about the above thought?

Lions ran over Port before the impact of the injuries. The injuries just make for an easy excuse for a coach who seems to do very well during the Home and Away season, but not so well when it comes to Finals.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Yeah, nah. Just drop the sub and have 5 on interchange.

I'm the opposite. Drop the interchange and have subs only, resetting each quarter.
e.g. five man bench, 3 subs a quarter

 

[Stamos]

I'm the opposite. Drop the interchange and have subs only, resetting each quarter.
e.g. five man bench, 3 subs a quarter

So blood rule you're forced to sub a player out for the quarter or play short? The reason for having a bench at all (ie no longer 18 v 18) is to limit the disadvantage of an/multiple injuries. It's about making the game fairer.

There is already a cap on rotations, which dramatically limits the disadvantages of losing players to injuries.
There's no real point for having the 5th bench player be a sub.

 

[PenfoldsFan]

Keep the sub but lift the restriction on how many times the sub can be used.
So DBJ comes off for Boak and now becomes the active sub, he cant be part of rotations but can be substituted back on for a player that is injured or subject to concussion protocols.

 

[And_ROOS]

I would rather we had 7 on the bench, and you could make 21 interchanges per quarter.

 

[Shane Heard]

I would rather we had 7 on the bench, and you could make 21 interchanges per quarter.

How about NFL style where we have time outs and 40 players and entire midfields and back lines and forward lines that can swap over..and specialist kickers/punters who run out to take set shots !

 

[And_ROOS]

How about NFL style where we have time outs and 40 players and entire midfields and back lines and forward lines that can swap over..and specialist kickers/punters who run out to take set shots !

Except we have 4 on the bench and 3 emergencies to equal 7 which is why I chose that number...

 

[CrazyJoeFevola]

5 on the bench please, get rid of the sub. 15 interchanges per quarter. Will become a fascinating tactical part of the game.

 

[Teal Leviathan]

It's fine. If you make a "tactical sub" then you are knowingly increasing your exposure to possible future injuries.

 

[kranky al]

How about NFL style where we have time outs and 40 players and entire midfields and back lines and forward lines that can swap over..and specialist kickers/punters who run out to take set shots !

We could redraft Priddis and use him as a specialist kicker when we want Kaned Cornhole to accuse us of tanking!!!

 

[Shadow89]

I saw the second half of the Power vs Lions game in yesterday’s Qualifying Final. Port were ridiculously unlucky to have called a tactical sub for Boak to replace DBJ early in the second half. I think it was literally within minutes after the sub call, that 2 injuries had occurred within succession, with a hamstring injury to Dylan Williams and a rolled ankle to McKenzie.

Unsurprisingly, Port became hamstrung in that second half and the Lions rolled on a surge of goals to effectively kill off the game in that crucial third quarter. Effectively, what I felt was that the sub change in this particular case, placed Port at a significant disadvantage. The issue being Port had 1 completely injured and 1 partially injured player, with a fit player subbed off but unable to be called back on.

Getting to the point of this thread, I have a thought that might help to make the playing field more fair if such instances occur again, and this applies mainly for tactical sub changes:
- if a tactical sub is called, the sub that comes off can come back on again if there is a significant injury to a player.

What does BF think about the above thought?

How about don't make a 'tactical sub' and leave it until you actually need to cover an injury - which is why it was brought in, in the first place.

No-one else seems to play these foolish games, so 100% Ken outsmarting himself, rather than anything wrong with the current rules.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[Dazzler9]

A decade or so ago the AFL introdcued a sub (with 3 interchange). Everyone hated it, with the silly green and red vests, so it got canned.

Then last year (or was it 2021?) the AFL decided to reintroduce a sub (this time with 4 interchange) because of the unfairness of losing a player to concussion. Literally a day or two before the season started they decided to make it for any game-ending injury. Because AFL. And of course coaches exploited the system.

So the AFL has now made the sub available for any reason you like. So exactly the same as it was a decade ago, which everyone hated, but with one extra interchange player. FFS

And now people are asking for the AFL to allow subbed out players to come back on in case somebody gets injured. LOL, you couldn't make this stuff up.

 

[HTPunter]

I’ve never seen a sport where ever minor issue is discussed with a rule change.

Often it’s just the media desperate to fill in the weeks clicks. The classic example was Whately carrying on multiple times about players being called “dropped” and then being picked as the sub - apparently the solution to this was another rule change, rather than just having the coach explain when (if) questioned that player X/Y/Z would be the sub.

It’s not just the media, as seen here it’s fans too. I don’t really care if this rule is changed or not, I certainly don’t think it’s caused a big issue, but I am sick of the reactionary nature of AFL fans.

I personally think we should eliminate the oval nature of the ball as that leads to unfair bounces and we’ve already seen it cost St Kilda a flag, so we should change it. It’s unfair.

 

[HTPunter]

I am amused at the implication that Brisbane kicked 8 goals in the 3rd because Port had a couple of injuries in that quarter. I think they were and truly moving by then and it wasn’t going to have an immediate impact either.

 

[Breretonisahood]

Jeez, even if we had 18 on the bench and were able to replace every one of the starting 18 like for like, someone would still whinge its unfair because BOTH ruckmen just happened to be injured and a replacement couldn’t be pulled out of thin air from somewhere like a sub for the 18 on the bench. Why not just have the whole list sitting at the game made available as subs? 5 on the interchange bench. No subs, tactical or otherwise.