Interchange format? (poll) | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Interchange format? (poll)

What format would you like to see chosen for the interchange?


  • Total voters
    94
  • Poll closed .

Tigers of Old

Tiger Legend
Jul 26, 2004
80,485
46,013
www.redbubble.com
There's speculation about further changes to the bench with suggestions that the AFL commission is looking to a 2-2 substitute rule or a cap of 80 rotations.
As previous there is a lot of resistance from the players, coaches and sports science to the possibility of any further muted change.

Personally I think the changes were good to 3-1 but reckon it could still go further and think 2-2 (with unlimited rotations) would be ideal.
Those involved closely to the game may disagree but from a spectators perspective at least I'd still like to see the game open up more as players tire and fall off contests.

What do you reckon?
 
Keep it as is, 2-2 is playing with fire, imagine if Cotchin and Reiwoldt come off within a minute of each other with injuries and go to the rooms to get asessed, what do the coaches do, wait 10 minutes and play with no interchanges available or pull the trigger and sub one of them out just to get a rotation on the bench, imagine the anger if the sub has been made only for the player to emerge from the rooms right as rain raring to go.

You will see cricket scores getting kicked if we go to a 2-2 situation with teams who have been hit with injury in the match, dead on their legs late in games against teams who are fresh as daisies and running on top of the ground. It wouldn't happen often but we would see a situation where a team plays the last qtr with no interchange rotations.
 
I'd be happy with two and two. Limited interchange would be good in theory, but I don't think it would be practical to administer.
 
2 and 2 would be good. Ideally cap the rotations as well but it would be annoying to see how convoluted the AFL woud make the policing of that.

It's been great watching some of the best players in the AFL stay on the ground longer.
 
I agree that introducing a cap would be problematic - imagine the furore if a team has used up its interchanges and a player is then badly injured, and is forced to stay out on the ground. I think we should stick at 3 and 1 for now, though 2 and 2 could be appealing to make the game open up and prevent the Ross Lyon scrums.
 
i think the 3-1 rule is the best rule they've introduced in many, many years. but i think 2-2 is going to far. if the AFL want 2 subs, then lets have 23 players and the second sub should only be activated due to an inury.
 
I s there anything wrong with the game right now that warrants a change? Would be happy to see it go back to the 4 interchange but the 1 substitute has added a different dimension. Caps on rotations? I can imagine the rotation count next to the goals and behinds on the scoreboard. Seems overkill to me.
 
It makes it interesting for sides with less midfield depth...
You'd have to have at least one midfielder as the sub, probably two.
It's two less midfielders you have in your starting 20. So the two most fringe midfielders don't play the first couple of quarters... Makes competition for spots even more intense, you don't just want to be in the best 22, you want to be in the best 20.

However, sides with huge amounts of talented midfielders (although still better of) will have less of an advantage.
 
Firstly disband the rules committee or limit it so that actual rule changes can only be made every three of four years. That way they can discuss issues and watch to see if the game actually evolves around them BEFORE they start making changes. So for that reason I voted to keep it as is, though if a change were to be made I would suggest that unlimited subs be allowed if a player comes off permanently so that we don't have injured players re-taking the field, especially players with concussion.
 
I think 3 or 4 interchange with the capacity to use/subsitute all 3 emergencies. Too often a team gets an advtange as the opposition need to use their sub early and the other team have the fresh legs. Alternatively, there can be an imbalance if, say, a ruck or KPP is injured and your sub is a mid.

These issues can be alleviated if you had a choice of multiple subs.
 
BrisTiger24 said:
I think 3 or 4 interchange with the capacity to use/subsitute all 3 emergencies. Too often a team gets an advtange as the opposition need to use their sub early and the other team have the fresh legs. Alternatively, there can be an imbalance if, say, a ruck or KPP is injured and your sub is a mid.

These issues can be alleviated if you had a choice of multiple subs.

That's a good point and one that makes sense. Allow teams to have a list of 4-6 subs bench that they can choose 2 or 3 from depending on the needs of the team a the time. Gives teams more flexibility and allows the to cover an injured player better.
 
STOP CHANGING THE RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can't imagine capping the rotations and the penalty late in a close match if there has been one too many rotations. 2 and 2 is too much.


3 and 1 works perfectly fine.
 
Baloo said:
That's a good point and one that makes sense. Allow teams to have a list of 4-6 subs bench that they can choose 2 or 3 from depending on the needs of the team a the time. Gives teams more flexibility and allows the to cover an injured player better.

And change for a round ball whilst we're at it. Seriously though more subs would add more flexibility but there would then be 3 players who aren't getting a game at all in any given week. Considering the same players often miss out, they would quickly lose match fitness and the enjoyment of playing footy. And raises other questions like, if an emergency player doesn't play can he play the next day for the affiliated VFL side? What of those teams whose VFL side plays before the AFL side? Are they disadvantaged? Then you'd need to increase list sizes as well more than likely. Too much potential change. Keep it as it is. Rules change too much.
 
It would be up to the clubs to manage their playing list and ensure their 21st to 25th best players are getting enough match experience.

I can see 1 or 2 players not playing in the VFL because they are the designated subs but then clubs could add a ruckman / KPF etc in case there is an injury. I'd also assume that if a sub didn't play he could play the next day in the VFL. I see an unused subs bench treated the same way the emergency list is treated today.

re: the change, we're combating change. If you want to go back to the way it was then it's 2 subs and that's it.