by Lightning McQueen » Thu Jul 02, 2015 9:44 am
by Feenix » Thu Jul 02, 2015 9:52 am
by FlyingHigh » Thu Jul 02, 2015 9:58 am
by Lightning McQueen » Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:25 am
by gadj1976 » Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:31 am
by Banker » Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:40 am
by Lightning McQueen » Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:42 am
gadj1976 wrote:The original reason for bringing it in was because the coaches wanted the impact of an early injury to be negated (ie, the reduction from 22 to 21). The stats backed it up at the time if I recall correctly.
So there was validity in having it. However, it's terrible for the players and us, wondering why such and such a player has been left on the bench so long - obviously some of that being strategic on the coaches part.
I don't like it, but if it reverts back to 4 on the bench, will the same problems exist? I suspect so.
by Lightning McQueen » Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:43 am
Banker wrote:Scrap it and reduce interchange cap to 80
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-02-24/c ... o-80-walsh
by bennymacca » Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:14 am
Lightning McQueen wrote:Banker wrote:Scrap it and reduce interchange cap to 80
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-02-24/c ... o-80-walsh
Why do you see a need to reduce the interchange?
by Lightning McQueen » Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:24 am
bennymacca wrote:because another part of the reason for introducing the sub rule was to slow the game down a little bit, to reduce injury as players arent hitting as hard. Another way they could do this is have the interchange cap, which seems to be working, and so there is less of a need for the sub rule.
One thing which i think could work well is just limiting when interchanges can occur.
Ie you cant run off at any time, it has to be at a stoppage in play, which could be after a goal, or a forward 50 mark for instance. Maybe 50m penalties too. These instances are breaks in the game long enough to get players on and off without affecting the game, and would also introduce a cap in effect.
The problem is in a low scoring arm wrestle this might decrease the chances for interchange to 30 or something, which might be just too low.
Thoughts?
by Banker » Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:26 am
Lightning McQueen wrote:Banker wrote:Scrap it and reduce interchange cap to 80
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-02-24/c ... o-80-walsh
Why do you see a need to reduce the interchange?
by Coach Bombay » Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:50 am
Lightning McQueen wrote:gadj1976 wrote:The original reason for bringing it in was because the coaches wanted the impact of an early injury to be negated (ie, the reduction from 22 to 21). The stats backed it up at the time if I recall correctly.
So there was validity in having it. However, it's terrible for the players and us, wondering why such and such a player has been left on the bench so long - obviously some of that being strategic on the coaches part.
I don't like it, but if it reverts back to 4 on the bench, will the same problems exist? I suspect so.
I think the general public don't like it because of the popularity of fantasy football, how many times do you see someone inherit the vest only to see a team mate injured within minutes, as far as I'm concerned, it wasn't broken at 22, why fix it?
Who cares about rotations etc? AS long as only 22 are on the field at any given time all should be good.
by Q. » Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:58 am
by bennymacca » Thu Jul 02, 2015 12:18 pm
Q. wrote:You're more likely to suffer injury in a fatigued state. Reducing rotations will lead to higher incidence of fatigue and therefore higher incidence of injuries.
Get rid of the sub rule, get rid of a rotations cap.
by Lightning McQueen » Thu Jul 02, 2015 12:19 pm
Coach Bombay wrote:Lightning McQueen wrote:gadj1976 wrote:The original reason for bringing it in was because the coaches wanted the impact of an early injury to be negated (ie, the reduction from 22 to 21). The stats backed it up at the time if I recall correctly.
So there was validity in having it. However, it's terrible for the players and us, wondering why such and such a player has been left on the bench so long - obviously some of that being strategic on the coaches part.
I don't like it, but if it reverts back to 4 on the bench, will the same problems exist? I suspect so.
I think the general public don't like it because of the popularity of fantasy football, how many times do you see someone inherit the vest only to see a team mate injured within minutes, as far as I'm concerned, it wasn't broken at 22, why fix it?
Who cares about rotations etc? AS long as only 22 are on the field at any given time all should be good.
by Grahaml » Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:13 pm
by bennymacca » Thu Jul 02, 2015 3:51 pm
Grahaml wrote:I don't mind the idea of subs but I think the rules around it are a bit odd. Plus I can't stand the vest. Doesn't do anything useful and just makes professional athletes look ridiculous.
Personally, I think go back to 22 and perhaps look into the idea of unlimited subs. Sumbit a list of active players to the opposition and match day officials. Any of them can come on to replace a player at any time if needed as the current sub does. Suddenly we never have uneven numbers. Subs should be able to play another game at a lower level though, but the AFL shouldn't have much trouble managing the work load. You're also not going to see wholesale changes made. Hawthorn won't be subbing off Lewis, Hodge and Mitchell at 3/4 time to get some more run from a fringe player.
by beef » Thu Jul 02, 2015 4:03 pm
by Lightning McQueen » Thu Jul 02, 2015 4:21 pm
beef wrote:Couldnt care less, dont care if a team makes 1000 interchanges or none, Never gone home from the footy and said "Gee, Hawthorn make a lot of interchanges". Could have 10 on the bench for all i care. As long as we dont stop the game to make changes teams can make as many interchanges as they want
by daysofourlives » Thu Jul 02, 2015 9:30 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |