Would capping the interchanges hurt us?

[mattys123]

It seems the AFL is adamant on capping the number of interchanges a team can have each quarter, due mainly to pre season stats showing the speed decreased ever so slightly when caps were in place.



http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/94140/default.aspx

Following the release of the 2009 AFL injury report and the increase of overall injuries, AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said he and AFL game analysis manager Andrew McKay would broach the subject when they visited clubs in coming weeks.

"It does raise a concern and we'll be doing some further work," Anderson said from AFL House on Wednesday.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/94140
/default.aspx

The big question is, HOW WOULD THIS EFFECT US?

I believe it would severely effect the output of several of our gun mids, like Ball, Swan, Pendles and Wellingham, who use the interchange to play in amazing bursts that can not be sustained by taggers.

Welsh from Essendon was quoted during the week in saying he simply couldn't keep up with the likes of Swan when he had those 10 minute bursts on ANZAC day.

We should fight this, our hamstring injury numbers are not up, not from what I can see anyway, with only VFL players effected by soft tissue injuries so far this year.

Thoughts?

 

[Dundalis]

Would put a massive question to the players on just how fit they really are. Players like Swan wouldn't be able to rely on sustained bursts.

 

[DWil6]

We'd probably start getting more injuries and hamstring problems as per the rest of the teams thats arent as inclined to heavily rotate.

 

[Old Spice]

What pseudo-science is this?

There is barely anyone on our injury list that has played seniors this year, except Presti, and he's hardly a big user of the interchange and a burst player.

I'd love to see the AFL's list of injuries and how they are supposedly connected to high interchanges. Don't think we have nutted one player, except a pretty soft one from Wellingham to Hodge, which had zilcho to do with speed and burst, but positioning.

So far, no evidence it hurts our players, or that our burst players hurt opposition players. Kerr's hammy pinged and might not have if he'd had a rest. Reiwoldt's went ping being chased by Presti, again, hardly a burst player.

They talk about injuries running parallel to high interchanges, but where is the direct evidence of cause and effect? Almost everytime I pull my zip down and face the toilet, I do a wee, but that doesn't mean the 'parellel' zip pulling is the cause of my wee.

 

[Dundalis]

We'd probably start getting more injuries and hamstring problems as per the rest of the teams thats arent as inclined to heavily rotate.

Incorrect. Teams that don't use the heavy rotations may get injuries due to having to try and keep up with teams that do. If all teams have the restriction it will simply slow all games down. So games would start looking more like they did 10 odd years ago, when I'm pretty sure the injuries were less.

 

[Dundalis]

What pseudo-science is this?

There is barely anyone on our injury list that has played seniors this year, except Presti, and he's hardly a big user of the interchange and a burst player.

I'd love to see the AFL's list of injuries and how they are supposedly connected to high interchanges. Don't think we have nutted one player, except a pretty soft one from Wellingham to Hodge, which had zilcho to do with speed and burst, but positioning.

So far, no evidence it hurts our players, or that our burst players hurt opposition players. Kerr's hammy pinged and might not have if he'd had a rest. Reiwoldt's went ping being chased by Presti, again, hardly a burst player.

They talk about injuries running parallel to high interchanges, but where is the direct evidence of cause and effect? Almost everytime I pull my zip down and face the toilet, I do a wee, but that doesn't mean the 'parellel' zip pulling is the cause of my wee.

Pretty sure the talk of injuries resulting from interchange numbers is purely due to the fact it likely increases the overall speed the game is played at. So if reducing interchanges helps slow down the speed of the game, players are more able to take a rest out on the field in between play/stoppages.

But there are also other factors causing this, like players being given much reduced time to take a kick after a mark, packs being allowed to form and go on without a whistle for a ball up etc. Plus obviously improved athleticism and fitness. Interchange is only one possible cause.

 

[mdc]

...10 odd years ago, when I'm pretty sure the injuries were less.

Really? Any remotely reliable source for this?

I'm personally pretty skeptical about whether 100 interchanges vs. 60 makes much difference, be it to injuries or play in general.

 

[Dundalis]

Really? Any remotely reliable source for this?

I'm personally pretty skeptical about whether 100 interchanges vs. 60 makes much difference, be it to injuries or play in general.

I said it's possibly a cause for increased game speed, likely one of a few.

And as far as the injuries go, I thought all the hullabaloo about it was the fact that a study was made that injuries have gradually increased over a decade or so. Or was it certain types of injuries? Pretty sure I saw something about it in the paper. Else why is it even an issue?

 

[Number 10]

In short, Yes.

Although the argument was heavily based on the amount of hamstrings pinging this year. But did they care to look at the correlation between shots that numb pain in the legs and hamstring injuries. I.E Riewoldt.

I dunno, it seems this is just another way for that Adrian Anderson to get his ugly, fat head on the TV. I swear I've seen him about 300 times this week. GO away. We don't care about you, leave our game alone!

Edit: thats not really ture but i really don't like this man.

 

[Pie eyed]

What pseudo-science is this?

There is barely anyone on our injury list that has played seniors this year, except Presti, and he's hardly a big user of the interchange and a burst player.

I'd love to see the AFL's list of injuries and how they are supposedly connected to high interchanges. Don't think we have nutted one player, except a pretty soft one from Wellingham to Hodge, which had zilcho to do with speed and burst, but positioning.

So far, no evidence it hurts our players, or that our burst players hurt opposition players. Kerr's hammy pinged and might not have if he'd had a rest. Reiwoldt's went ping being chased by Presti, again, hardly a burst player.

They talk about injuries running parallel to high interchanges, but where is the direct evidence of cause and effect? Almost everytime I pull my zip down and face the toilet, I do a wee, but that doesn't mean the 'parellel' zip pulling is the cause of my wee.

There is no evidence.
The whole thing is crap and being falsely used to justify the AFL's "desire" to further **** with a game which is not broken.

 

[mdc]

Else why is it even an issue?

I'm not sure.

It could be because there's been so much bleating over the past 5 years about how there's less and less "contests" - capping interchanges would bring some of it back.

It could be because high rotations make it more difficult to establish star players. Namely, 10 years ago Robert Harvey was running round all game, always around the ball, always in our sights. Now, Dane Swan is on and off so much that it's hard for non-hardcore fans to really grow attached to particular players. And the greater the number of star players a league cultivates, the better it is for the league.

I mean, we're entering Tin Foil country here, but I'd be gobsmacked if the AFL's intentions were purely to do with injuries.

(As an exercise, take a look at the leading ball-winners in 2009, sorted by average. Now, these are the guys that are getting rotated more often than anyone else. And yet, every single on of the top 20 ballwinners played 19 games or more. Do the same for 2000, and you'll see Harvey with 16 games, Cousins with 17 etc...it just doesn't add up)

 

[The Royal Sampler]

Well, before we even consider whether capping interchanges would hurt us, we have to find out what the proposed cap is.

120 interchanges allowed per match would likely hurt us very little if at all.
60 interchanges allowed per match would have the potential to hurt us relative to other clubs, but even that is debatable.

 

[soreplums]

The AFL have brought in rules to speed up the game.

1) not waiting for the flag to be waved to kick the ball in after a behind
2) not being able to hold up a player after a mark and free kick
3) the advantage rule (this one is good-gotta keep it)
4) only having 30sec to take a kick at goal
5) not being able to deliberately rush a behind
6) not being able to take the ball out of the ruck
7) not being able to delibertaly kick the ball out of bounds (prob a good one)

If they were so concerned about injuries, then change some of these rules to what you used to be able to do. Capping interchange is not the answer. That may only reduce collision injuries, but tired players are more likely to tear muscles or do something clumsy.

What's even dumber is the bump rule. Change it to confuse players and as a result have more head on collisions... idiots

Like someone earlier said. Let's see the correlation between rotations and collingwood players' injuries.

Can't punish one team's strategy because 15 other clubs aren't managed well enough

 

[The Royal Sampler]

The AFL consider that to be making the game more "continuous" as opposed to higher velocity.

 

[Optimax]

The AFL consider that to be making the game more "continuous" as opposed to higher velocity.

Weren't all the previous rule changes made to make the game faster?

 

[StillWaiting5689]

The AFL consider that to be making the game more "continuous" as opposed to higher velocity.

The AFL made it continuous which led to players getting tired faster, which means they rest more often so that they can keep the same level of intensity they had before all of the rule changes.
Just seems like the AFL want to put in more rule changes to fix a perceived problem originally caused by changing the rules. Seems like they are going round in circles.

 

[Ant85]

This is absolutely contradictory to a decade of AFL rule changes that were designed to fasten the game and reduce stoppages.

Interchange rotations was something we pioneered, so of course we would be effected by it.

There are coaches pushing for a cap (Worsfold), and coaches that are vehemently opposed to a cap (Craig, Eade, MM).

A cap is quite divisive among the coaches, and I don't think the AFL should hasten a decision without extensive consultation and research. The report they've produced doesn't seem to be exactly indicative that an increase in interchange rotations directly results in more injuries, otherwise Collingwood would have a long injury list.

We should oppose this, and I expect that we will.

 

[loki04]

I'm not sure.

It could be because there's been so much bleating over the past 5 years about how there's less and less "contests" - capping interchanges would bring some of it back.

It could be because high rotations make it more difficult to establish star players. Namely, 10 years ago Robert Harvey was running round all game, always around the ball, always in our sights. Now, Dane Swan is on and off so much that it's hard for non-hardcore fans to really grow attached to particular players. And the greater the number of star players a league cultivates, the better it is for the league.

I mean, we're entering Tin Foil country here, but I'd be gobsmacked if the AFL's intentions were purely to do with injuries.

(As an exercise, take a look at the leading ball-winners in 2009, sorted by average. Now, these are the guys that are getting rotated more often than anyone else. And yet, every single on of the top 20 ballwinners played 19 games or more. Do the same for 2000, and you'll see Harvey with 16 games, Cousins with 17 etc...it just doesn't add up)

How bout 7 years ago Buckley was tracked running 20km 23% of it was sprinting 0% standing still.

The man was a machine and burnt off taggers by a quarter.

Tarrant as a forward clocked up 15km the same amount as James Hird's best as a midfielder in 03 as well.

Capping interchanges would be interesting change to the landscape.

 

[Prince_Rhodesia]

We use the interchange rotational system to our advantage, probably better than any other team, and I think we make the most changes out of all the teams in the comp. Our injuries are minimal, and yet they are saying that the high interchanges are responsible for soft tissue injuries? Like someone else posted, A jab of a needle is what caused Sooky lala to tear his hamstring. If he was managed properly, it wouldn't have happened. The AFL makes changes for the sake of change. If they capped it at say 70-80 changes per match, I reckon we'd be worse off.

 

[Old Spice]

This talk about bringing back the contest is utter, utter crap. Bartlett doesn't like anyone touching the nape of someone's neck going for a fly, that's why we don't have big speckies. But in spite of this fact, people still manage to make them in high rotation games. There's a ball, there's some shoulders, heres Daisy going for a launch.

I suppose they mean head-to-head contests - Boyd on Hayes or something similar. I tell you what, our high rotation games are ten zillion times better to watch than other teams at present.

So, a/. our brand of football is more exciting under high rotations, b/. we have a very healthy list, perhaps the healthiest, under high rotations, and c/. we have not caused any other players any serious injuries from high velocity contact.

There is no correlation between high rotations and injuries, except the one that the AFL seems to want to contrive in its own mind. They wanted to put the kybosh on high-rotations early, and are now commissioning dubious reports to validate conclusions they've already drawn.

An utter pile of sh*t!

p.s. I don't like the idea of capping rotations.

 

[Old Spice]

Mark Williams has smashed this question to pieces.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/94497/default.aspx

The 2009 injury report showed that the number of hamstring injuries per club, per season has increased by half a hamstring (from 6.6 to 7.1) in the last 12 months ... big deal.

If you delve further into the statistics you’ll see that the number of games that players missed through hamstring injuries actually went down (from 25.8 to 22), which was less than the figure recorded in 2000.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/94497/default.aspx

 

[Jonno_]

Incorrect. Teams that don't use the heavy rotations may get injuries due to having to try and keep up with teams that do. If all teams have the restriction it will simply slow all games down. So games would start looking more like they did 10 odd years ago, when I'm pretty sure the injuries were less.

1) I'm going to paraphrase from James Hird (who was spot on). He said that 10 years ago, elite athletes (particularly runners) used to laugh at our definition of a 2-4 week "hamstring" injury, because they weren't "real" hamstrings. Now, 10 years on, that AFL players are so much more highly tuned athletes, the hamstring injuries that occur are the ones that runners used to get 10 years ago. It has taken a while for our sport to catch up to the level of "elite athlete" rather than just "elite sportsmen", and the injuries that are being sustained are because of this, not because of rotations.

2) I seriously doubt the rotations would effect us all that much. I would be very very surprised if the magic was in the numbers.

 

[Old Spice]

1) I'm going to paraphrase from James Hird (who was spot on). He said that 10 years ago, elite athletes (particularly runners) used to laugh at our definition of a 2-4 week "hamstring" injury, because they weren't "real" hamstrings. Now, 10 years on, that AFL players are so much more highly tuned athletes, the hamstring injuries that occur are the ones that runners used to get 10 years ago. It has taken a while for our sport to catch up to the level of "elite athlete" rather than just "elite sportsmen", and the injuries that are being sustained are because of this, not because of rotations.

2) I seriously doubt the rotations would effect us all that much. I would be very very surprised if the magic was in the numbers.

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.

 

[pinky951]

Maybe the AFL is worried about injuries to the teams playing against the high rotaters? Worried about those guys trying to chase us around, didn't Mitchell do his hammy against us in Round 4?

 

[Kirby]

^ That's a coaching issue. If the coach can manage things well enough then they can rotate as much as we do.