New Interchange Rules

[daisycutter 29,604]

Once they were off they couldn't come back on?

Either way it's just not football IMO.

Come on Clint . . . . . you're not that young are you

For most of the history of football there was a 19th and 20th man. Barring major injuries, they were typically lucky to get a few minutes in the last quarter. It wasn't that uncommon that they didn't even get on the ground.

[John Crow Batty 8,861]

I do like the idea of 3 interchange but I would also take it further like to see up to 3 substitutes. With one less rotation, bench players will be pushed harder even if carrying injuries. Too many players are agravating minor injuries hampering short term performance and also risking more serious long term complications by the on/off nature of the game. IMO more substitutions will reduce the need for unecessary rotations. Like playing a sub ruckman later in the game.

Edited October 4, 2010 by america de cali

[Guest fitness]

I think it will be a fairly good rule change for the betterment of the game, however I am somewhat frustrated by the process the AFL has undertaken to make the change. Allow me to explain.

Not only was there not enough trial of the rule in the NAB Cup, but when the AFL conducted its fan survey mid way through 2010, one of the questions pertained to interchange changes, where three options were presented (e.g. capping rotations, 3 int + 1 sub, or 2 int + 2 subs).

Clearly the 3 interchange + 1 sub was the best of those three options, but the problem I have with it is that the person filling out the survey was forced to select one of those three options, when in actual fact the option I would have selected would have been "Best to make no changes" or "I don't like any of these options - here's my suggestion". You literally had to pick one option otherwise you couldn't continue, and there was no room for comments or feedback.

As the survey was being conducted, the AFL announced on its website that a large percentage of people were in favour of changing the rule to 3 int + 1 sub. This was simply a misrepresentation... conspiracy theorists might say a manipulation in order to soften the blow for when they changed a rule they were always intending to change. Yes I voted for this option, but only because I had no better option to select from.

The AFL should be commended on the way they run the game, it's in magnificent shape and I am not against rule changes that improve the game. But as a fan I simply felt let down by the process by which this rule change came about.

From: Fans' call: three plus sub is way to go

"ALMOST 12,000 people have so far responded to the AFL rules survey, with many supporting the introduction of a substitute as a way to reduce the number of rotations in games.

At present, 51.7 percent of respondents believe the league should reduce the number of interchange players to three and complement them with one substitute."

[1858 285]

interestingly if could increase rotation as you now only have 3 on the bench for the game.

I agree in that this is a possibility which I don't see how AFL research can fully counter. Theory is great but it will come down to the clubs in question and how they respond. Teams will probably have default players who are designated to be subbed if no injuries occur by a certain stage so they may be pushed harder than the other players who will be rotated.

I also question the concept of the end of the 2nd ruck. I think the reaction to this rule wrt a KPF who can pinch hit is over the top. Yes, ruckmen will need to be competent in other positions or roles and have pretty good endurance but clubs will still need and (in most cases) play 2 standard ruckmen. Whether they are still considered a first and second ruck or perhaps just 2 rucks who share close to an even load will come down to semantics.

[beelzebub 23,313]

In light of some others views I also had a preference of 2 subs that being to provide for differing types of player being subbed off. Gives greater chance of like for like. Would have been happy with 2 on bench plus 2 subs. You still are able to cover for injured players or sub underperforming on the day whilst still having some rotation ability. Probably just me but that scenario would make for very interesting game days.

[old dee 23,781]

I hate the idea that once a player is off they can't come back on. That's Soccer, not Australian Rules football.

I would love to see this data on collision injuries.

Clint I am not sure how old you are but you are incorrect.

Thats is exactly how it used to be in ARF, it has only been in recent times that players could come off and on.

The world as you know it will not end!

Sorry guys I jumped in too early looks like numerous people have pointed out the error of Clints ways!

Edited October 5, 2010 by old dee