SANFL Bench

[Ecky]

I believe it is mainly a cost issue why there aren't 4 on the bench at the moment. I reckon bring it in for finals only.

[smac]

Cost? They need to buy longer benches?

I assume you mean salary cap? It would get increased accordingly wouldn't it?

[CUTTERMAN]

how about (to make it fair) 3 (or 4) permanently on the bench but if someone is injured & can't play for the rest of the game, he gets replaced by an emergency. Wouldn't that be fair to all?

I agree with that Centurion, as an example R22 Bays v Sturt we had 2 out before 1/2 time, not to come back. SANFL coaches make almost as many rotations as the AFL, with only one fit player on the bench that becomes impossible. Have 4 on the bench but maybe keep one as a nominated emergency that can be used during the game, only if someone is injured and can't play again that day. Hopefully the 4th doesn't get used as another rotation.

[CENTURION]

how about (to make it fair) 3 (or 4) permanently on the bench but if someone is injured & can't play for the rest of the game, he gets replaced by an emergency. Wouldn't that be fair to all?

I agree with that Centurion, as an example R22 Bays v Sturt we had 2 out before 1/2 time, not to come back. SANFL coaches make almost as many rotations as the AFL, with only one fit player on the bench that becomes impossible. Have 4 on the bench but maybe keep one as a nominated emergency that can be used during the game, only if someone is injured and can't play again that day. Hopefully the 4th doesn't get used as another rotation.

Here, Here! Couldn't get any fairer than that.

[smac]

So the 22nd best player at a club has the potential to not play footy at all? Not a good idea at all.

Not sure why we need to tinker with rules just to add a 4th to the interchange - it can only improve our game by having a 4 man bench.

[Psyber]

Perhaps we should go back to two reserves who could only come on as an exchange for the duration of the match, if one of the named 18 was injured. No rotations. No everyone running all over the ground. More contests!

Mind you, reducing the opposition to 17 fit men contributed a lot to Port Adelaide's success on the 50s and 60s!

[BPBRB]

So the 22nd best player at a club has the potential to not play footy at all? Not a good idea at all.

Not sure why we need to tinker with rules just to add a 4th to the interchange - it can only improve our game by having a 4 man bench.

Bingo - we are the only State League not using a 4 man bench as well. All this bullshit it will cost more on the Salary Cap is a load of crap. Some people have no idea how little some very good league players (including up and coming younger players) actually earn and how much some of the supposed imported stars are on at most clubs. One more on the bench would hardly move the present Salary Cap in 99% of the cases.

That would be the only change I would make to the present rules and suggestions mentioned on another topic.

[G]

Agree with BPBRPs post 100%

[CUTTERMAN]

I'm not against a 4 man bench but wonder if it will mean more rotations by everyone, I've seen enough games this year with a team reduced to one fit man on the bench b4 half time, I don't think it's very good for the game, but I guess that's footy. If a club can nominate one reserve player to be a 'change' player, like the old reserve player. He can be changed for another player during the game but you'll only ever have 3 interchange players.

[Pup]

Why?

A reserve player to swap if a player gets injured is just crazy.. I cant understand why you (and others) think that you cant have a 4th man on the interchange bench. The WAFL and VFL have 4 players as to do many other leagues in Victoria. So why do you think that it is not an option?