Sub Rule gone in 2015

[G-Mo77]

Apparently the Sub rule is getting canned next year with an interchange cap of 80. Don't agree with the cap, I don't see any harm in rotating players as much as you want. Sub rule I've hated from day 1, good riddance!

[bulldogtragic]

Good with the main point. That players get credit for a full game on their CV when a sub skews the stats.

Probably works for us as we don't have too many explosive players, so the game will presumably slow somewhat but won't affect us as much.

[G-Mo77]

Conflicting reports. :(

The Run Home @TheRunHome · 4m
The AFL says they made a commitment to the current model for the interchange for 2014 and 2015 - they deny reports the sub will be scrapped

[bulldogtragic]

Conflicting reports. :(

The Run Home @TheRunHome · 4m
The AFL says they made a commitment to the current model for the interchange for 2014 and 2015 - they deny reports the sub will be scrapped

Modern journalism at it's best. It's better to be the first to report something than to be the first correct reporter.

[G-Mo77]

Well there is light at the end of the tunnel. Getting rid of it seems to be on the agenda.

[GVGjr]

I don't like the sub but at the moment I think they should maintain it until they have established a cap on the number of changes per quarter.

There is too much of a disadvantage to a side if they lose a player early in the game.

[azabob]

Sub Rule is the worst rule change bar none.

[boydogs]

It's a big change, it changes the value of a player to the side who you may have recruited or not recruited 5 years ago based on their fitness level. They seem to think they need to slow the game down to reduce collision injuries, but that decreases the spectacle and increases fatigue injuries

[bornadog]

AFL players group gives sub rule the thumbs down (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-players-group-gives-sub-rule-the-thumbs-down-20150426-1mtbwe.html)
A handpicked, new collective of the AFL's most influential players has given a unanimous thumbs down to the substitution rule. The current footballers' distinct dislike of the green sub's vest - particularly when worn this year by debutants and champions of the game, like Collingwood's top draft pick Jordan De Goey and Sydney's Adam Goodes have done this season – has now formally been lodged with the league.


At a meeting on Tuesday where Chris Judd and Sam Mitchell were among the most vocal, and club captains including Scott Pendlebury, Nathan Jones and Tom Rockliff were also among the contributors, the cap on interchanges and the unpopular sub rule headed the agenda.


Two days after the inaugural Players and the Game group meeting – an initiative of the AFL Players' Association aimed to give footballers more say in the key decisions being made in the code – the views were put directly to the AFL's Laws of the Game committee.


AFLPA general manager Ian Prendergast was the middle-man and counted the 90-odd minute first sitting of the Players and the Game group on Tuesday as one of the most enjoyable meetings he has attended in footy.


Advertisement


The only positive players raised about the substitution rule in the inaugural meeting was a sense that it can assist club doctors when they are assessing players for concussion. To a man, the highly esteemed players who attended agreed that there was a highly negative stigma associated with the sub, even if that was never the intention.


"There is no support amongst the players for retaining the sub," Prendergast said.


"They are very dismissive of the sub. As soon as it comes up they're fairly quick to voice their disapproval.


"They don't like the stigma of wearing the green vest. Particularly for young players who might be debuting, and then champions of the game sitting there with the green vest on. They have the same view in relation to getting dragged and being put in the red vest.


"Basically what they're saying is that if your form warrants being selected in the side, then you should be able to play as part of the team, rather than relying on somebody getting injured or a tactical sub being made.


"The players are certainly keen to see it go, however they have got concerns about the impact that reducing rotations would have if that's what the AFL ask for in return for the sub being removed and a fourth player being included on the bench."


While the players have not formed a collective view on an appropriate cap number for interchanges, they remain concerned about how this is impacting footballer fatigue and career longevity.


"They haven't decided what they think the ideal rotations number is, or whether they're comfortable with it being reduced [from 120] at all at this stage. They really want to have a look at the evidence that's gathered throughout this year," Prendergast said.


The Players and the Game group has formed this year partly out of a sense of disgruntlement that those who actually play the game every week are not having sufficient say in key issues concerning all areas of the code.


As far as the laws of the game are concerned, players and the AFLPA can already claim to have had something of a victory.


While Jack Trengove is the only current footballer officially on the AFL's Laws of the Game committee's membership, Prendergast is a recent addition and Hawthorn champion Mitchell and Richmond's Jack Riewoldt are going to rotate through future meetings, with Riewoldt attending Thursday's sitting chaired by league football operations boss Mark Evans in the boardroom at AFL House.


The AFLPA's Players and the Game group has one representative from each of the AFL's 18 clubs. The criteria was that each member be a deep thinker about the game, well respected by his peers, and have strong views on football. Prendergast said all of that was evident in Tuesday's first sitting.


Only three members of the foundation group – Brendon Goddard, Drew Petrie and Steve Johnson – could not make the first meeting on Tuesday, either in person or on phone hook up.


Another few items from the players that were relayed to the Laws of the Game committee on Thursday included positive feedback around the new interpretations of the holding the ball rule and blocking the marking contest rule. The players asked that umpires remain vigilant about monitoring tackles that see pinning of the arms, which can be potentially dangerous in terms of injury and concussion.

[GVGjr]

If they get rid of the sub then they need to support that by a reduction in IC changes.

[bornadog]

If they get rid of the sub then they need to support that by a reduction in IC changes.

I still don't know why?

[azabob]

If they get rid of the sub then they need to support that by a reduction in IC changes.

They are aready at 80. I think 80 is ok.
What number are you thinking would be appropriate?

[bornadog]

They are aready at 80. I think 80 is ok.
What number are you thinking would be appropriate?

You mean 120

[GVGjr]

They are aready at 80. I think 80 is ok.
What number are you thinking would be appropriate?
Thats a good number and we wil be well placed to take advantage of it but I think it will 100

[Hotdog60]

Did Adam Goodes tip the scale over? On the call to get rid of the sub. I doesn't look good when a high profile player in a market that needs to have it best on display states he would rather play in the lower grade than be a sub.

[azabob]

Steve Johnson is the sub today for Geelong.

[bornadog]

Honeychurch for us