The Sub Rule

[Carlos Danger 380]

The sub rule stuff appears to have fallen under the radar after being a big deal when it was introduced. Keen to see what the general consensus is a year later.

[daisycutter 29,616]

you should add

2 interchange + 2 substitute

2 interchange + 1 substitute

as it is you have no options for reducing interchange/increasing substitutes

[dee-luded 2,959]

I deleted my vote because the Option that suits my thinking wasn't included.

The Sub rule is a step in the right direction but I think it's not Far enough.

For me, 2 interchange with a further 2 emergencies, is the way to go.

[dee-luded 2,959]

you should add

2 interchange + 2 substitute

2 interchange + 1 substitute

as it is you have no options for reducing interchange/increasing substitutes

There you go. Thanks DC...

[Supermercado 2,797]

Hate and despise it more than anything else in the game except $cully.

I want our list of available players to either be playing seniors or reserves - not 30 minutes of one game after which half the time they're dropped for failing to make adequate impact in the middle of the match. These are highly paid professionals and I couldn't give a continental what wonky, rigged stats the league bring out about injuries I want to see them play, not wander up and down the sidelines in a vest and ride exercise bikes.

If they want to stamp their legacy on the game and change things for the sake of it (and my god do they enjoy doing that) then I'd rather it be three on the bench with no sub. At least then you know the players who have been named will get a fair run at it.

Worst justification for mine is how it's great for teams who have early injuries. Tough luck if you have an injury! It's a game of variables with a rigged draw and a ball that is designed to go any which way at any given time. Especially with four on the bench if you're a good team you won't be put away by losing one guy, and a bit of luck here and there for rubbish teams makes the game more interesting.

No chance for a change while rotten politicians like Demetriou are in charge though.

[Sir Why You Little 37,036]

Hate and despise it more than anything else in the game except $cully.

I want our list of available players to either be playing seniors or reserves - not 30 minutes of one game after which half the time they're dropped for failing to make adequate impact in the middle of the match. These are highly paid professionals and I couldn't give a continental what wonky, rigged stats the league bring out about injuries I want to see them play, not wander up and down the sidelines in a vest and ride exercise bikes.

If they want to stamp their legacy on the game and change things for the sake of it (and my god do they enjoy doing that) then I'd rather it be three on the bench with no sub. At least then you know the players who have been named will get a fair run at it.

Worst justification for mine is how it's great for teams who have early injuries. Tough luck if you have an injury! It's a game of variables with a rigged draw and a ball that is designed to go any which way at any given time. Especially with four on the bench if you're a good team you won't be put away by losing one guy, and a bit of luck here and there for rubbish teams makes the game more interesting.

No chance for a change while rotten politicians like Demetriou are in charge though.

Bravo Super i am with you on this one. Bloody KB has changed more than enough rules. Leave it alone. But for now we are stuck with it.

[Wadda We Sing 10,685]

Yeah I tend to agree with super mac. I think its just a bit of a knee jerk reaction to an ever increasing in pace game. Would lean toward 5 interchange. As for Bartlett, Geez I heard him going on about the bloody tennis saying The Mens Final and in fact all mens games should be reduced to 3 sets, after just saying it was one of the greatest games ever played, and hosting talk back on it for the next 2 hours?? Get a grip KB. If that game had of finished after 3 sets, no one would be talking about it.

[monoccular 17,428]

The sub rule as it stands deprives one player most weeks of at least half, often three quarters of footy. If it happens for consecutive weeks it could really be detrimental to a player's development.

It was introduced so we were told because there were too many interchanges and the game too fast.

Easier solution: restrict interchanges to 20 per quarter; in case on injury any replacements beyond that number in a quarter would be regarded as a substitute, i.e. the replaced player cannot come back on.

It would make the coaches hold back on interchanges a little, but still allow disaster recovery.

Win / win.

[Sir Why You Little 37,036]

The sub rule as it stands deprives one player most weeks of at least half, often three quarters of footy. If it happens for consecutive weeks it could really be detrimental to a player's development.

It was introduced so we were told because there were too many interchanges and the game too fast.

Easier solution: restrict interchanges to 20 per quarter; in case on injury any replacements beyond that number in a quarter would be regarded as a substitute, i.e. the replaced player cannot come back on.

It would make the coaches hold back on interchanges a little, but still allow disaster recovery.

Win / win.

Logic + KB + AFL= change...why??....BECAUSE.

[Sir Why You Little 37,036]

Yeah I tend to agree with super mac. I think its just a bit of a knee jerk reaction to an ever increasing in pace game. Would lean toward 5 interchange. As for Bartlett, Geez I heard him going on about the bloody tennis saying The Mens Final and in fact all mens games should be reduced to 3 sets, after just saying it was one of the greatest games ever played, and hosting talk back on it for the next 2 hours?? Get a grip KB. If that game had of finished after 3 sets, no one would be talking about it.

Yes i heard him crapping on about the tennis too WWS. Just coz he nodded off. Who cares!! At least Dr .Smith gave him a hard time. It's not often i applaud Smith!! Edited January 31, 2012 by why you little

[ucanchoose 1,816]

One of the main reasons they bought it in was to make it fairer on teams that lose players early in matches to serious injuries

To me it's done it's job, except maybe 1 or 2 cases last year where teams lost multiple players and that's just bad luck. LOVE the SUB!!

[daisycutter 29,616]

I'd just like to see any decrease in the rate of interchange. i hate it

[old dee 23,791]

I'd just like to see any decrease in the rate of interchange. i hate it

You have my 100% support DC.

Perhaps I am just too old but I prefer that there was a limit on the number of subs allowed.

IMO the sub rule has been a major contributor to having 36 players in one half of the ground.

I hate that more than anything else about the modern game.

[dee-luded 2,959]

You have my 100% support DC.

Perhaps I am just too old but I prefer that there was a limit on the number of subs allowed.

IMO the sub rule has been a major contributor to having 36 players in one half of the ground.

I hate that more than anything else about the modern game.

I'd like to see us move back toward the 1990's style of footy where there were more long kicks to a genuine Full forward or a half forward like Gablett.

We' went some way last year with the likely advent of a resting ruck in the goal square, but not quite there yet.

People don't like to admit that past rule changes went too far when mixed in with advances in sports science and dietary advances. Caffeine & all sorts of concoctions are changing the players. Effectively making the playing surface 'smaller' comparatively, for which it was originally designed.

Again, 2 Interchange X 2 Emergencies.

[McQueen 17,864]

I thought one of the other reasons was to clear up the congestion at stoppages through having more 'tired' players on the field (only 3 interchanging). Not sure if this had the desired effect but I do like the idea of a fresh pair of legs coming on in the last quarter and giving the spark needed to turn a game like Petterd did against the Swans in Rd 1.

I consider it to have more pro's than cons.

[daisycutter 29,616]

You have my 100% support DC.

Perhaps I am just too old but I prefer that there was a limit on the number of subs allowed.

IMO the sub rule has been a major contributor to having 36 players in one half of the ground.

I hate that more than anything else about the modern game.

i think you mean interchange not substitution od?

[Flemo56 396]

18 @ the start of play with 19th & 20TH man on the bench in case someone gets injured, or knocked out….lol, arhhh those are distant memories.

I would just like to see it back to 4 interchange, maybe 5, and limit of changes per qrt, fitness is paramount in our game and if fatigue plays a part in the outcome of the game so be it, it's great watching players that have put in all day find that bit extra when it really matters. The fitter, hard running teams, usually win don't they? C'arn the Demons.

[daisycutter 29,616]

I thought one of the other reasons was to clear up the congestion at stoppages through having more 'tired' players on the field (only 3 interchanging). Not sure if this had the desired effect but I do like the idea of a fresh pair of legs coming on in the last quarter and giving the spark needed to turn a game like Petterd did against the Swans in Rd 1.

I consider it to have more pro's than cons.

i don't think it had much impact on congestion. In fact it may have increased it as more players are able to get to the ball because of interchanging for "fresher" players

the number of stoppage stats are unreliable because a lot of it depends on how long the umpire lets it go. They certainly let it it go a lot longer than the old days

as far as a spark in the last Q goes, this is still possible without interchanging excessiveness. anyone who watched the game pre interchange can attest to that.

i'd be happy if they just limited interchanges to say 15-20 a Q. they would become more interesting and strategic then instead of this constant ugly flood of player on and off the field

just my 2c worth

[old dee 23,791]

i think you mean interchange not substitution od?

Yes DC sorry mixed the words.

[gsmith12 491]

Hate and despise it more than anything else in the game except $cully.

I want our list of available players to either be playing seniors or reserves - not 30 minutes of one game after which half the time they're dropped for failing to make adequate impact in the middle of the match. These are highly paid professionals and I couldn't give a continental what wonky, rigged stats the league bring out about injuries I want to see them play, not wander up and down the sidelines in a vest and ride exercise bikes.

If they want to stamp their legacy on the game and change things for the sake of it (and my god do they enjoy doing that) then I'd rather it be three on the bench with no sub. At least then you know the players who have been named will get a fair run at it.

Worst justification for mine is how it's great for teams who have early injuries. Tough luck if you have an injury! It's a game of variables with a rigged draw and a ball that is designed to go any which way at any given time. Especially with four on the bench if you're a good team you won't be put away by losing one guy, and a bit of luck here and there for rubbish teams makes the game more interesting.

No chance for a change while rotten politicians like Demetriou are in charge though.

Agree with your sentiments, to have Jack Watts sitting on the bench for 90 minutes at the Gabba was plain ridiculous IMO. Whilst I concede that the pace of the game has increased dramatically, I don't see the need for so many changes. Luck with injuries must play a part in our game. In my day when we had 19th and 20th men and you were replaced, you were finished and it wasn't unusual to finish the game with less than 18 on the field. Maybe the answer does lie in restricting the use of the interchange rule.

Ever sat directly behind the interchange bench ? Drives you nuts trying to keep up.

[old dee 23,791]

Agree with your sentiments, to have Jack Watts sitting on the bench for 90 minutes at the Gabba was plain ridiculous IMO. Whilst I concede that the pace of the game has increased dramatically, I don't see the need for so many changes. Luck with injuries must play a part in our game. In my day when we had 19th and 20th men and you were replaced, you were finished and it wasn't unusual to finish the game with less than 18 on the field. Maybe the answer does lie in restricting the use of the interchange rule.

Ever sat directly behind the interchange bench ? Drives you nuts trying to keep up.

We come from a different world gsmith12.

Players union would not wear it.

There is no going back and I do not want to go back there to be honest

but limit the number of changes and we might get the best of both worlds

[McQueen 17,864]

i don't think it had much impact on congestion. In fact it may have increased it as more players are able to get to the ball because of interchanging for "fresher" players the number of stoppage stats are unreliable because a lot of it depends on how long the umpire lets it go. They certainly let it it go a lot longer than the old days as far as a spark in the last Q goes, this is still possible without interchanging excessiveness. anyone who watched the game pre interchange can attest to that. i'd be happy if they just limited interchanges to say 15-20 a Q. they would become more interesting and strategic then instead of this constant ugly flood of player on and off the field just my 2c worth

I'd fully support that idea. Would be an ideal NAB cup rule trial.

Imagine the coaches would despise it though.

[Carlos Danger 380]

Hate and despise it more than anything else in the game except $cully.

I want our list of available players to either be playing seniors or reserves - not 30 minutes of one game after which half the time they're dropped for failing to make adequate impact in the middle of the match. These are highly paid professionals and I couldn't give a continental what wonky, rigged stats the league bring out about injuries I want to see them play, not wander up and down the sidelines in a vest and ride exercise bikes.

If they want to stamp their legacy on the game and change things for the sake of it (and my god do they enjoy doing that) then I'd rather it be three on the bench with no sub. At least then you know the players who have been named will get a fair run at it.

Worst justification for mine is how it's great for teams who have early injuries. Tough luck if you have an injury! It's a game of variables with a rigged draw and a ball that is designed to go any which way at any given time. Especially with four on the bench if you're a good team you won't be put away by losing one guy, and a bit of luck here and there for rubbish teams makes the game more interesting.

No chance for a change while rotten politicians like Demetriou are in charge though.

Looks like things are only going to get worse...

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/afl-players-furious-at-plans-to-introduce-extra-substitute/story-e6frf9jf-1226457605019

[monoccular 17,428]

Multiple subs can only hinder player development

The 3 interchange, 1 sub plan was to make players more tired and now they are complaining about that result being achieved! (a bit like a CO2 tax intended to increase electricity prices....but gawd, reality hits, it might!!!)

Rather than reducing interchange players, why not reduce interchange numbers per quarter -- say 20, and if you don't strategically hold some in reserve until late in a quarter and an injury occurs, bad luck, activate the sub then.

This annual need for a rule change by its megalomaniac leader is "bringing the game into disrepute", and an investigation needs to be held nd the culprit castigated!

Edited August 25, 2012 by monoccular

[45HG 1,539]

Shocking idea.