Here's an article I wrote last night about all the key issues, in my opinion, on the substitute rule. So, what are your opinions on it? Scrap it? Keep it? Change it?

Not looking good for substitute rule

The substitute rule - a new invention by the AFL in season 2011 to attempt to keep the game new and fresh, something they implemented to attempt to prevent injury.

The fact is that it’s a failed attempt. With the concussion rule also being introduced - on the Tuesday before Round 1, mind you - we’ve seen players such as Jarrad Waite and Jack Riewoldt substituted off the field who have appeared fit to play not long after.

Instead of giving a team an advantage when an opposition player goes down with an injury, it doesn’t change anything. Rather than being a man down on the bench, when compared to last year, both teams are a man down.

Having three players on the bench also limits the rotations. However, we saw the team with the most rotations last year (Collingwood) go on to win the flag with almost no injury concerns. The team that rotated the least last year (Brisbane) had a horror season, ruined by injury. Collingwood’s most rotated player happened to be Dane Swan. See the trend?

With less rotations comes more injuries. We haven’t seen these fatigue-related injuries yet, but I expect that towards the end of the season players will be struggling with soft-tissue problems and casualties will be above average.

What also hasn’t been considered by the AFL is the fact that no injuries to either team is a common occurrence. The substitute then comes on as fresh legs for one player. It proved to be interesting in the first 2011 home and away draw, Melbourne vs. Sydney. Mark Seaby, the Swans’ designated substitute, came on and did little and was dropped the following week. Ricky Petterd came on for the Demons and gave them two score assists in the first two minutes, boosting their eventual fightback to record the draw.

That shows the substitute’s potential to be game-changing, but not for the reasons the AFL intended.

...

Rest of the article is here

With 4 interchanges, one player going down in the first minute consigns the team to a certain loss as they can't interchange as much as the other team. The SUB rule is largely designed to even that up.

If you get two injuries bad luck.

As for slowing the game down, its already being proven. Teams are running out of legs. If so they can't flood as much and it will open the game up. The impact injuries will be reduced but soft tissues may rise.

Thats the theory.

With 4 interchanges, one player going down in the first minute consigns the team to a certain loss as they can't interchange as much as the other team. The SUB rule is largely designed to even that up.

If you get two injuries bad luck.

As for slowing the game down, its already being proven. Teams are running out of legs. If so they can't flood as much and it will open the game up. The impact injuries will be reduced but soft tissues may rise.

Thats the theory.

Fair point.

Impact injuries are often very bad luck anyway - the AFL seem to think that they can prevent that, but nothing really can.

The Game will begin to slow down between the 10-15 minute mark of the 3rd Quarter.

Watch the games each week, like it or not it is having the desired result.

Jack Revolting was not fit to go back on, he has trouble remembering the game at all.

Why do we want to slow the game down? How many of these supposed injuries that we're allegedly trying to cut out happened in the last quarter? I dare say that high impact injuries are far more common in the first half where players were, are and will always be fresh.

Now you've got people getting paid $150,000+ a year riding exercise bikes for three quarters just because the league wants to engineer 'better football'. What they've failed to notice is that the premiership team, and the team that everyone will try to copy, were a high scoring side who actually played interesting football. It could have been the dire, horrible to watch St Kilda but it wasn't so what's the use in trying to legislate their style out of existence?

It's an utter farce and what we're going to end up with is the exact same amount of close games as we've always had and then the rest will be full of disgracefully played out, half paced last quarter junk time where coaches and players are into self preservation mode even more than they were before.

Sadly I don't think it is looking bad for the rule because the league have no interest in what players/coaches or fans think and will do whatever they have to do to save face and 'make it work'.

I wouldn't have liked to see rotations limited or any changes made but if we had to have something to keep Demetriou happy (and $2m p/a wouldn't do the job?) then interchange cap would have done the job for me. I think it's insulting to the fans to see a guy like Andrew Krakouer play a great debut, be named again the next week and then wind up being banished to the bench 90m before a game and sitting there for a half.

And don't get me started on them having to wear those ridiculous vests as if nobody would notice if somebody came on at the wrong time...

Why do we want to slow the game down? How many of these supposed injuries that we're allegedly trying to cut out happened in the last quarter? I dare say that high impact injuries are far more common in the first half where players were, are and will always be fresh.

Now you've got people getting paid $150,000+ a year riding exercise bikes for three quarters just because the league wants to engineer 'better football'. What they've failed to notice is that the premiership team, and the team that everyone will try to copy, were a high scoring side who actually played interesting football. It could have been the dire, horrible to watch St Kilda but it wasn't so what's the use in trying to legislate their style out of existence?

It's an utter farce and what we're going to end up with is the exact same amount of close games as we've always had and then the rest will be full of disgracefully played out, half paced last quarter junk time where coaches and players are into self preservation mode even more than they were before.

Sadly I don't think it is looking bad for the rule because the league have no interest in what players/coaches or fans think and will do whatever they have to do to save face and 'make it work'.

I wouldn't have liked to see rotations limited or any changes made but if we had to have something to keep Demetriou happy (and $2m p/a wouldn't do the job?) then interchange cap would have done the job for me. I think it's insulting to the fans to see a guy like Andrew Krakouer play a great debut, be named again the next week and then wind up being banished to the bench 90m before a game and sitting there for a half.

And don't get me started on them having to wear those ridiculous vests as if nobody would notice if somebody came on at the wrong time...

To quote a less-that loquacious league footballer who once came to our school clinic: "What he said."

The idea is that a fast game = more injuries, a slow game = a tighter contest, fewer injuries.

Fewer injuries = less intimidating

less intimidating = more accessible

more accessible = more marketable

more marketable = expanded reach.

Sub rule is OK, but would like to see an 'injury resub' rule. If a doctor rules out a player after the sub, then a 'medical sub' could allow the subbed out player back into the game. Would have to be on an independant doctor's advice.

If someone gets wiped out or injured early, then there should be no second injury sub. (just bad luck!)

I wonder which team will hit and concuss an opposition player or two in a match to give them a massive (and unfair) advantage. Without a send-off rule, this could be a real strategy in make or break games (and wear the tribunal outcome for the win!). I think the concussion and sub rules together make this a more tempting possibility than any time before.

I wonder which team will hit and concuss an opposition player or two in a match to give them a massive (and unfair) advantage. Without a send-off rule, this could be a real strategy in make or break games (and wear the tribunal outcome for the win!). I think the concussion and sub rules together make this a more tempting possibility than any time before.

This is the part that worries me, close and during September. It will happen & the papers will eat it up.

I wonder which team will hit and concuss an opposition player or two in a match to give them a massive (and unfair) advantage. Without a send-off rule, this could be a real strategy in make or break games (and wear the tribunal outcome for the win!). I think the concussion and sub rules together make this a more tempting possibility than any time before.

Although you'd probably be suspended for eight weeks

Sub rule is OK, but would like to see an 'injury resub' rule. If a doctor rules out a player after the sub, then a 'medical sub' could allow the subbed out player back into the game. Would have to be on an independant doctor's advice.

If someone gets wiped out or injured early, then there should be no second injury sub. (just bad luck!)

I wonder which team will hit and concuss an opposition player or two in a match to give them a massive (and unfair) advantage. Without a send-off rule, this could be a real strategy in make or break games (and wear the tribunal outcome for the win!). I think the concussion and sub rules together make this a more tempting possibility than any time before.

This is what I had in mind, and have been discussing with friends. I suggested this a couple of years back when first talking about this Sub rule. It was out of response to malthouse wanting to increase the interchange to 6 players, because of injuries was his excuse.

I started thinking about it becauase I didn't like too many rotations, as it was. And the changes were to foreign to the charachter and fibre of the game.

One of the first thoughts was to reduce the size of the 4 man interchange bench and to bring in 1, or 2 subs. But I was concerned that the 2 subs rule, could be exploited by the coaches. I thought there needed to be some sort of control, where the Sub was for medical reasons and Not for rotations.

The Idea would be to have 1 Sub,,, and 1 Emergency... IE/ If a player needed imediate transporting to hospital via ambulance, then the Emergency could be added. At any stage of the game,,,, 1st 10 Minutes, or last Qtr. (This IMO would need to be at the discretion of the honorary, independent, AFL Trauma Doctor)...

The Sub' player, would be a general substitution...

You would have to make sure that the affiliate teams are always playing on alternate days so that you're not wasting a sub and an emergency for the week.

Here's an opposing view from Andrew McKay, who now works for the AFL:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111081/default.aspx

Here's an opposing view from Andrew McKay, who now works for the AFL: http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/111081/default.aspx

Would that be the same Andrew McKay who is the AFL's game analysis manager? Why yes, it would: Andrew McKay is the AFL's game analysis manager.

Why do we want to slow the game down?

I actually prefer to see players get tired and the fitter guys stand out. The Premiership quarter is coming back!

It also means that tall players like Spencer who are being pushed out because they aren't 'athletes' have a place in our game as do small players. It's one of the great things about our game.

But most of all - I hate how our game is being turned into basketball/soccer/hockey (take your pick). The play is all up one end with all of the players then rushed to the other with all of the players and held in till a score happens.

If they are tired they can't do that. Remember most of these rule changes in the past 10 years have been designed to speed the game up for TV. Stuff em I say. It's unattractive IMO. Much rather see a G Jakovich take on a W Carey than see a game of keepings off.

Would that be the same Andrew McKay who is the AFL's game analysis manager? Why yes, it would: Andrew McKay is the AFL's game analysis manager.

If I'd posted the article without pointing out that McKay works for the AFL I would understanding your post, but since I deliberately provided that 'disclosure' I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

Care to extrapolate?

If I'd posted the article without pointing out that McKay works for the AFL I would understanding your post, but since I deliberately provided that 'disclosure' I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

Care to extrapolate?

He reckons that Andy McKay is so conflicted that his "opinion" is likely to be heavily influenced by what the AFL thinks, and thus that reading his article would be a waste of time.

keep it

I think it's good

If someone gets an injury early, you've still got 3 vs 3. and if they happen to get another injury it's then only 3 vs 2. Whereas that would've been 4 vs 2 last season.

It's not ideal from a player point of view but for the game i think it's a great rule and we've already seen some great footy games so far this season.

Our game is brutally punishing and faster than all other codes. And more game time than any other code too. I've though of a few options but I like this one now. I'd go for limiting rotations, Perhaps to 30 a quarter. And have three interchange and three subs a game. That will cover injuries, tactical changes and allow for interchange players to be subbed too. Will ensure players don't get run into the ground and perhaps reduce soft injuries also.

He reckons that Andy McKay is so conflicted that his "opinion" is likely to be heavily influenced by what the AFL thinks, and thus that reading his article would be a waste of time.

If you're going to criticise an opposing view it's pretty helpful to at least understand that view.

(For example, in outling the AFL argument for the sub rule the OP has made some assertions about why the AFL brought in the rule that don't fit with the reasons McKay has posted).

Finey on SEN the other night had a take on it as well. Why change the rules so often (something like 50 rule changes in 30 odd years) to "tire the players out" and not have as many stoppages/flooding when we have 2 examples of ways to tire players out. Subiaco and we did have Waverly Park, 2 large grounds were stoppages are a whole lot less prevelant.

Finey on SEN the other night had a take on it as well. Why change the rules so often (something like 50 rule changes in 30 odd years) to "tire the players out" and not have as many stoppages/flooding when we have 2 examples of ways to tire players out. Subiaco and we did have Waverly Park, 2 large grounds were stoppages are a whole lot less prevelant.

Changing the rules is not a problem IMO but firstly the AFL should consider them more carefully and longer before implementation. At the other extreme look at soccer where rule changes are akin to changing the national constitution. They are too anal retentive and we are too promiscuous.

Finey on SEN the other night had a take on it as well. Why change the rules so often (something like 50 rule changes in 30 odd years) to "tire the players out" and not have as many stoppages/flooding when we have 2 examples of ways to tire players out. Subiaco and we did have Waverly Park, 2 large grounds were stoppages are a whole lot less prevelant.

Okay, but how are we going to make the MCG, SCG, Etihad (and so forth) bigger?

It's a lot harder than a stroke of the pen in the rule book, that's for sure.

If the AFL wants the game to be slower why don't they scrap some of the rules introduced to make the game faster in the last couple of years?

Immediate kick ins. No dragging the ball in. Players decide advantage. The advantage rule. Suggested rules against kicking backwards, the rushed behind rule... the list goes on.

The idea behind almost all of these rules is to keep play continuous and fast moving, avoiding congestion, stop plays, ball ups.. Yet the AFL says the sub rule needs to slow the game down to prevent injuries. I understand the logic however I think the AFL is reaping the effect of what they sow having made the game faster.

Maybe if the AFL ever admitted they were wrong and reviewed most of the changes over the last decade the sub rule wouldn't be nescessary...

If the AFL wants the game to be slower why don't they scrap some of the rules introduced to make the game faster in the last couple of years?

Immediate kick ins. No dragging the ball in. Players decide advantage. The advantage rule. Suggested rules against kicking backwards, the rushed behind rule... the list goes on.

The idea behind almost all of these rules is to keep play continuous and fast moving, avoiding congestion, stop plays, ball ups.. Yet the AFL says the sub rule needs to slow the game down to prevent injuries. I understand the logic however I think the AFL is reaping the effect of what they sow having made the game faster.

Maybe if the AFL ever admitted they were wrong and reviewed most of the changes over the last decade the sub rule wouldn't be nescessary...

Good points here.