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

[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.