Has decreasing player rotations off the bench from 120 to 90 really improved the game?

[bornadog]

By changing the number of rotations off the bench the AFL wanted to see less packs forming and higher scoring from teams.

I don't have access to Champion data for things like the number of stoppages per game from one year to another, but what I have worked out is goal scoring this year is very low. Average points kicked per team has only increased from 86 last year to 88 this year.

Are we seeing more defensive play, Ala the Bulldogs, but less goals? Has decreasing the player rotations really worked and changed the game?

[Mantis]

Are you sure on those numbers?

[bornadog]

Are you sure on those numbers?

I took the total points kicked to date and divided up by 18 teams? Is that not correct.

I have corrected last year, however, there is only 2 points the difference, hardly a revelation.

[Sedat]

Quick holding the ball interpretations and strict enforcement of the 10m exclusion zone rule early in the season made for a much better game. Umps are now far too slow to ping HTB and they have dropped the ball on 10m rule - end result is stoppage after stoppage and the crap footy we've seen in the last 2 months.

Rotations should be reduced to 60 a game.

[bornadog]

Quick holding the ball interpretations and strict enforcement of the 10m exclusion zone rule early in the season made for a much better game. Umps are now far too slow to ping HTB and they have dropped the ball on 10m rule - end result is stoppage after stoppage and the crap footy we've seen in the last 2 months.

Rotations should be reduced to 60 a game.

When do we stop fiddling with the game?

[GVGjr]

When do we stop fiddling with the game?

I doubt that will happen. I think the reduction in IC has been better for the game. Perhaps a further reduction should be considered sometime in the future.

[hujsh]

I doubt that will happen. I think the reduction in IC has been better for the game. Perhaps a further reduction should be considered sometime in the future.

How so? What's it changed?

[bornadog]

I doubt that will happen. I think the reduction in IC has been better for the game. Perhaps a further reduction should be considered sometime in the future.


How so? What's it changed?

Exactly hujsh, the total point of this thread which no one can explain why the change.

When rules are changed or interpreted differently, no one can explain why they changed it, or what was the point, what was the advantage. Like deliberate OOB, or conceding a score - so what, why over complicate a game with the umpires having to look at more grey areas.

[GVGjr]

How so? What's it changed?

The ridiculous wave of players running to the bench
It means teams that cop an injury early in the game aren't as disadvantaged as they were previously

I could go on.

[hujsh]

The ridiculous wave of players running to the bench



Pretty superficial reason.


It means teams that cop an injury early in the game aren't as disadvantaged as they were previously

That may be true, though we had the sub before so if it's just one injury it probably hurts more now.

I'm pretty on the fence but if those are 'benefits' of the change I'm leaning towards Bornadog's view.

[Hotdog60]

Would the less rotation put more stress on players injury wise. I know we have copped a fair amount but does fatigue cause for tiredness and maybe poor application of tackling technique either giving or receiving.
The old guys like the two Matts do soft tissue now put a risk in their longevity in the game.
Because I live interstate and have to view on TV the mass of players running to the bench wasn't an issue because you don't see that unless it's in camera shot.
I'm in the boat they need to leave the game alone but that was more a thought 30 years ago. Now I don't think they cam help themselves as they have become perpetual rule changers.

[Throughandthrough]

Wait for the outcry if/when the AFL brings in the "last touch" rule. It's been in the Sanfl this year, and the women's AFL is using it as well. Basically if you kick it or handball it and it goes out of bounds, the other team gets a free kick. The only time they don't if it was touched first or fumbled over the line. It's a very very frustrating thing to watch

[GVGjr]

That may be true, though we had the sub before so if it's just one injury it probably hurts more now.

I'm pretty on the fence but if those are 'benefits' of the change I'm leaning towards Bornadog's view.

The evidence and the statistics were overwhelming. Teams that lost a player early were simply out rotated prior to the sub rule and that's why the limited IC changes work better now. Lose a player early and it's still the same amount of rotations.

Excellent rule change but one that might be modified sometime in the future.

[LostDoggy]

The ridiculous wave of players running to the bench
It means teams that cop an injury early in the game aren't as disadvantaged as they were previously

I could go on.
Agree with this.

Also, with players less able to play in 4-5 minute bursts, we get less passages of play that resemble rolling rugby union mauls with 30+ onballers.

The era of sports scientists increasing influence on the game by pinpointing periods on ground for individuals has not been to the betterment of the game and moves to reduce their influence are a step in the right direction towards the game being played as it should.

[bornadog]

Who cares if 4 players run off the ground? How does stopping that improve the game.

No one here has put up a valid argument on changing the rotation numbers which was supposed to improve the game.

KB is calling for 50 only rotations - I don't get the point.

[GVGjr]

Who cares if 4 players run off the ground? How does stopping that improve the game.

No one here has put up a valid argument on changing the rotation numbers which was supposed to improve the game.

KB is calling for 50 only rotations - I don't get the point.

Because you don't want to get the point. I've raised the benefits of having limited rotations. To get rid of the sub, the IC limits had to come in.

[Ghost Dog]

The ridiculous wave of players running to the bench
It means teams that cop an injury early in the game aren't as disadvantaged as they were previously

I could go on.

Not to mention players with the ball being continually caught out by players leaping off the bench to tackle them unawares. That really annoys me.

[bornadog]

Because you don't want to get the point. I've raised the benefits of having limited rotations. To get rid of the sub, the IC limits had to come in.

I don't think so. No one has pointed out that having 90 rotations is better than having 120 How does getting rid of the sub = IC limits coming down?

[jazzadogs]

As far as I'm concerned all of the benefits attributed to the interchange cap are aesthetic only. I also don't have access to Champion Data or other stats but would love to see yearly trends for TOG percentage per player, number of interchanges per player and number of soft tissue injuries.

I couldn't care less if four people interchange after each goal, but I do care if Jack Macrae is expected to run at 100% for 10% longer and it causes him to tear his hamstring (not saying this was necessarily the cause).

I am far more concerned on the impact this cap could have on our players (particularly if it gets dropped further) than on the aesthetics of rolling mauls and mass interchanges.