Strategy What to do post sub rule?

[ManInTheArena]

Dude what ??? Were you drunk, or just trolling ?? First you claim I was contradicting myself, which I wasn't, and now I'm a ***** ???? What's your deal ?? It was a straight up answer !!

I had had a few Whiskeys but I asked a really simple question; "Are we going back to having no injury cover?" meaning I don't know the new rules, shout out to BigFooty: is there any sub/emergency type thing left or is it gone?

Yes or no answer would have been fine. Not:

Nope, hopefully just getting rid of a rule that was a blight on the game and should never have been introduced !!

In other words. Yes, there is no sub or injury cover any more. No need to say "Nope" and then crap on about how the sub rule should never have been introduced.

There are four guys on the bench, of course there is injury cover.

Unless you're saying the bench is as good as a sub or injury cover, which would be stupid.

It wasn't a straight up answer otherwise I wouldn't be having to dissect your bullshit to figure out what you're actually saying.

 

[Lawrst]

More run.

We need it.

 

[Bovo]

Agree. Go back to the double ruckman days

Memories; Lion heart Rehn and Pathetic Pitman!

 

[Pea Nut]

I had had a few Whiskeys but I asked a really simple question; "Are we going back to having no injury cover?" meaning I don't know the new rules, shout out to BigFooty: is there any sub/emergency type thing left or is it gone?

Yes or no answer would have been fine. Not:



In other words. Yes, there is no sub or injury cover any more. No need to say "Nope" and then crap on about how the sub rule should never have been introduced.



Unless you're saying the bench is as good as a sub or injury cover, which would be stupid.

It wasn't a straight up answer otherwise I wouldn't be having to dissect your bullshit to figure out what you're actually saying.

Again WTF ?? The new rules haven't even been confirmed yet, and I aint the one writing them. So why are you asking me these questions ?? These are all opinions that are being posted here.

"Unless you're saying the bench is as good as a sub or injury cover, which would be stupid."

The whole reason of the AFL capping the interchange is to bring about just that. The bench was always used for injuries in the past, and it is seen as a way to bring back 1 on 1 contests around the ground and open space. Please explain to everyone why that is stupid ???

 

[ManInTheArena]

Again WTF ?? The new rules haven't even been confirmed yet, and I aint the one writing them. So why are you asking me these questions ?? These are all opinions that are being posted here.

"Unless you're saying the bench is as good as a sub or injury cover, which would be stupid."

The whole reason of the AFL capping the interchange is to bring about just that. The bench was always used for injuries in the past, and it is seen as a way to bring back 1 on 1 contests around the ground and open space. Please explain to everyone why that is stupid ???

I wasn't asking you, I was asking someone that might have known they're talking about.

The bench hasn't been used for injuries since the early 1900's. That's why it's stupid.

 

[Pea Nut]

I wasn't asking you, I was asking someone that might have known they're talking about.

The bench hasn't been used for injuries since the early 1900's. That's why it's stupid.

Go and watch a game from the 1990's. Players go to the bench and put a jacket on. Up until the mid 90's there was only 3 players on the bench as well. What you continue to post is stupid.

 

[ManInTheArena]

Go and watch a game from the 1990's. Players go to the bench and put a jacket on. Up until the mid 90's there was only 3 players on the bench as well. What you continue to post is stupid.

What that the bench isn't used for injuries? that's stupid?

There are 22 players that get rotated through a bench, it's not there for injuries. What if five people got injured, are you going to claim that the field is for injuries too? it's dumb logic.

 

[cmndstab]

No point trying to "go back to twenty years ago". It won't happen. Twenty years ago players were part-timers who, by and large, weren't close to the athletic specimens playing today. And not being full-timers meant you couldn't coach them to play the kind of gameplans that are run today even if they were fit enough.

No coach in the league is going to accept that their player won't make contests anymore because the interchange bench is reduced and they're too tired without being able to have regular rests on the bench. He'll just drop them to the ressies and bring in a fitter player. And eventually all those natural footballers who can't run 15+ in the beep test will be squeezed out of the game entirely. And we'll end up with 22 players who can't do crap with the ball, but at least they can reach every contest for two hours without needing to take a breather and stifle the opposition. Brilliant. I'm sure that'll be great to watch.

The people who think that limiting interchanges will reduce congestion are kidding themselves. All it will mean is more fatigue, more injuries, less place for genuine footy talent, a worse display of skills, and more frustration for footy followers. Plus the occasional ugly scene of a club getting penalised for going over the cap. The one thing it won't do is reduce congestion. As fitness become more valuable, skills will become comparatively less valuable, and rather than having players hit targets out in the open regularly, we can look forward to an increased number of missed targets, leading to more contested ball, and yes, more stoppages and more congestion. And then, as players tire due to lack of interchange options, they won't take chances on balls they can't defend, and will just hug the boundary line instead. At least that way you get a breather while the contest resets. And we get yet more stoppages.

There are only two avenues to reduce congestion. One is to reward the ball carrier, to encourage players to try to create play rather than stifle it. The second is to actually make a rule preventing so many players from being in the area at once. I hope they don't go down the latter path, but if they do, at least they'll be making a direct rule change for once, instead of trying to skirt around the issue by making a related rule change and hoping it will have a flow-on effect to the real issue they intend. Which inevitably ends up causing a bigger issue than the one it "fixes".

Forget reducing the size of the interchange, forget an interchange cap, and forget subs. Just have four spaces on the interchange bench and let coaches use them as often as they like. The AFL looks like finally making a good decision by giving the pathetic sub rule the flick, let's see if they can avoid doing something equally stupid at the same time.

For that matter, does anyone even really care about congestion? Really? Are there people actually giving up on AFL because there are too many stoppages? You could add 10 more stoppages to each match and it still wouldn't harm the viewing experience as much as a single terrible HTB decision introduced to try to prevent stoppages.

 

[ManInTheArena]

The stoppages are okay but I don't like seeing every player on the ground in the forward 50.
I wouldn't mind a rule where some players have to stay out of the forward half.

 

[hippyhippy]

What about 4 on the bench and 1 sub .. drastically restrict interchanges further ...

 

[ManInTheArena]

I think no to interchange restrictions full stop unless the evidence shows it's reducing injuries (which I'm pretty sure it isn't).

Also no to subs because no one liked it. I'd rather have genuine emergencies that can be called on for genuine injuries. Injuries give one side an unfair disadvantage that is not within their control.