AFL to officially scrap sub rule and slash number of rotations in bid to reduce on-field congestion

[bornadog]

Green and red vests will be gone from the game in 2016 and interchange rotations will be slashed from 120 to 90.

the reason:

The reduce in rotation numbers is part of an AFL plan to try to reduce on-field congestion. (Really :rolleyes:, and that is going to happen)

source (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-to-officially-scrap-sub-rule-and-slash-number-of-rotations-in-bid-to-reduce-on-field-congestion/story-fni5f22o-1227511069641)

EDIT:

More info from AFL.com.au


THE SUBSTITUTE will be removed and the interchange cap reduced from 120 to 90 rotations per game in 2016 under changes announced to clubs on Thursday.

The game will return to four interchange players with clubs allowed to also make changes at quarter breaks.

Forced changes such as the blood rule, concussion assessment and stretcher changes will not be counted as part of the rotations.

The game has not had average rotations of around 90 since 2009 when the average rotations per team per game was 91.9 while in 2008 it was 80.3.

The substitute was introduced for the first time in 2011 as the AFL attempted to curb the number of interchange rotations per game, which had jumped to 117.4 rotations per team per game in 2010.

However the introduction of the interchange cap at 120 rotations per match across three players and a substitute in 2014 saw the substitute less important to ensure fairness if a team lost a player during the game due to injury.

The concussion substitute has also been an important benefit of the substitute but the AFL Medical Officers are comfortable the examination of players suspected of suffering concussion will still continue as required with coaches aware of the importance of that process.

[azabob]

I have never liked the sub rule. I am glad it is gone. I do wonder if and how the reduced rotations will reduce congestion.

[LostDoggy]

Good and good.

Less interchange means players will be less able to play in 5-8 minute frenetic bursts charging from stoppage to stoppage then interchanging off for a break.

[Rocket Science]

I'm confused.

Surely it's just as likely to inhibit a team's ability to break congestion as it is to inhibit congestion itself.

[Scraggers]

Good riddance

[Remi Moses]

I'm confused. The game will slow down with more congestion !
Look forward to more defensive footy played.

[KT31]

Glad the sub rule has gone.
Not sure how restricting the rotations more will reduce congestion, one could mount a decent argument for the oposite.

[soupman]

Who else is excited to see the unintended consequences of yet another rule change? I certainly am.

I'm really glad the AFL has the strength in its convictions to continue to defy the naysayers and do all it can to slow the natural evolution of the game.

[ReLoad]

being selfish it really helps players with a huge tank (which i think we have), as they will get to more contests more often, it is also going to make having a second ruckman much more attractive.

Players like Wallis, Libba, Picken, the Bont etc will be even more impactful :)

[jazzadogs]

I think it's a fantastic decision. The exhausted players who have to stay on the ground longer will obviously be able to run harder, faster and for longer, therefore opening up the game and reducing congestion. ADDED BONUS: their training loads will surely decrease allowing them to enjoy their jobs more!!

With the unwavering support of the AFL coaches, the chief tacticians of our game, and the unrelenting criticism of the way we and West Coast have been playing this year, I think this new interchange cap will be an outstanding success.

[bulldogtragic]

Vale the latest and worst impost on our game.

[GVGjr]

I think it's a fantastic decision. The exhausted players who have to stay on the ground longer will obviously be able to run harder, faster and for longer, therefore opening up the game and reducing congestion. ADDED BONUS: their training loads will surely decrease allowing them to enjoy their jobs more!!

With the unwavering support of the AFL coaches, the chief tacticians of our game, and the unrelenting criticism of the way we and West Coast have been playing this year, I think this new interchange cap will be an outstanding success.

Agreed, we are in a great position to take advantage of this change. All the players we drafted last year had excellent beep test results which gives me a lot of confidence that we can keep the guys on the ground a bit longer without losing momentum.

It will also start to limit the silly spectacle of 3 players coming off the ground at the same time.

I haven't been against the sub as many others but the time is right to return back to a 4 man IC bench.

I think this will be a positive for the game and a benefit to our club.

[bulldogtragic]

Agreed, we are in a great position to take advantage of this change. All the players we drafted last year had excellent beep test results which gives me a lot of confidence that we can keep the guys on the ground a bit longer without losing momentum.

It will also start to limit the silly spectacle of 3 players coming off the ground at the same time.

I haven't been against the sub as many others but the time is right to return back to a 4 man IC bench.

I think this will be a positive for the game and a benefit to our club.

Operation get Josh Kelly then?

[GVGjr]

Operation get Josh Kelly then?

I'd just stick with the formula we have been using to draft players.

[bulldogtragic]

I'd just stick with the formula we have been using to draft players.

The just draft future gun players formula? :)

[GVGjr]

The just draft future gun players formula? :)

I believe we went in with a very specific plan last year that rated players with demonstrated good endurance. That's the approach I think we would try and follow again.

[LostDoggy]

I believe we went in with a very specific plan last year that rated players with demonstrated good endurance. That's the approach I think we would try and follow again.

To play devils advocate, when you focus on endurance you tend to get lightly framed long distance runner types. That's fine, but not year after year?

[GVGjr]

To play devils advocate, when you focus on endurance you tend to get lightly framed long distance runner types. That's fine, but not year after year?

It certainly doesn't have to be at every pick but in the context of the opening post, I think there is merit in getting some players that have an upside in that endurance trait. I'd also add that versatility would be a highly regarded trait with a reduced number if IC changes.

[comrade]

Josh Kelly's value just increased.

[The Pie Man]

Sub rule going is a win - I know they won't, but they should ditch it for the finals this year as well.

The theory behind limiting rotations does confuse me - late in tight games, when players are 'spent', there always seems to be stoppage after stoppage.

It's not like coaches are going to be asking any less of their players during games either.

?

[bornadog]

I don't understand why there should be a restriction on interchanges.

[LostDoggy]

I don't understand why there should be a restriction on interchanges.

I'm all for a more severe cap on interchanges.

Since the sports science guys worked out midfielders operated optimally in 5-8 minute bursts, I/c exploded a few years ago. The teams with the most I/c were winning most weeks, with midfielders charging from stoppage to stoppage and spreading hard in manic bursts.

Prior to the 120 cap being bought in, teams were getting up to 150 I/c per week, growing rapidly.

I think it can be argued that midfield groups playing the game in short sharp bursts is against the spirit of the game and is contrary to how the game is meant to be played.

[bornadog]

I think it can be argued that midfield groups playing the game in short sharp bursts is against the spirit of the game and is contrary to how the game is meant to be played.

I fail to see this and have no idea what you are talking about.?

The constant tinkering of the game makes AFL one of the most farcical sports in the world in terms of administration and trying to change the product to suit old farts who want the game to look like 1980's football.

The game should be allowed to evolve and a big part of that is the human race getting stronger and faster, and the more sophisticated coaching tactics with the help of technology and sports science.

Everytime the AFL tinkers it effects another part of the game and then they have to backtrack. Examples are kick-ins after a point to get the ball moving so packs won't form, throwing the ball up so packs won't form, the sub rule to fatigue players and then reduce interchange to 120. So what happens is packs form as players are tired to run so they bottle up a game and everyone complains too many stoppages. Now the solution is get rid of the sub but reduce interchanges and fatigue the players more.

As Paul Roos said today, the clubs with younger players will end up disadvantaged as young players fatigue earlier compared to clubs with an older list.

If we listened to these old farts the game would be completely different, with Zones in the forward line and backline and even more umpires on the ground.

I have no idea what the AFL is trying to achieve with our game. I am totally lost. One minute it's let the game keep moving, next its slow it down.

[LostDoggy]

I would argue that introducing I/c the 70s was tinkering with how the game should be played.

If the powers that be had've known that it would've led to the games best players playing in 5-10 minute bursts, with players running to and from the bench in 2s and 3s, they would not have tinkered in the first place.

Sometimes the unintended concequences do not make themselves immediately apparent.

[bornadog]

I would argue that introducing I/c the 70s was tinkering with how the game should be played.

If the powers that be had've known that it would've led to the games best players playing in 5-10 minute bursts, with players running to and from the bench in 2s and 3s, they would not have tinkered in the first place.

Sometimes the unintended concequences do not make themselves immediately apparent.

The AFL is reactive not proactive and they are ruining the game. Take the sliding in rule for example.

[soupman]

I think it can be argued that midfield groups playing the game in short sharp bursts is against the spirit of the game and is contrary to how the game is meant to be played.

Whats that based on though? An idea of what the game "is" based on how it was years ago?

I don't see the issue with players being rotated off the bench so that they are able to perform at a higher standard more often. I don't see how fatiguing everyone makes the standard any better.

I'm over hearing from the commentators that they want to see midfielders resting in the forward pocket. Or two ruckmen in the side. Or less numbers around the stoppages. Or less kicks backwards. Or that the game will open up with the more tired players. This rule change won't fix any of the things they want.

Besides, if the midfielder is a good forward he will be rested forward anyway. Bont plays forward, Wallis plays forward, Ablett plays forward. If a coach can rest a player in a position where he is effective then he is going to do it regardless of the cap on interchange. Being forced to rest Liberatore or Macrae forward instead of the bench is detrimental to the game.

Two pure ruckmen isn't going to happen again, there's no need. No side is going to sacrifice the extra run, especially when they need the extra runner because they can't sufficiently rest their players on a bench.

Coaches will still aim to crowd stoppages to slow the game down and open up space elsewhere. And teams will kick backwards still if there is nothing to kick to, besides this is usually most prevalent at the end of quarters when teams are exhausted. If anything this'll happen more.

As for the game opening up because sides can't maintain the quantity and quality required of their defenisve positioning yeah potentially, but equally sides are going to struggle to attack in numbers or play a high press like we have seen from the Bulldogs this year to great attacking effect.

Besides in 4 years time there will be a new tactical innovation that coaches have come up with which will become the norm despite not being in the "spirit of the game". Clubs will continue to change the way the game looks based on what works, and we happen to be in the era where gameplans and styles are constantly evolving.

Instead of trying to resist the change, I think the AFL should let it be. There have been some very exciting and entertaining clubs to watch this year, coincidentally most of them hidden from Melbourne prime time TV. Maybe if the AFL pointed to the attacking contests clubs like us, West Coast, Hawthorn, Adelaide, Richmond and even St.Kilda have thrown up instead of showing off inept playing lists attempting outdated gameplans from soon to be sacked coaches at clubs like Carlton, Melbourne and Essendon football would be viewed a bit more positively atm.

[GVGjr]

I don't understand why there should be a restriction on interchanges.

It's a blight on the game to see Ice Hockey style groups of players heading to the bench. Less IC changes should be a good thing meaning good players who have superior fitness can start to shake the tags better late in quarters and games.

[hujsh]

It's a blight on the game to see Ice Hockey style groups of players heading to the bench. Less IC changes should be a good thing meaning good players who have superior fitness can start to shake the tags better late in quarters and games.

Why? Who says that endurance running is better than burst running and what makes it superior in general to AFL as a sport.


I have no strong feelings on this but find it strange that people have a reactionary backlash against it seemingly because it's different. (not specifically directed at you GVGjr)

[bornadog]

Why? Who says that endurance running is better than burst running and what makes it superior in general to AFL as a sport.


I have no strong feelings on this but find it strange that people have a reactionary backlash against it seemingly because it's different. (not specifically directed at you GVGjr)

Took the words out of my mouth.

[GVGjr]

Why? Who says that endurance running is better than burst running and what makes it superior in general to AFL as a sport.


I have no strong feelings on this but find it strange that people have a reactionary backlash against it seemingly because it's different. (not specifically directed at you GVGjr)

I want to see the best players on the ground more than having players waiting to come back on because be the ball is on the wrong side of the ground. I heard on the radio this week that a frustrated Mitch Wallis had to wait 6 minutes to get back on the ground the other week. It was 3 minutes into the quarter when he came off. He came off after just 3 minutes. We will eventually get back to playing the better footballers than the athletes.

If you want unlimited changes then the sub needs to be kept because it is a massive disadvantage to any team that cops an early injury.

[GVGjr]

Took the words out of my mouth.


You say you don't like the constant changes and yet the game was originally designed to have just a 19th and 20th man that replaced injured or out of form players once during a game. I don't see the fascination of unlimited changes, tell me why it's better for the game outside of the fact that you are sick of the changes?

[LostDoggy]

I want to see the best players on the ground more than having players waiting to come back on because be the ball is on the wrong side of the ground. I heard on the radio this week that a frustrated Mitch Wallis had to wait 6 minutes to get back on the ground the other week. It was 3 minutes into the quarter when he came off. He came off after just 3 minutes. We will eventually get back to playing the better footballers than the athletes.

If you want unlimited changes then the sub needs to be kept because it is a massive disadvantage to any team that cops an early injury.

Agree. Also, if players are not playing in short, sharp bursts, we will get less passages of play with everyone on the ground charging to every contest, leading to a rolling maul, stoppage after stoppage style of game (not surprised to see Paul Roos as a leading defender).

Last weeks game against NM a good example. I reckon most will remember passages from the last qtr much more than the first three. When the game becomes less about congesting your opponents space and more about winning contests and superior ball movement the game is preferable in my opinion.

[bornadog]

You say you don't like the constant changes and yet the game was originally designed to have just a 19th and 20th man that replaced injured or out of form players once during a game. I don't see the fascination of unlimited changes, tell me why it's better for the game outside of the fact that you are sick of the changes?

How far back do you want to go - that was 40 plus years ago.

OK, put it another way, why is 90 the magic number?

Believe me there will be more changes to this rule in the next few years.

[GVGjr]

How far back do you want to go - that was 40 plus years ago.


That's really for you to answer, your position is there are too many changes to the game. Did you see the removing of the 19th and 20th man in the same manner you do on having unlimited IC changes?



OK, put it another way, why is 90 the magic number?

Believe me there will be more changes to this rule in the next few years.

So if I read this correctly you don't actually have a reason for your unlimited changes stance other than you are sick of the changes.

I'm not 100% certain 90 is the right number because it may very well be high given clubs can still make changes in between quarters etc and the actual number will be a lot higher. I am however, all for reducing the wave of players coming off the ground at the same time and I'd like to see a few more of the traditional football players over the athletes returned to the game.

[bornadog]

So if I read this correctly you don't actually have a reason for your unlimited changes stance other than you are sick of the changes.

Never said that.

I can't see the problem with having players come on and off the ground.

I would welcome the interchange going back to 2 and having unlimited interchange. Yes that is a change back.

My concern is the AFL don't know what they are doing and all they do is mess with the game.

[GVGjr]

Never said that.

I can't see the problem with having players come on and off the ground.

I would welcome the interchange going back to 2 and having unlimited interchange. Yes that is a change back.

My concern is the AFL don't know what they are doing and all they do is mess with the game.

I'll ask again, why do you favour the unlimited option over a limit of 90? Did you think the 120 limit this year was inhibiting and every team needed more?

I've mentioned the reasons why I think a limit is essential, especially with dropping the sub, because it disadvantages a side who cops a game ending injury to a player early in the match.

[Rocket Science]

I'll ask again, why do you favour the unlimited option over a limit of 90? Did you think the 120 limit this year was inhibiting and every team needed more?

I've mentioned the reasons why I think a limit is essential, especially with dropping the sub, because it disadvantages a side who cops a game ending injury to a player early in the match.

I'll proffer one angle; traditional positions as we know them are increasingly moot.

Forwards are expected to relentlessly defend and defenders are expected to aggressively attack, while mids basically play square to square while also doing both. Speed, mobility, pressure and around-the-ground flexibility are king, just ask our current coach.

Have players ever been asked to cover so much ground?

Well executed - a la US at our best - the consensus is this makes for a searing, code-promoting spectacle.

As a punter, I'd happily wear extra interchanges to encourage and effect this.

[Greystache]

You say you don't like the constant changes and yet the game was originally designed to have just a 19th and 20th man that replaced injured or out of form players once during a game. I don't see the fascination of unlimited changes, tell me why it's better for the game outside of the fact that you are sick of the changes?

Exactly, everybody wants the rules changed back to the way they were when they were young. My grandfather swore to never watch another game after they brought interchange, he said it was ridiculous American garbage. My Great Grandfather swore to never watch another game after they brought in that stupid centre square, he said it took all the physical players out of the game an turned it into a sport for skinny runners.

Throw it back another 30 years and there'd be a generation complaining that they won't watch because players don't wear hats and knickerbockers anymore.

[bornadog]

Exactly, everybody wants the rules changed back to the way they were when they were young. My grandfather swore to never watch another game after they brought interchange, he said it was ridiculous American garbage. My Great Grandfather swore to never watch another game after they brought in that stupid centre square, he said it took all the physical players out of the game an turned it into a sport for skinny runners.

Throw it back another 30 years and there'd be a generation complaining that they won't watch because players don't wear hats and knickerbockers anymore.

I don't think people want rules changed back to where they were. People are sick of constant changes, reactive rules and the fact the AFL doesn't know what they want and where they want the game to go. It is impossible to make the game look like what you want it to with a rule change. We have old farts changing rules to try and make the game the same as the 80's - it will never work.

The game is constantly evolving, so let it evolve as long as players safety is looked after.

[Murphy'sLore]

Agree with what you say, BAD.

The AFL commission are like a teenage boy with his hand down his pants. For God's sake, leave it alone!

[Happy Days]

Exactly, everybody wants the rules changed back to the way they were when they were young. My grandfather swore to never watch another game after they brought interchange, he said it was ridiculous American garbage. My Great Grandfather swore to never watch another game after they brought in that stupid centre square, he said it took all the physical players out of the game an turned it into a sport for skinny runners.

Throw it back another 30 years and there'd be a generation complaining that they won't watch because players don't wear hats and knickerbockers anymore.

I was reading a book the other day that claimed a group of traditionalists wanted to ban the hanger the other day after Charles "Commotion" Pearson (killer handle) took the first recorded one back in 1890-something. The hanger!

There's an innate need for each passing generation to think the way they did something is better.

[F'scary]

I like the change and agree with comments to the effect that the it is positive because likely outcomes are:



players will have to pace themselves more and won't be able to run from stoppage to stoppage as much.
floods and presses will likewise be less pronounced.


Another benefit in my view is that the eyesore of players constantly running on and off the ground will be reduced.

What would really help and doesn't require rule changes is


the umpires adopting a clear policy of balling/throwing it up faster to reduce the time available for players to mill in around the stoppage.
Be harsher on players hatching the ball.

[Sedat]

What would really help and doesn't require rule changes is


the umpires adopting a clear policy of balling/throwing it up faster to reduce the time available for players to mill in around the stoppage.
Be harsher on players hatching the ball.

This x 1000. All they need to do is get rid of the stupid bounce - we are the only idiotic sport that requires our umpires to have a skill - so that the ball can be thrown up quickly and reduce congestion. Also the whole notion of "no prior opportunity" is flawed. It is a skill to win the ball and successfully dispose of it under extreme duress - any mug can hatch it and wait for the stoppage. Might be harsh to begin with but teams will adjust very easily - those teams that move the ball quickly (like us) will be rewarded.

[bornadog]

This x 1000. All they need to do is get rid of the stupid bounce - we are the only idiotic sport that requires our umpires to have a skill - so that the ball can be thrown up quickly and reduce congestion. Also the whole notion of "no prior opportunity" is flawed. It is a skill to win the ball and successfully dispose of it under extreme duress - any mug can hatch it and wait for the stoppage. Might be harsh to begin with but teams will adjust very easily - those teams that move the ball quickly (like us) will be rewarded.

The only time the ball is bounced is in the middle of the ground. Umpires have been throwing the ball up for a few years now.

[Sedat]

The only time the ball is bounced is in the middle of the ground. Umpires have been throwing the ball up for a few years now.
They take far too long to throw it up - they posture around, tell everyone to move away from behind them and then eventually throw it up. Just get it and throw it up right away to stop the crowd gathering.

[Greystache]

They take far too long to throw it up - they posture around, tell everyone to move away from behind them and then eventually throw it up. Just get it and throw it up right away to stop the crowd gathering.

Boundary throw ins too. The boundary umpires spend and eternity posturing to throw it in. Get the ball, throw it in, and get the game moving. They practically stand around waiting for everyone to get to the stoppage before throwing the ball in.

[F'scary]

They take far too long to throw it up - they posture around, tell everyone to move away from behind them and then eventually throw it up. Just get it and throw it up right away to stop the crowd gathering.

There was one of our games at Etihad this year where after a week of heavy media criticism about the number of stoppages and the ugly rolling scrums, the umps seemed to change tack and throw the ball up very quickly - it made a big difference, I recall but I don't think this was maintained through the rest of the season, they fell back into the old habits of waiting for 40 players to gather round and then swishing their tail feather to show their exit path from the scrimmage.

[bulldogtragic]

Dear Subs Rule, don't let the doors on the MCG hit your ass on the way out. I trust and hope this is the last ever time I see you.

[bornadog]

Beveridge: New rules will impact team makeup (http://www.westernbulldogs.com.au/news/2016-02-16/beveridge-new-rules-will-impact-team-makeup-)


The interchange cap and removal of the substitute will change the way Luke Beveridge approaches team selection in 2016.

Speaking with Francis Leach and David Schwartz on SEN 1116’s radio in Melbourne, Beveridge said that one area the new rules will have an impact is how the Bulldogs’ comprise their forward line in the absence of Stewart Crameri in 2016.

“We obviously get Tom (Liberatore) back, we get Koby Stevens back, we lost Lin Jong for periods of the year and Tom Boyd didn’t player either, so the game is going to change with the 22 and the availability of four on the bench,” Beveridge said.

“The tactical side of the game and how you use those players will change week to week, so you can afford to go taller if you want to, you can do different things.

“I know the rotations will be down a little bit and the game will change.”

The substitute rule was introduced in 2011 in an effort to limit the number of interchange rotations per game, and Beveridge said that the changes announced last year will have a big impact on the way he coaches the game in 2016.

“In black and white terms, you haven’t been able to use the sub until you really needed it,” he said.

“You risked your whole group if you brought a sub on early, if you had another injury you were down to two on the bench.

"Whereas now, you can use it whenever you want but you don’t have to.

“You can sit the young fella there for a little while if things aren’t turning out the way you’d like, you may be able to shuffle things around and just shelve part of your role players for a period of time.

“So there’s all sorts of things that will happen.

"It’ll be interesting to see how all of the coaches manage it.

“It’s difficult to forecast the way you will [approach things], but I’ve been thinking about it and there’s no doubt it’ll have an influence.”

With the first game of the NAB Challenge just over a week away, and round one of the season proper creeping ever closer, the second year coach said that he was happy with how his side is shaping up ahead of the new season.

“Yeah, we’ve had a good preseason, slightly different from last year.

“We’ve had a few more boys who’ve had some repairs during that November period, but they’re all back in the main program now and we’re fit and healthy.

“We had a good hit-out at our Family Day on Saturday in front of the Bulldogs faithful and our build’s looking ok.”

[GVGjr]

I'd be interested in peoples thoughts on the benefits and risks of the removal of the sub?

[Ozza]

The risk is that teams getting injuries early in games have a greater disadvantage with out the sub.

Outweighing the risk, is the benefit of having more flexibility in your line up, and also not having to manage players who have had several weeks of being the sub.

One interesting aspect will be the 'carry over' players.
Often last season, a player would only play in the VFL for a half and then head to the AFL game to be the 23rd player, should there be an issue with another player in the warm ups, or someone not quite come up in time. I'm not sure if not having the sub will mean that the carry over players won't play VFL at all, or whether we won't have the carry over player at all.

[LostDoggy]

Effectively no sub means teams have 4 on the bench rather than 3. I think that will increase the possibility of running a tall off the bench (either 2nd ruck or kpp fill in) - particularly given the lower rotation numbers.

With 3 on the bench and one of them a tall, it made midfield rotations too hard (effectively 2 runners on the bench). Having a tall utility opens a range of tactical options - will be interesting to see how different teams play it.

[GVGjr]

The risk is that teams getting injuries early in games have a greater disadvantage with out the sub.

Outweighing the risk, is the benefit of having more flexibility in your line up, and also not having to manage players who have had several weeks of being the sub.



It's a massive risk to teams albeit I'm hoping the reduced number of possible interchanges might help if an injury occurs early in the game.

Does it really provide more flexibility?
I'd also argue that it now potentially makes it harder to introduce younger players into the senior line-up. You won't be able to ease them into the tempo of the game like we often did last season.
I wonder if we will average more changes to teams each week as the option of having someone on the bench if they weren't 100% is not longer there?

Older players might need more games off

[Ghost Dog]

Does this new ruling advantage or disadvantage rucks?

[jazzadogs]

It's a massive risk to teams albeit I'm hoping the reduced number of possible interchanges might help if an injury occurs early in the game.

Does it really provide more flexibility?
I'd also argue that it now potentially makes it harder to introduce younger players into the senior line-up. You won't be able to ease them into the tempo of the game like we often did last season.
I wonder if we will average more changes to teams each week as the option of having someone on the bench if they weren't 100% is not longer there?

Older players might need more games off

It's interesting because the way Bevo talks about it in that article, I interpreted it as he is contemplating still having a 'sub' of sorts who comes on in bursts, or is held back until later. With the reduced number of rotations, players will need to stay on the field longer but also spend longer stints on the bench...they won't be able to continue 1 minute stints on the bench or they'll run out of rotations.

What is the penalty for going over the cap?

[GVGjr]

It's interesting because the way Bevo talks about it in that article, I interpreted it as he is contemplating still having a 'sub' of sorts who comes on in bursts, or is held back until later. With the reduced number of rotations, players will need to stay on the field longer but also spend longer stints on the bench...they won't be able to continue 1 minute stints on the bench or they'll run out of rotations.

What is the penalty for going over the cap?

I'm not sure but it would have to be the same as an IC infringement with a free kick to the opposition.

[F'scary]

Players will have more energy because they will spend less time running on and off the ground.

[jeemak]

The idea behind the interchange cap and the removal of the sub is geared towards encouraging higher scoring. I'm not sure this will be the outcome.

Coaches - Bevo and Clarkson plus a few others aside - are inherently defensive and will be more inclined to sit fatigued players behind the ball rather than let the game be a free flowing and high scoring one. I fear that with a cap on interchange we will get all of the defensive components of our current state of play, but lose much of the slinging forward on the counter attack only non-fatigued players can deliver regularly.

I could be wrong, but as a guide I usually back the AFL to receive the precise opposite result than the one intended when they tinker with the rules.

[Twodogs]

The idea behind the interchange cap and the removal of the sub is geared towards encouraging higher scoring. I'm not sure this will be the outcome.

Coaches - Bevo and Clarkson plus a few others aside - are inherently defensive and will be more inclined to sit fatigued players behind the ball rather than let the game be a free flowing and high scoring one. I fear that with a cap on interchange we will get all of the defensive components of our current state of play, but lose much of the slinging forward on the counter attack only non-fatigued players can deliver regularly.

I could be wrong, but as a guide I usually back the AFL to receive the precise opposite result than the one intended when they tinker with the rules.

That's a good rule of thumb to use.

[The Adelaide Connection]

The idea behind the interchange cap and the removal of the sub is geared towards encouraging higher scoring. I'm not sure this will be the outcome.

Coaches - Bevo and Clarkson plus a few others aside - are inherently defensive and will be more inclined to sit fatigued players behind the ball rather than let the game be a free flowing and high scoring one. I fear that with a cap on interchange we will get all of the defensive components of our current state of play, but lose much of the slinging forward on the counter attack only non-fatigued players can deliver regularly.

I could be wrong, but as a guide I usually back the AFL to receive the precise opposite result than the one intended when they tinker with the rules.

It's almost got to the point where every premiership needs an asterix next to it denoting what variation of rules it was won under.
This years will be *90 rotations, no sub, extra jumpy sling rule.

[LostDoggy]

The idea behind the interchange cap and the removal of the sub is geared towards encouraging higher scoring. I'm not sure this will be the outcome.

Coaches - Bevo and Clarkson plus a few others aside - are inherently defensive and will be more inclined to sit fatigued players behind the ball rather than let the game be a free flowing and high scoring one. I fear that with a cap on interchange we will get all of the defensive components of our current state of play, but lose much of the slinging forward on the counter attack only non-fatigued players can deliver regularly.

I could be wrong, but as a guide I usually back the AFL to receive the precise opposite result than the one intended when they tinker with the rules.
I think the main defensive part of the game at present the AFL is trying to address is the ability of 10 or more players from each team to charge manically from contest to contest, and then resting after each 5 or 6 minute ballistic burst.

This creates the blocked up, high stoppages, 'rolling maul' effect that stinks up so many games.

I generally concur with the broad concept that the game is less attractive when the midfielders/runners are able to rest up every few minutes. When unlimited interchange was first introduced in the late 70s/early 80s, I am sure the rulemakers of the time had little idea what it would lead to and would've thought twice had they have known.

Whether these current changes result in the desired outcomes remains to be seen, no doubt there will be unforseen consequences.

On face value, I'm happy to give it a chance as a step in the right direction.

[F'scary]

Another effect the sub cap will have is that coaches will not be able to send players to the bench after kicking a goal.

Going to really miss that one...

[LostDoggy]

I know it's only a practice game, but on viewing Thursday's game, one thing that struck me is that, with midfielders getting rotated forward more, it meant that players like Hrovat and Daniel got more time through the middle and really benefitted for it.

Bevo's desire to have a team of versatile, interchangeable parts looks to fit in well with the new rule. Other teams may struggle more when players need to move from their preferred position.

[bornadog]

I think the return of the resting ruckman in a forward line will happen. Bevo has already mentioned in the article above that there will be the possibility of playing an extra tall forward. This means Roughy can play on the resting rucks.