-
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
My problem with capping rotations is that as a spectator we have no idea on how many have happened or how many to go. It opens up another opportunity to police something which could lead to more mistakes and more confusion.
I had an idea that I haven't heard anyone else suggest as it's a bit out there, but I think it will help slow the game down, keep the best players on the ground, give opportunity for elite runners to shine and keep spectators involved by understanding clearly what is happening. So here it is....
I think 6 or even 8 substitutes on the bench, with each player that comes off not allowed to return for that quarter only. That makes a total of 32 interchanges per game maximum, which will not require someone on the sidelines counting. We, as spectators will know exactly what is happening, and I think it would add some intriguing tactics to the game also.
I know it's a bit out there and will never happen, but am interested in peoples thoughts?
For the record, 2 + 2 unlimited for me out of these choices
I had an idea that I haven't heard anyone else suggest as it's a bit out there, but I think it will help slow the game down, keep the best players on the ground, give opportunity for elite runners to shine and keep spectators involved by understanding clearly what is happening. So here it is....
I think 6 or even 8 substitutes on the bench, with each player that comes off not allowed to return for that quarter only. That makes a total of 32 interchanges per game maximum, which will not require someone on the sidelines counting. We, as spectators will know exactly what is happening, and I think it would add some intriguing tactics to the game also.
I know it's a bit out there and will never happen, but am interested in peoples thoughts?
For the record, 2 + 2 unlimited for me out of these choices
Regardless of what we think, you can bet London to a brick that 2 + 2 will come in - if you could bet on it, you'd put your house on it. It's the AFL admin, they do as they see fit whether anyone agrees or disagrees with it or not.
Clubs just have to become smarter with they way they adjust to the new rules - fortunately for us we have some solid midfielders that can rest forward and be damaging on the scoreboard - Martin, Cotch, Deledio, etc.
The 2nd ruck will become important to be able to pinch-hit for the No.1 and also rotate through the forward line - an advantage if Vickery can recapture his 2011 form and be damaging in the forward line.
Clubs just have to become smarter with they way they adjust to the new rules - fortunately for us we have some solid midfielders that can rest forward and be damaging on the scoreboard - Martin, Cotch, Deledio, etc.
The 2nd ruck will become important to be able to pinch-hit for the No.1 and also rotate through the forward line - an advantage if Vickery can recapture his 2011 form and be damaging in the forward line.
puregreen said:
Good. Hope they do in this case.
puregreen said:
Good post.
Also the crackdown on keeping the ball in play (DOB) has given players less rest than ever.
Should ditch the fast return from a behind and relax the DOB if they switch back to 2 on the interchange.
If you're going to go back to basics, admit previous rule change mistakes also.
1. Get rid of the immediate return after a behind, and
2. Get rid of deliberate out of bounds.
3. Get rid of holding the ball, if a player gets locked up in a tackle - BALL IT UP!
Add:
1. When a player loses the ball when tackled - PLAY ON!
2. A player cannot take possession of the ball, if he isn't on his two feet; he can only knock it on.
2. Get rid of deliberate out of bounds.
3. Get rid of holding the ball, if a player gets locked up in a tackle - BALL IT UP!
Add:
1. When a player loses the ball when tackled - PLAY ON!
2. A player cannot take possession of the ball, if he isn't on his two feet; he can only knock it on.
Option 2 it is.
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/afl-to-officially-cap-interchange-rotations-at-80-per-game/story-fnelctok-1226496593490
Get the feeling this is a stepping stone to further restrictions.
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/afl-to-officially-cap-interchange-rotations-at-80-per-game/story-fnelctok-1226496593490
Get the feeling this is a stepping stone to further restrictions.
Interesting. 2nd most popular choice under the poll.
No doubt the capping will come with it's own controversies.
The players will get longer recovery times under this system.
We'll have to see how it pans out.
No doubt the capping will come with it's own controversies.
The players will get longer recovery times under this system.
We'll have to see how it pans out.
nudge1969
There's nothing more tigerish than a tiger!
If they're going to have a cap of 80 I'd get rid of the sub altogether and go back to 4 interchange.
D85 said:seriously, when will the AFL ever listen to the players (who dont want it changed) and fans (majority of whom think theyre tinkering for no apparent reason).
get rid of DimWitrio and his cronies.
Interesting comment given the poll results.
Ian4 said:
All they have to do is make it 80 interchanges all up. If a team makes its 81st, or subsequent rotation due to injury, then there is no need for a penalty but that player must obviously be injured so he can’t come back out on the field for the rest of the game. IF someone ends up with 17 on the field, so be it. We would only be talking about something occurring in the last few minutes of the game anyway. No team would use up all their 80 rotations in the first 3 quarters.
This could help us. We have a number of midfielders who can play forward and kick regular goals. Cotchin, Martin, Deledio, Tuck and Knights could all rotate in and out of the forward pockets and be dangerous. So could some of the “so-called” explosive players who would supposedly be disadvantaged, like Swan and G Ablett.
What it might do is make it increasingly more difficult to have thirty players in a 20 m circle around the ball as the game goes on. I’d welcome that.
Ian4 said:
What the AFL is proposing is ridiculous on so many levels. It will hinder player safety, not support or improve it.
On the one hand, you have more umpires than ever before, bouncing the ball immediately, encouraging or allowing play on and advantage, no wait time when a score happens, boundary umpires throwing the ball back in immediately - these were changes to speed the game up, introduced over the course of the last 10 years.
On the other, now the AFL are saying, stop the players resting to slow the game down. FFS! If you want the game to look like it did 15 years ago, undo all the rule changes that sped the game up from the last 15 years! Dickheads!
