Would capping the interchanges hurt us?

[Winthorpe]

Why the hell are they always looking to create new rules to deal with a perceived problem? As was written earlier, it's as though the AFL is never satisfied with the state of the game. If there's nothing clearly wrong with it, they start looking for an excuse to bring in more restrictions.

Even if it were completely certain that the high rotations led to more injuries and we all agreed that was the case, why must a cap be brought in? Think about it; if high rotations resulted in the loss of key players for weeks at a time, why would any coach -- Mick Malthouse, for example -- persist in keeping those numbers high? Strategically, it would make no sense.

Coaches wouldn't want to lose players to soft tissue injuries. Leave it up to the most paranoid amongst them to limit their own team's rotations. There's absolutely no need to introduce a cap and FORCE every other coach to follow suit. If the paranoid ones are right and limiting their team's rotations results in fewer injuries, they'll go further than teams like Collingwood who, according to the AFL's theorising, should by now have a player list completely decimated by soft tissue injuries.

Maybe it's the libertarian in me but I can't stand pointless rules, especially the kind that are created by control freaks who get off on structuring the world to suit their moronic theories. A new rule is not needed here. At all.

 

[daics cousin]

So tell me when are these changes to the interchange rule going to occur
surely not this year?

What the hell are these idiots at the AFL doing?

I would have thought that the more interchange rotations you have the less likely an injury was going to happen cause the players are fresher.

The lesser rotations the more likelyhood of an injury occuring.

 

[AsianWithAFro]

There's no evidence to prove it will actually prevent injury it's all based on assumption

 

[Jonno_]

On point one, I take it you're saying the greater training loads and demands on footballers now are leading to more serious injuries, rather than rotations per se. I suggest you read the above link because to me it suggests that despite increased loads, injuries are better managed and it might seem lower for AFL best 22 players. The AFL's hokum science includes VFL/WAFL/SANFL players who are not managed by clubs and does not take into consideration factors like conditioning staff, zoning, training regimes and grounds, for example.

On point two, of course it makes a difference to the club or they wouldn't be doing it.

Sure it makes a difference, but if we had Geelong's list and were forced to cut down rotations, we would still win a flag. Because the personnel is always and has always been more important than a tactic or gameplan.

 

[Bay Pie]

Not to sure if this would hurt us.

These guys have elite endurance as proven by time trials, beep tests etc. There may be others, but the ones I know of:

Pendles
Sidey
Travis
Dawes
N.Brown

I'd expect Bally & Swanny to be able to run out a game no problems. Could affect Swanny more as he is a burst player. But the way we rotate players through the middle and forward, we could easily rest players there from time to time.

To finish, we have been the highest rotating team for the past few years, how many hammies have we done?

If any change, I'd preferto see 3 interchange players (unlimited) and 1 substitute. Would decrease the rotations and provide some relief for teams that lose a player early in the game. Kills 2 birds with 1 stone.

 

[Old Spice]

Sure it makes a difference, but if we had Geelong's list and were forced to cut down rotations, we would still win a flag. Because the personnel is always and has always been more important than a tactic or gameplan.

It's not an either / or matter, you use every advantage you can to give you a filip over the opposition. We'll still have the same players with our without high interchanges, but obviously the club thinks it improves those players' performances. It's Collingwood +

 

[kevind]

I am not for capping interchanges but I think that a team should only be allowed to interchange after a goal has been scored. Watching teams slip a player on the field undetected during play to pick up an easy possession makes our game look like a complete wank in my book.

If it occurred in a Collingwood v Carlton final and I was subjected to watching a goal result from Carlton slipping a player into the action, I would be rightly pissed.

My suggesstion would be that during the 2 minutes after the goal being scored and before the next centre bounce, teams be allowed to interchange as much as they like. The 3 umpires then ensure that players line up in designated areas in a similar manner to how the centre square is now umpired ie 4 players from each team in the centre square and, 6 inside 50 ect.

This set up is how sides were designated to set up when the game was first invented and we still pick sides in these set ups on paper to this day. It would encourage more one on one contests, particularly as sides would not be able, for all the centre square bounces anyway, to stack the defensive half and shut the game down.

It would also not cause any great delays, stewardship from the boundary line ect. And whilst we are at it. Only allow those stupid bloody 'runners' on the ground after a goal has been scored as well. They are another blight on the game during play.

 

[the_fresh]

What I don't get is why the AFL would spend 10 years trying to speed the game up then say its too fast so we're capping the interchange.

Collingwood now trains to play like this, we've had 1 hammy this season. in a NAB cup game to JMac so the BS that head office says cannot be true.

The reason why players do hammy's is because they are carrying something at the time or are unfit.