Hi all, I like to hear others thoughts on allowing up to 3 substitutes for injured players. I like the idea but am concerned that it may be exploited for the wrong reasons by coaches.

Some thoughts.

Players could be rotated and flogged to an inch of their endurance then substituted. Coaches could pull off 3 players at 3/4 time and put on fresh runners. This will just up the ante in speeding up the game.

Without stricter rules on rotations I don't think it will work as intended.

Perhaps players that are substituted as "injured" may be forced to miss the next week.

Also I wonder how this would apply to taking players off on a stretcher. In the old days if a player was taken off on a stretcher you could be sure he was quite bad and almost certainly did not appear the following week. These days it happens in nearly every game and often the stretchered player returns with no apparent sign of injury later in the game. It appears to me that coaches are exploiting this situation to give their players a break and time to regroup from the constant pressure. Smells like the fake injuries and time wasting seen is soccer. It could be made mandatory that a player taken off on a stretcher must be substituted.

Edited April 13, 201015 yr by america de cali

It's open to exploitation. I can't think of another sport in which substitutes are allowed for injured players.

I expect the AFL will bring it in, there will be problems, and they'll continually change it.

Maybe four subs isn't enough. If you contrast it to other sports:

Football (Soccer): 4-7 reserves, 3 substitutions permitted

Rugby League Union: not exaclty sure on the number, but I think there are one off subs (unless it's a temporary injury) and quite a few of them

Basketball - about ten reserves, unlimited substitutions

No sport works the same way as AFL. Either they have one time use subs or a large number on the bench.

There is no way to get it to work perfectly, so don't muck around with the game.

Hi all, I like to hear others thoughts on allowing up to 3 substitutes for injured players. I like the idea but am concerned that it may be exploited for the wrong reasons by coaches.

Some thoughts.

Players could be rotated and flogged to an inch of their endurance then substituted. Coaches could pull off 3 players at 3/4 time and put on fresh runners. This will just up the ante in speeding up the game.

Without stricter rules on rotations I don't think it will work as intended.

Perhaps players that are substituted as "injured" may be forced to miss the next week.

Also I wonder how this would apply to taking players off on a stretcher. In the old days if a player was taken off on a stretcher you could be sure he was quite bad and almost certainly did not appear the following week. These days it happens in nearly every game and often the stretchered player returns with no apparent sign of injury later in the game. It appears to me that coaches are exploiting this situation to give their players a break and time to regroup from the constant pressure. Smells like the fake injuries and time wasting seen is soccer. It could be made mandatory that a player taken off on a stretcher must be substituted.

Those thoughts had crossed my mind too. I think back to Dean Wallis' contribution to the Bombers' 2000 flag. Brought back into the side to punch someone up, with little else to offer. It'd be interesting if Sheedy could have then immediately subbed him off after mission-accomplished. Not that it mattered on that day of course.

There has to be some slight penalty for subbing, such as no interchange for 5 minutes of play following the sub.

The other issue of course, is the player who keeps making the side as a sub only. He can't play and keep his fitness in the twos, and if that happens for even two weeks in a row his form will drop off. I suppose the answer might be that subs are enforced at half time (with no penalty), so that everyone gets at least half a game.

I think the game would benefit from reducing the bench to 2, and replacing them with 2 (maybe 3 or 4) subs, out of a pool of 4 (5 or 6 maybe) players. ALso make it so they don't need an injury to be subbed on/off and once subbed off you can't come back on.

This would drastically reduce the number of interchanges, and slow the game down a little because players wouldn't have regular breaks, the game becomes more interesting when they are tired and can't flood back quite so easily. But also provide the opportunity to replace injured players.

My only concern would be that it would increase the need for players to be athletes, which wouldn't be ideal.

It would also be fantastic to see impact players come on halfway through the third quarter and really bust the game apart with their fresh legs.

Thanks guys, I didn't think about the potential thuggery element. But very valid. Reducing the bench to 2 and having subs is a great idea.

Another idea but extreme is to have it like Gridiron where the entire roster of players 49 I think can be played and rotated in one game. Will do away with reserves and allow the game to be played at its most intense and fullest whilst spreading out the work rate and ensuring individual players are not flogged. Every player gets a chance to get some game time on a regular basis.

But perhaps too radical a thought for the game at this stage of its development.

Edited April 13, 201015 yr by america de cali

I will be exploited. If they are to implement it, they need to have a non-club doctor hired by the AFL at every game that can determine whether or not a player can go back on the ground. If a player is suddenly available before a match but it's too late to include him, they can substitute him mid-game for a player that has a cut on his head, but they'll say he is concussed.

Will make the game [censored], will be exploited badly.

Player x is playing badly, half way through 2nd quarter, told to fake a hammy in 5 mins time, does that, brings on sub who plays better.

leave the bench at 4 and if you lose them it's just bad luck.

If anything they should cap the rotations so it's less an advantage and prob slow the game and less hard hitting collisions throughout the 4 quarters.

20 per quarter is plenty I think.

The AFL will not reduce the interchange numbers to slow the game down. All the rule changes recently have focussed on preventing coaches from controlling or frustrating the tempo.

As for "substitutes" I would like to see a clearer description of how it will work. I agree with concerns about manipulations. If you have 4I/Cs and 1 or more substitutes, are the AFL going to expand Club list sizes to accommodate this?

In the old days if a player was taken off on a stretcher you could be sure he was quite bad and almost certainly did not appear the following week. These days it happens in nearly every game and often the stretchered player returns with no apparent sign of injury later in the game. It appears to me that coaches are exploiting this situation to give their players a break and time to regroup from the constant pressure. Smells like the fake injuries and time wasting seen is soccer. It could be made mandatory that a player taken off on a stretcher must be substituted.

This happens more often nowadays for precautionary reasons. If a player gets hit in the head they use the stretcher to get them off the ground to restrict movement to the neck/back and then evaluate them properly once off the ground...they get the all clear from neck/back damage then they are more than likely OK to come back on

I will be exploited.

Gee, didn't know that implementing subsitutes could have such a wide ranging effect...