3 man interchange and 1 substitute

[e25 5]

The new interchange/substitute rule is a venture into the unknown.

One thing we know about rule changes, is that they can alter the way the game is played in ways we often can't foresee.

Something I think I've noticed in the last 2 weeks has been a lot of teams not managing their players' load effectively, leaving some players dead on their feet at the ends of games.

It worked in our favour against Sydney, with Petterd having a significant impact whilst Seaby was next to useless.

Against the Hawks I think it worked against us, as Maric with his fresh legs wasn't able to be as dangerous as Petterd had been.

He also wasn't as much of a boost for us as Lewis was for Hawthorn, but even then, the game was out of reach before either joined the fray.

My concern, which I'm yet to come to a conclusion on, is that our gameplan is dependent on a running game that is no longer viable.

I'm aware that it is very early in the season to be making such claims; this is why I'm undecided on the matter.

It is also fair to say we may just need an adjustment period before we will sort out the best way to approach the new rule.

Basically I'm looking to hear other people's opinions of how the new rule has affected us so far, because I have a feeling it is hurting our performance, even if I think I need to see more evidence before I can make a real judgment.

(It's late, it's been a long weekend, I'm tired, but I think that is fairly clear. Happy to explain further if need be.)

[Eth 4]

It cost us last game, because a fit and firing Petterd playing 100% of the game the way be played last week would have been invaluable.

Watch it change next season - it's the worst rule change I can remember. Do you ever see any soccer rule changes? Cricket? Don't think so. AFL changes it yearly, and it's got to stop.

Advantage rule is [censored] as well.

[old dee 23,525]

The new interchange/substitute rule is a venture into the unknown.

One thing we know about rule changes, is that they can alter the way the game is played in ways we often can't foresee.

Something I think I've noticed in the last 2 weeks has been a lot of teams not managing their players' load effectively, leaving some players dead on their feet at the ends of games.

It worked in our favour against Sydney, with Petterd having a significant impact whilst Seaby was next to useless.

Against the Hawks I think it worked against us, as Maric with his fresh legs wasn't able to be as dangerous as Petterd had been.

He also wasn't as much of a boost for us as Lewis was for Hawthorn, but even then, the game was out of reach before either joined the fray.

My concern, which I'm yet to come to a conclusion on, is that our gameplan is dependent on a running game that is no longer viable.

I'm aware that it is very early in the season to be making such claims; this is why I'm undecided on the matter.

It is also fair to say we may just need an adjustment period before we will sort out the best way to approach the new rule.

Basically I'm looking to hear other people's opinions of how the new rule has affected us so far, because I have a feeling it is hurting our performance, even if I think I need to see more evidence before I can make a real judgment.

(It's late, it's been a long weekend, I'm tired, but I think that is fairly clear. Happy to explain further if need be.)

Me too!

Onward and upward hope springs eternal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[e25 5]

I just think we've looked absolutely exhausted and I don't subscribe to the theory that the players aren't motivated or were necessarily lacking leadership.

Our leaders weren't great,'or as good as they normally can be, but why?

The whole game I thought Jamar looked slow and tired.

Davey was flat last week, but was better today until be tired.

Late in the game all the players just looked exhausted and even early in the game we looked flat

I'm searching for answers.

[Jaded No More 68,600]

I just think we've looked absolutely exhausted and I don't subscribe to the theory that the players aren't motivated or were necessarily lacking leadership.

Our leaders weren't great,'or as good as they normally can be, but why?

The whole game I thought Jamar looked slow and tired.

Davey was flat last week, but was better today until be tired.

Late in the game all the players just looked exhausted and even early in the game we looked flat

I'm searching for answers.

Also helped that they had an extremely high quality sub and we didn't (says a lot about the quality of their midfield that they can afford to have Lewis sit out half a game. We couldn't do the same with Moloney/Sylvia/Davey).

They got so much extra run out of Lewis. It was a huge tactical error to use Maric as a sub. It probably made sense to give him another chance, but he is one of the worst types of players you can use as a sub. He is raw and he is totally one dimensional and unproven.

The reason Ricky worked so well last week is because Sydney's sub was a tall, so he gave them little run when he came on, as opposed to Ricky who pushed hard against tiring defenders.

We may as well have used Spencer as a sub for all the run and carry that Maric provided us, and that is not at all a knock on Maric. He just isn't the type of player who gives you want you need late in the game.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Jaded

[e25 5]

I think the Hawks actually have a weapon in Hale sitting up forward, with Renouf in the ruck and a mid as the sub.

Opposition teams will be forced to select a tall defense to go with Hale, but late in the game (provided no injuries) Renouf can be subbed out, with Hale going relatively fresh into the ruck and the hawks get a fresh runner.

[Swampfox 190]

I grew up when there was 2 reserves

Once replaced a player was never to return

It was the Rules and I Liked it then and prefer it now

Having 4 of them is fine so long as they remain off the ground

Adrian "Ameteur" Anderson has no idea about football and his advisers even less

Norm Smith would be turning in his grave

Edited April 3, 2011 by Swampfox

[Rogue 585]

Watch it change next season - it's the worst rule change I can remember. Do you ever see any soccer rule changes? Cricket? Don't think so. AFL changes it yearly, and it's got to stop.

Cricket rules change all the time, don't they?

Maybe you're talking about Test cricket, but there's still UDRS(?), the rule change regarding non-strikers backing up, etc.

[deanox 9,770]

8 ball overs, back foot no balls, 'mankad', 2 men behind square, difference between a boundary rope and a fence, 15 degrees of elbow bending. Rules in cricket have changed over the years, but only slightly, and always there has been a long time between changes.

I like the sub rule. I like it, because to me football has always been an aerobic endurance game, from the start it was always who could run the day out the best. Now it is an anaerobic game and is more about who can sprint the most. I disagree with any player being called one of the best on ground if he only plays 65% of the game, even if he gets 30 touches. That's what rotations are doing to the game. The sub rule has limited that somewhat: players are now forced to run all day thus the cramping at the end of the quarters etc.

Don't feel sorry for the players; their fitness will alter over the ext 2 years and they will be running the games out comfortably again due to increased endurance, BUT they will have reduced anaerobic capacity, slowing them down. 'Slowing them down' does not mean reduced ball movement speed - football in the 80's could be extremely fast as they kicked long to contests etc - 'slowing them down' means less top pace sprints and collisions.

This will result in decreased skill levels as players are more fatigued, which will result in more contested ball which is what we all want to see, and I think have seen this year (although I haven't watched a Collingwood match yet).

[titan_uranus 24,857]

There is one clear benefit to us, and that is Stefan Martin. This sub rule has forced us to play Martin as a second ruck/rover, and it's working. Martin is getting more game time, and he is delivering. In previous years, players like PJ or Newton were getting games because we did not respect the second ruck position and were not giving them game time anyway.

The sub rule worked well for us when we had a good sub, but didn't help us much with a bad sub. So the only thing I've really learned so far is the effectiveness of the sub is so crucially determined by the status of the player that if that player doesn't make any sort of impact in his time on the ground, you are at a disadvantage. That's not to say we should be making our sub one of our better players, it just means that we need to have subs who can come on and affect the game. Unlike Maric.