SA Footy

Coaches want it. Club hierarchy doesn't as it is an extra financial cost.

18 games x 1 extra player x $500 = $9000

Have to agree with the legs on this one.

Disagree - the extra player ALWAYS advantages the clubs with greatest depth. Footy is a warriors game - leave it be

Makes sense to have 4 on the bench... AFL have the right idea, except the sub rule (which is growing on me)...

Mark_Beswick wrote:Disagree - the extra player ALWAYS advantages the clubs with greatest depth. Footy is a warriors game - leave it be

The club with the greatest depth is already at an advantage regardless of a sub.

Mark_Beswick wrote:Disagree - the extra player ALWAYS advantages the clubs with greatest depth. Footy is a warriors game - leave it be

Then surely the onus is on all clubs to have a deep enough list?

Whether it's 2, 3 or 4 on the bench it's the same for all clubs, so they all have the same responsibility to manage their list sufficiently.

I'm not to fussed but I don't see how it solves anything.

You could have 7 subs a side and if one gets injured you are still down on the rotations compared to the other side.

Ridiculous idea, they feel they needed 4 interchange as they had 2 concussions.
What if they had 13 concussions?
How can you predict there will only be 2 concussions in a game to a team?
Unless its a bloke who played reserves the same day you cannot justify having a substitute in a non fully professional competition.

have to agree with the above saying the sub rule is growing on me. I used to hate it with a passion, and still dont like it, but I think if you have one really bad injury early on it really kills you, and a sub is a good way of limiting that.

would make sense to bring it into line with the AFL too.

Mark_Beswick wrote:Disagree - the extra player ALWAYS advantages the clubs with greatest depth. Footy is a warriors game - leave it be

so to win a premiership you shouldnt have the best depth too?

SANFL footy in the 50s and 60s was hard and tough
They used to have reserves , not interchanges in those days
Some good sides managed to dominate
PA with 6 in a row in the 50s
ST with 4 in a row in the 60-70s
2 reserves, gosh, how did footy survive

This was a period when players would be on the ground for the duration [except for those 2 players subbed or another injury]
Imagine that , seeing players like Lindsay Head and Johnny Cahill on the ground for the whole game



3 is enough
4 is not required

I say
3 interchanges
25 rotations which would be suffice for any injuries

thats a bygone era mate. The game has passed that by with increase in fitness.

I would love to know how many kms the best midfielders in the 60s ran per game, but I would bet it would be less than even the full back of today.

mal wrote:SANFL footy in the 50s and 60s was hard and tough
They used to have reserves , not interchanges in those days
Some good sides managed to dominate
PA with 6 in a row in the 50s
ST with 4 in a row in the 60-70s
2 reserves, gosh, how did footy survive

This was a period when players would be on the ground for the duration [except for those 2 players subbed or another injury]
Imagine that , seeing players like Lindsay Head and Johnny Cahill on the ground for the whole game



3 is enough
4 is not required


I say
3 interchanges
25 rotations which would be suffice for any injuries

is this you and a lady friend watching the footy now mal???

Here's an idea mal.

When it's 1960 again we'll play like it's 1960, ok?

good to see norwood being reactive

what a joke

if norwood want to have a fourth interchange player, go and join the AFL

bennymacca wrote:thats a bygone era mate. The game has passed that by with increase in fitness.

I would love to know how many kms the best midfielders in the 60s ran per game, but I would bet it would be less than even the full back of today.

Yes they run further
Yes that may cause more soft tissue injuries , more solid impacts etc etc
BUT
There were more footballers biffed punched bumped and bashed in the 50-60s
The game is far more sanitised these days , with far less violent actions

Here is an example
A Port Adelaide rover
Debuted for Port Adelaide in the 1950s as the 2nd rover
For the first few minutes he played in the forward pocket
He was called to change by co rover Fos Williams
The rover started running towards the play
The next thing he remembers was looking into the sky and saying "Where am I."
He was zonked by a very very tough West Adelaide footballer behind play

This sort of thuggishness was common enough in those days
You don't see it too often these days

There was a case to have more reserves back then
But as I have mentioned sides survived and the best teams won the flags often enough

JK wrote:Whether it's 2, 3 or 4 on the bench it's the same for all clubs, so they all have the same responsibility to manage their list sufficiently.

whufc wrote:You could have 7 subs a side and if one gets injured you are still down on the rotations compared to the other side.

Yep. At this level, in most cases, 21 is enough.

bennymacca wrote:would make sense to bring it into line with the AFL too.

mal wrote:

bennymacca wrote:thats a bygone era mate. The game has passed that by with increase in fitness.

Maybe the AFL should have five interchange? Fitter at that level, are they not?

Booney wrote:Here's an idea mal.

When it's 1960 again we'll play like it's 1960, ok?

Those were the daze Booney
Played my first Primary School footy games in 1969
What a year
Mankind landed on the moon
Royce Hart landed on the Adelaide oval
The Beatles were still amazing artists
AND
We could play the whole game of football [unless injured]

At the end of my career the thing I absolutely hated was being rotated on the footy field
I wanted to play every minute of the game as a rule

Man , If i was gifted enough to be an AFL footballer these days, the one thing I would detest would be:
To be a sub in game
Sitting on the pine waiting for an opportunity
The subs are more or less spectators

Na, leave it how it is. The sub rule has added nothing to the AFL.

Injuries are just one variable of many in a game of footy.

mal wrote:SANFL footy in the 50s and 60s was hard and tough
They used to have reserves , not interchanges in those days
Some good sides managed to dominate
PA with 6 in a row in the 50s
ST with 4 in a row in the 60-70s
2 reserves, gosh, how did footy survive

This was a period when players would be on the ground for the duration [except for those 2 players subbed or another injury]
Imagine that , seeing players like Lindsay Head and Johnny Cahill on the ground for the whole game

3 is enough
4 is not required

I say
3 interchanges
25 rotations which would be suffice for any injuries

In those days teams often finished the game with one team with 16 fit men in the field and a couple of semi-crippled players in the forward pockets.
(Especially when they were playing against Port Adelaide, or against whomever had Neil Kerley in their team that year.)

That meant concussed players also often went back on.