AFL players as one on interchange

[boydogs]

I'd disagree on that one, all it does is force a team to use their sub early. The other team then has a fit and fresh player to bring on at the optimum time. Now lose the sub, and you've just got one less interchange. The opposition is still advantaged, but not as much as being able to bring on an impact player late in the third.

If that were the case, teams would create a second sub by not using an interchange player until the 3rd quarter

[lemmon]

Why have a limit at all?

All about creating player fatigue. Less congestion because players don't have enough run in their legs to push all the way into the back half or all the way up to the contest. We get the best players on the ground for longer, resting forward rather than using an interchange and we see more one on one duels because players aren't losing an opponent constantly heading to the bench.

I'm no fan of the sub but the interchange restriction has grown on me, I don't think it's any coincidence the most attractive football is played late in quarters and games. I'd be knocking it back to 80 a match with serious considerations about going to 60 depending on whether it's safe for the players.

[bornadog]

All about creating player fatigue. Less congestion because players don't have enough run in their legs to push all the way into the back half or all the way up to the contest. We get the best players on the ground for longer, resting forward rather than using an interchange and we see more one on one duels because players aren't losing an opponent constantly heading to the bench.

I'm no fan of the sub but the interchange restriction has grown on me, I don't think it's any coincidence the most attractive football is played late in quarters and games. I'd be knocking it back to 80 a match with serious considerations about going to 60 depending on whether it's safe for the players.

You can't make a game look like what you what it to through rule changes. Every rule change has a consequence and unforeseen change in the game because of coaching tactics as well as players becoming bigger and faster.

During last ten years the game has changed dramatically, all due to rule tampering, coaching tactics and human development. The game is constantly evolving, so let's leave it evolve

[Greystache]

You can't make a game look like what you what it to through rule changes. Every rule change has a consequence and unforeseen change in the game because of coaching tactics as well as players becoming bigger and faster.

During last ten years the game has changed dramatically, all due to rule tampering, coaching tactics and human development. The game is constantly evolving, so let's leave it evolve

The game looks the way is does because of the original changes to interchange, first changing to interchange from substitutes, then to 3, then 4. It took a couple of years for the coaches to really exploit the extra interchange resources (which only came in because the coaches complained about lack of injury cover), but it's still a byproduct of the rule change allowing so many interchange players.

The logical option is to reduce interchanges, or the number on the bench, or both.

[GVGjr]

Why have a limit at all?

Because I want to see players staying on the ground more. It looks stupid to have 4 players running off after a goal is scored.

Players can rest in a pocket or a flank rather than on a bench.

How silly would it look in the EPL if players were running off for a 3 or 4 minute breather?

[bornadog]

The game looks the way is does because of the original changes to interchange, first changing to interchange from substitutes, then to 3, then 4. It took a couple of years for the coaches to really exploit the extra interchange resources (which only came in because the coaches complained about lack of injury cover), but it's still a byproduct of the rule change allowing so many interchange players.

The logical option is to reduce interchanges, or the number on the bench, or both.

My point is proven, should have left it as it was.

Because I want to see players staying on the ground more. It looks stupid to have 4 players running off after a goal is scored.

Players can rest in a pocket or a flank rather than on a bench.

Coaches can send them to the backline and they can rest there and create a flood.

[jeemak]

I've posted this before, but I'll post it again anyway.

Coaches have a tendency to be risk averse, and those with teams of limited talent level compared to their opposition will just park numbers behind the ball, stifle forward entries and move the ball forward slowly themselves.

The game's rules will be caught by the athletic prowess of the players playing it and any tinkering with the interchange will only be a short term fix. If the powers that be insist the game's aesthetic needs to be changed drastically, then the only thing that will do it will be a change to the positional structures and placing restrictions on the movement of some of them. I'm not for it, but I think we'll eventually get there.

[bornadog]

I've posted this before, but I'll post it again anyway.

Coaches have a tendency to be risk averse, and those with teams of limited talent level compared to their opposition will just park numbers behind the ball, stifle forward entries and move the ball forward slowly themselves.

The game's rules will be caught by the athletic prowess of the players playing it and any tinkering with the interchange will only be a short term fix. If the powers that be insist the game's aesthetic needs to be changed drastically, then the only thing that will do it will be a change to the positional structures and placing restrictions on the movement of some of them. I'm not for it, but I think we'll eventually get there.

That is what I am afraid of. Agree, tinkering with interchange will not work. When I say that I mean it won't achieve what the AFL thinks it will achieve.