I hate this new rule so much. The red vest, the green vest, the principle; it's ridiculous. Should have been a pre-season trial at best, thrown to the scrap-heap like that inanely stupid "last touch out of bounds free kick" they tried this year (which was also an epic fail).

As for the topic at hand, I agree Petterd shouldn't be a sub but I'm not sure what his match fitness was going into this game and I do know he's had a limited pre-season. I would be surprised if he's a sub next week.

Petterd sub response

He doesnt really sound as unhappy as the article tries to say, but...

I am also not a fan of this new rule. I get the feeling that if a player from any side is often made the sub, they will become frustrated, and maybe start to have doubts about their role in the side. Cannot be good to spend a large chunk of the game watching your fellow team mates run around.

I do not understand the idea behind the rule at all. It is stupid.

I do think that Petterd was maybe a little underdone, and in future he will not be used in this role. At least I hope not.

I stood in the Frank Grey Smith and watched his workout after the match.

Even though he had Joel Hocking and another helping out, it looked a lonely and frustrating chore to complete.

The sprints were hard and he was spent by the end.

In fact, they stopped a bit earlier than I thought they would, and that leads me to believe Petterd wasn't actually fit enough to run out the game if he wasn't named the sub.

Hard to say, the way players are managed with on-field bursts and short rests, these days.

I think Sam Blease will be a great sub.

I would play Gysberts as the sub next week. I think Petterd was the sub due to concerns over whether he had the run to last a full game not whether he is best 21. Bail will not be the sub he will tag Mitchell just like he had the run with with Kennedy this week.

I would play Gysberts as the sub next week. I think Petterd was the sub due to concerns over whether he had the run to last a full game not whether he is best 21. Bail will not be the sub he will tag Mitchell just like he had the run with with Kennedy this week.

Gysberts would make an excellent sub for the Hawthorn game....Hard at it, and hopefully fresh legs after half time.

Gysberts would make an excellent sub for the Hawthorn game....Hard at it, and hopefully fresh legs after half time.

I think you have it in one!

IMO the only reason it was Petterd last week was his lack of game time

in the pre season.

I think you have it in one!

IMO the only reason it was Petterd last week was his lack of game time

in the pre season.

he was also a great sub because Ricky always imposes himself on a game. That is a key factor in making the sub work.

The rule is here, we need to use it (exploit it if you like to our advantage) and while we do not have injuries during a game you can, with the right player.

Watched alot of footy over the weekend and reckon the AFL could do well to extend the sub rule to 2 of the 4 interchange. To play an effective flood you need an incredibly fit 22 players. If the weekends games are an indication then you cannot maintain it over 4 quarters with 21 and a sub. Reduce it to 20 and 2 subs and suddenly good old fashioned contested ball is back. Hell just play 20 with 2 subs available for match ending injuries only. Great rule change, one of the best in years. And on another thing get rid of the runners. Allow coaching of interchange players and during the breaks, let the players work it out the rest of the time. Overcoached at times.

Edited March 28, 201114 yr by Roost It

Gysberts would make an excellent sub for the Hawthorn game....Hard at it, and hopefully fresh legs after half time.

Spot on.

I'm not sure about Roost It's comment favouring 20 + 2 subs instead of the 21 + 1 (but it's by no means an outlandish suggestion) but I agree 100% that it's time to ban runners from the field. With the interchange rule allowing players to come on and off they can receive messages directly that way or the interchanging player running on can carry a message to players on the field. Too often the runners get in the way. At one stage on Sunday the Melbourne runner nearly gave away a free kick (or was it a 50m penalty?) because he was too close to the action.

Note: I realise this is a footy forum so I should say "I agree 110%" but I just can't...

Disagree. Petterd is simply too good to not be playing full games.

Here here - good lead and mark man. Should be there for 100 minutes if fit.

The sub might have to play a full game (so they cant be just a burst player) and needs to be able to cover different roles as required.

There will be no such thing as a 'permanent sub.'

Do you pay them to play a third of what the rest of the team play? Do you them a third of what they would normally get?

How do you keep them match fit?

What happens when you have an injury in the first minute and your sub has to play 4 quarters?

It should be rotated each week amongst the non-core players - and no ruckman shall ever be a sub.

It's a rule...

It should be rotated each week amongst the non-core players - and no ruckman shall ever be a sub.

I'd consider adding a "no player without match fitness shall ever be a sub" clause as well, because the sub should be able to play a full four quarters just as readily as just playing one. Other than that, absolutely spot on.

I wouldn't change much about the team from round 1, but I Nathan Jones could be a good sub option this week. A bit of toughness off the pine could be just what the team needs in a close last quarter against the Hawks' big bodies. Failing that, Jetta or Bail but I think Bail should get a run-with role on one of their mids.

I think Maric should start on the ground as we need a small forward at the feet of the bigger guys and Bennell is the only other in last week's 22 that offers this but I feel he's better used elsewhere. Petterd should start on the field, no question.

Ludicrous. When Petterd was killing it in the final term, I was shaking my head as to why Bailey:

a) didn't have Petterd in the starting line-up; or at the very least

b ) didn't bring Petterd on start of the 3rd quarter.

It's little wonder Petterd was filthy. He's our best marking forward and there's a reason he declined the Gold Coast - he wants to be a genuine part of the Dees future!

The likes of Maric or Martin or Newton may be better suited as a sub...

Edited March 29, 201114 yr by DeezMan

I wouldn't change much about the team from round 1, but I Nathan Jones could be a good sub option this week. A bit of toughness off the pine could be just what the team needs in a close last quarter against the Hawks' big bodies. Failing that, Jetta or Bail but I think Bail should get a run-with role on one of their mids.

I think Maric should start on the ground as we need a small forward at the feet of the bigger guys and Bennell is the only other in last week's 22 that offers this but I feel he's better used elsewhere. Petterd should start on the field, no question.

Agree that Jones could make a good sub, however if there is an injury to a KPP then it will require some serious position juggling to get him into a position he can play. I think Gysberts or Jones should be sub for next week.

I reckon straight swap Maric for Petterd. We were crying out for a marking forward. In fact had it been that was we'd have won. Though obviously Maric had earned the spot with a good preseason.

Karmichael Hunt could be the catalyst for the addition of a second substitute, or some variation.

If he gets a bit of space to build momentum going into a tackle, he'll concuss more than a few players.

Once that happens the AFL will need to reassess because he will be able to have players removed from the game, which is a special skill and advantage in today's game.

I'd consider adding a "no player without match fitness shall ever be a sub" clause as well, because the sub should be able to play a full four quarters just as readily as just playing one. Other than that, absolutely spot on.

I'm sure Ricky's lack of match fitness was a large part of the reason why he was sub, though. Not to say he wouldn't have got through 4 quarters if he'd had to, just that it's been so long since he played. And if he'd been on the bench, maybe with rotations he might have only had 40% game time anyway, and restricted the total number of rotations.

Actually, sub might be good for a first game back after a long layoff, especially for running players, because many players struggle to make it through a whole game after a layoff. This applies to Gysberts for this week; perhaps Morton the same in a few weeks time. Running players who would normally be best 22, first game back after a layoff, may be more effective as a sub (& coming on fresh when everyone else is tired) than in the starting 21 over the course of a game. For a player in this situation, sub could be better than bench.