Interchange format? (poll)

[graystar1]

Might be the next change will be to a round ball, and bounce it down the ground aka basketball. A little bump could be allowed, but no other body contact. Change for change sake I say. Whatever you do, don't just leave the game alone.

 

[SfB_AkA._DeLiCiOuS]

NicNat will be rubbing his hands together with this new ruck rule.....he will dominate.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

NicNat will be rubbing his hands together with this new ruck rule.....he will dominate.

Can see a "third man up" tactic being used where the intent is to bump/block Natanui and give the real ruckman a free run, similar to some marking contests.

 

[Tiger Rob]

I'm not convinced that capping interchanges will be that dramatic. Take out the stupid changes where player X sprints off the ground for a 30 second rest, then sprints back into position and

A) you've saved an interchang, and
B) quite probably saved his legs a 200 metre sprint, thus actually increasing his stamina reserves

How many times do we see that in a game??

I reckon the coaches will think more logicvally about rests and use them strategically, instead of these seemingly rediculous pre-planned rests that acheive sweet *smile* all.

 

[Coburgtiger]

Agree. It is only (on this years average) 27 interchanges less per game.

Which means, on average, each player will basically have one less interchange a game, with some of the talls having two less.
So if every player changes two of their minute long breaks, into a two minute long break, you reach basically the same thing.

It will have an impact, but it will be slight.

 

[GoodOne]

It will have an impact, but it will be slight.

It will have zero impact next year

 

[zippadeee]

Bring in a rule your can't interchange the same player more then 3 times.

But the only problem with any "cap rule" I can see coaches have players come off the blood rule 1000 times.

 

[Coburgtiger]

It will have zero impact next year

I didn't say next year. Good one.

When it is implemented in 2014, the impact will be slight.

 

[tigersnake]

Slightly off topic, but why do players run to the bench after kicking a goal? I'm sure there is logic to it, but its always looks dumb, and strikes me as a bit Pavlovian

 

[tigersnake]

I'm not convinced that capping interchanges will be that dramatic. Take out the stupid changes where player X sprints off the ground for a 30 second rest, then sprints back into position and

A) you've saved an interchang, and
B) quite probably saved his legs a 200 metre sprint, thus actually increasing his stamina reserves

How many times do we see that in a game??

I reckon the coaches will think more logicvally about rests and use them strategically, instead of these seemingly rediculous pre-planned rests that acheive sweet *smile* all.

What about when a player sprints to the bench before realising its only a point, stops and sprints back to position. Odd.

 

[Magic Maric]

What about when a player sprints to the bench before realising its only a point, stops and sprints back to position. Odd.

Sounds like something Luke McGuane would do.

 

[tigersnake]

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.

yep.

I find it interesting that the opposition to the proposed change seems to be in the name of traditionalism. 3 and 4 on the bench has only been in since the mid to late 1990s, and the exploitation of that via big numbers of rotations has only been in what? 7 or 8 years? The game has been around for 150 years. All the AFL are trying to do here is to tap the brakes of rotation numbers, which is essentially an unforseen loophole of the 4 man bench. Its actually a very conservative strategy, as it should be. If it was up to me I'd go back to 2 on the bench. But that is too radical a change in one hit. so I'd go 2 int, 2 subs, 80 cap.

 

[Tigers of Old]

yep.

I find it interesting that the opposition to the proposed change seems to be in the name of traditionalism. 3 and 4 on the bench has only been in since the mid to late 1990s, and the exploitation of that via big numbers of rotations has only been in what? 7 or 8 years? The game has been around for 150 years. All the AFL are trying to do here is to tap the brakes of rotation numbers, which is essentially an unforseen loophole of the 4 man bench. Its actually a very conservative strategy, as it should be. If it was up to me I'd go back to 2 on the bench. But that is too radical a change in one hit. so I'd go 2 int, 2 subs, 80 cap.

Good post snake. The game was changed for the worse a while back, time to change it back to closer to what it was.

 

[martyshire]

From a RFC perspective, the more the rotations are limited (whether that be fewer interchanges or fewer on the bench) the better.

We have the luxury that four of our best midfielders are also bloody good forwards (Cotch, Lids, Dusty, Tuck) so we don't rely on substitutions as much as other teams. I want to see us get any advantage possible.

No bench would be perfect ;D

 

[Tigers of Old]

Rotations to be capped at 120 from next season..

Seems unnecessary and overly complicated to me but I guess you have to keep someone in a job.

 

[Tigers of Old]

With 4 now on the bench & a sub there seems more collision injuries than ever.

Has the AFL in their wisdom given any consideration that this format is actually adding to the concussion problem given the speed of the game is faster than ever?

 

[theglove3]

With 4 now on the bench & a sub there seems more collision injuries than ever.

Has the AFL in their wisdom given any consideration that this format is actually adding to the concussion problem given the speed of the game is faster than ever?

Agree. Speed has to be a contributing factor.

On a side issue ToO, did you get a Gov't court order to exhume the body, oops I mean this thread?
That's a fair excavation.
9 and a half years!
You must be covered in mud!

 

[Tigers of Old]

Agree. Speed has to be a contributing factor.

On a side issue ToO, did you get a Gov't court order to exhume the body, oops I mean this thread?
That's a fair excavation.
9 and a half years!
You must be covered in mud!

I actually didn't look at the date.
Pretty funny how they've now gone to basically the last option listed.

 

[DavidSSS]

With 4 now on the bench & a sub there seems more collision injuries than ever.

Has the AFL in their wisdom given any consideration that this format is actually adding to the concussion problem given the speed of the game is faster than ever?

Agree, how about 3 on the bench and no sub.

DS