-
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)
- Thread starter Tigers of Old
- Start date
Baloo said:
Well I played soccer right up to around 20yo and one of the biggest issues with large sub benches was the lack of game time for quite a number of players. With oyur suggestion it could be 3 or 4 potentially each week. That is not easily manageable in a list of 42. Some teams at time are struggling to get 22 fit named. And sure if a sub didn't play and they could play the next day in the VFL, what about teams that are playing on Sunday and VFL on Saturday? All gets to complicated. 22 is plenty to cover injuries. And if you have a bad run of injuries in a match, so be it, that's the luck of the game.
Baloo said:
Doesn't that signify another change to the rules? They only just changed the bench rules, why change it again? The last change was done with such short notice it affected some teams previous recruitment decisions. Too many knee jerk reaction changes. Almost like the rules committee have to justify their positions.
GoodOne said:
I never had that issue as I was always in the starting 11 unless suspended
But it comes down to the clubs again and how they manage their lists. Given the choice of 1 nominated player as a sub (or 2 if it changes) or having a bench of potential subs, I reckon the clubs will choose the bench. Sure it's complicated but we're talking about professionally run multi-million dollar entities whose sole aim is to compete at the pointy end of the competition. They'll work out the best way to keep their players at peek condition.I agree the decision to move to 3+1 was too quick. But in hindsight it was one of the better decision the AFL have made in a while. The game changed. The best players stayed on the field longer. Games became tighter as players were more tired. Ideally the AFL would have announced a 2+2 by now if they intend to bring it in so I'm hoping it's not a 2013 change, but I hope they look seriously at bringing 2+2 with an extended sub bench in.
I think it should be 2+2 with 80 rotations with subs being allowed on while concused players are accessedby the medical team.
I know it is open to being rorted with players pretending to be concussed for 15 minutes or something but they could put a 5 minute limit for accessing or something.
The 2+2 with 80 rotations would mean players would be getting really tired and players with big tanks, Robert Harvey ect who used to run their opponents into the ground then take advantage of it would become more prominent again.
These days they can rotate taggers on and off the bench so the better players are being held for longer which isnt good for the game.
I know it is open to being rorted with players pretending to be concussed for 15 minutes or something but they could put a 5 minute limit for accessing or something.
The 2+2 with 80 rotations would mean players would be getting really tired and players with big tanks, Robert Harvey ect who used to run their opponents into the ground then take advantage of it would become more prominent again.
These days they can rotate taggers on and off the bench so the better players are being held for longer which isnt good for the game.
Instead of piddling around in circles every year, grow some agates and change it properly.
16 onfield,
removes four players to help eliminate the clogging swarm of players around the ball. Also a fraction extra time / space will allow better execution of mid range player skills, rather than just the elite. Enables umpires to better see infringements with less bodies clogging space and visibility. Probably allow more one on one KPP contests as there's less swarming end to end.
6 interchange,
allows coaches to better balance the team for injury needs. Also partially counters the loss of adaptability / rotations due to losing a player injured.
Nil subs,
archaic joke from the dark ages. Modern game players need proper match time to maintain fitness and form, not spend 110 minutes getting splinters and hoping to get a touch.
Nil limit on rotations,
less players onfield means plenty of burst running for players, rotations a must.
16 onfield,
removes four players to help eliminate the clogging swarm of players around the ball. Also a fraction extra time / space will allow better execution of mid range player skills, rather than just the elite. Enables umpires to better see infringements with less bodies clogging space and visibility. Probably allow more one on one KPP contests as there's less swarming end to end.
6 interchange,
allows coaches to better balance the team for injury needs. Also partially counters the loss of adaptability / rotations due to losing a player injured.
Nil subs,
archaic joke from the dark ages. Modern game players need proper match time to maintain fitness and form, not spend 110 minutes getting splinters and hoping to get a touch.
Nil limit on rotations,
less players onfield means plenty of burst running for players, rotations a must.
Eric said:
I'll have to leave it to L2R2R2L2R for the stats but I'd think if you took out GCS and GWS then we've had closer games than in previous years.
It's certainly felt that way but that could be because our games have become tighter with no blowouts.
TigerMasochist said:
Let's get rid of the two small posts on the end too. What's the point of those?
Why do they constantly want to make changes to the game? How bored do these blokes get.
Leave the game as it is. It's as good as it will ever be. Leave it at that. Stop bloody sanitizing the game!
Leave the game as it is. It's as good as it will ever be. Leave it at that. Stop bloody sanitizing the game!
I wouldnt be putting any caps on the amount of rotations.
One of the aspects of bringing players on and off is soft tissue injury prevention. If you're keeping players onfield longer without a break, the chances of the hammy pinging increases significantly. Especially mids. Especially later in the season.
.2c
One of the aspects of bringing players on and off is soft tissue injury prevention. If you're keeping players onfield longer without a break, the chances of the hammy pinging increases significantly. Especially mids. Especially later in the season.
.2c
Tigermad2005 said:
By that I take it you mean pre 1930?
Thought this timeline below from Wiki was an interesting history of the way the Aussie Rules interchange system has evolved over the years.
Could be nostalgia speaking but personally (Tiger performances aside) my fondest moments of AFL as a spectacle are from the early 90s.
I think things changed for the worse with the introduction of the 3rd IC in '94 and then the fourth IC in '98.
Reckon that the AFL in some way is recognising that those changes had a big impact on the sport and it's strategies (zoning, flooding etc.) and are looking to get back to basics somewhat.
This is why I think that they'll introduce 2-2..
Historical interchange rules and tactics
In the VFL/AFL, the number of interchanges allowed has followed the following time-line:
Prior to 1930 – there was no means for either substitution or interchange. A team played one man short if a player was injured.
1930 – the introduction of a single substitute
1946 – the introduction of a second substitute
1978 – the replacement of two substitutes with two interchanges
1994 – the introduction of a third interchange
1998 – the introduction of a fourth interchange
2011 – the replacement of four interchanges with three interchanges and a substitute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchange_(Australian_rules_football)
The thing that is not only ironic but ultimately frustrating is that the high rotations we currently have are a result of a rule change - not that the AFL or the rules committee would own up to it, was when they allowed players to bring the ball back into play from a behind without having to wait for the goal umpire's signal.
The argument at the time was that they wanted to try and combat the poor look created by flooding by allowing a player to bring the ball back in quickly to beat the press, plus they felt that by speeding up the game the players would become more tired and it would result in more contests due to fatiguing. I know this is the same line trotted out with the 3 + 1 rule at the moment.
As a result of that rule change, and Collingwood were the first club to start doing it, the bench rotations increased from an average of about 40 a game up towards 60-70 in the early stages. I remember being at the football listening to the commentary about how many interchanges were happening - and this was before most clubs had got up near 80 a game.
What better way to combat player's becoming more fatigued by interchanging them more often - simple solution really. Don't know how, but I reckon the AFL and the rules committee were blindsided by something as simple as this.
Once the rest of the clubs began doing the same as the Pies, people started ringing up the radio stations complaining about how bad it looked when there were these massive interchanges all at once with up to 8 players coming off and 8 going on (complaining that it looked like Flinders Street Station). The best players were going off the ground for a rest and the supporters were missing out because they weren't on the ground all the time eg. Robert Harvey type performances - this was all before the Swans had 19 on the ground against the Saints(?) and they then had to closely monitor the interchanges.
I would rather they kept it the same for another season to get a better picture of how it is affecting players and the game. Maybe bring another sub for an injured player.
The argument at the time was that they wanted to try and combat the poor look created by flooding by allowing a player to bring the ball back in quickly to beat the press, plus they felt that by speeding up the game the players would become more tired and it would result in more contests due to fatiguing. I know this is the same line trotted out with the 3 + 1 rule at the moment.
As a result of that rule change, and Collingwood were the first club to start doing it, the bench rotations increased from an average of about 40 a game up towards 60-70 in the early stages. I remember being at the football listening to the commentary about how many interchanges were happening - and this was before most clubs had got up near 80 a game.
What better way to combat player's becoming more fatigued by interchanging them more often - simple solution really. Don't know how, but I reckon the AFL and the rules committee were blindsided by something as simple as this.
Once the rest of the clubs began doing the same as the Pies, people started ringing up the radio stations complaining about how bad it looked when there were these massive interchanges all at once with up to 8 players coming off and 8 going on (complaining that it looked like Flinders Street Station). The best players were going off the ground for a rest and the supporters were missing out because they weren't on the ground all the time eg. Robert Harvey type performances - this was all before the Swans had 19 on the ground against the Saints(?) and they then had to closely monitor the interchanges.
I would rather they kept it the same for another season to get a better picture of how it is affecting players and the game. Maybe bring another sub for an injured player.
Plenty of players have already commented on the new fatigue they face with just 3+1 on the bench instead of 4. Seems like there's been an increase in injuries as well.
Can only imagine the diluted product that would on show late on in games and and other consequences for playing a fast paced non stop running game for 120 mins with only 2+2 and/or a cap on interchange.
Like most rules the AFL the try to approve to look like they're doing something they should just leave the game alone.
Can only imagine the diluted product that would on show late on in games and and other consequences for playing a fast paced non stop running game for 120 mins with only 2+2 and/or a cap on interchange.
Like most rules the AFL the try to approve to look like they're doing something they should just leave the game alone.
I clearly remember the Dreamtime game in particular where the players were shot with about 5-10mins to go in the last. The fact that they were coming back from 7 goals down didn't help, but I kept looking at the players thinking that the boys were out on their feet and struggling. Grimes had gone down in the 2nd during that game as well.
Jaw dropped a bit when on SEN someone mentioned there had been 53,000 interchanges this season.
As mentioned ealier by someone, do we really have to lobby for yet another change. Don't know whether I am a fan of the 3 plus 1, but I do know that not enough time has elapsed yet for there to be enough wisdom on whether another change is better that no change.
On rotation capping. If you like this one, imagine if you will an opposition team getting a free kick for the sin of miscalculating the number of interchanges - these freebies are all going to be at the end of a quarter too, unlike that other stupid penalty of missing the interchange gate by a matter of inches and giving away a goal which can happen at anytime. And we wonder how the game became over-managed? :
As mentioned ealier by someone, do we really have to lobby for yet another change. Don't know whether I am a fan of the 3 plus 1, but I do know that not enough time has elapsed yet for there to be enough wisdom on whether another change is better that no change.
On rotation capping. If you like this one, imagine if you will an opposition team getting a free kick for the sin of miscalculating the number of interchanges - these freebies are all going to be at the end of a quarter too, unlike that other stupid penalty of missing the interchange gate by a matter of inches and giving away a goal which can happen at anytime. And we wonder how the game became over-managed? :
Remember when cotchin got stuck on the bench for the last two minutes of the GC game?
Imagine if they capped interchanges, and Jack and Cotchin were on the bench with ten minutes to go when we reached our cap?
Hopefully we'd be organised enough for this not to happen, but then again, there was cairns...
Imagine cotchy stomping the boundary, unable to come back on, while we get hammered through the middle for ten minutes.
Imagine if they capped interchanges, and Jack and Cotchin were on the bench with ten minutes to go when we reached our cap?
Hopefully we'd be organised enough for this not to happen, but then again, there was cairns...
Imagine cotchy stomping the boundary, unable to come back on, while we get hammered through the middle for ten minutes.
Coburgtiger said:
We don't have to imagine it. We saw it.
And a team would only have themselves to blame if the ran out of changes with their guns sitting on the bench. Go back to 4 interchange players with unlimited interchanges (as it was before the latest change).
