Two on the interchange and two subs rule

[nutbean 8,838]

Paul Roos commented that this rule would see a fundamental shift in drafting players favouring those who could run. Neeld and Buckley have essentially backed up what Roos has said.

I am not sure you can dispute (as Bartlett and Mark Robinson have done) the premise of the argument.

The more you restrict the interchange, the longer players will stay out on the ground.

A fundamental necessity is to be able to run out 4 quarters of football.

Players who have the big tank and can run all day are therefore surely favoured by this as opposed to your burst player.

Therefore if you have your turn at the draft and you cant decide between a big motor and burst player at the same pick would you not lean to the big engine ?

[olisik 4,060]

Yeah, im not liking this idea at all.

4th quarters will turn more into a bunch of players running around with cement feet and no energy to take hangers, or kick long goals or chase down players.

Excitement of game will diminish as the quarters go on.

[Supermercado 2,797]

Vile. It's bad enough wasting one player on the bench for 3/4 of a match without doing it with two.

I don't care how much a game "opens up" (cliche) if it's because the players can barely move.

But the bad news is that the AFL knows coaches and the vast majority of fans will cop whatever we're offered because we've got nowhere else to go. Hopefully the players can stop it.

[rjay 24,894]

The bit I really like about this is that the AFL are pleased with the trial results in the NAB cup. Good trial, so far we have only played a few 2 x 20min half games unless I've missed something. Looks like it's on the way for 2013.

[Sir Why You Little 36,991]

How i wish Bartlett would just "go away" There are tell tale little signs that he is starting to lose it on the radio (he is over 60)

Why should the interchange bench be restricted KB? Just because you want it that way.

KB is like Ned Flanders...most tiresome.

[Fat Tony 5,221]

Anything that opens up the game and reduces flooding/pressing/zoning is a good thing.

But I would prefer to see a cap on the number of interchanges per game or fewer players on the field than subs as I feel sorry for the sub.

[olisik 4,060]

Soon it will just be like soccer with 3 subs and no bench

[hardtack 10,520]

Soon it will just be like soccer with 3 subs and no bench

Or like the VFL of old... two reserves and that's it.

[nutbean 8,838]

How i wish Bartlett would just "go away" There are tell tale little signs that he is starting to lose it on the radio (he is over 60)

Disagree vehemently.

He is not starting to lose it.

Long gone already - kooka la munya - away with the pixies - relevant nutjob (I say relevant because unfortunately the nutjob is on the rules committee)

[DemonDave 1,089]

Shh! The afl don't want you taking about this rule. They've already dismissed the views of senior players such as darren jolly et al who have derided it as rubbish. But you just know it will come in next year.

Ps. Also don't tell mr demetriou this, but I sent this message via my optus mobile.

[Roost It 1,434]

Good rule change. Reduces flooding, increases one on one contested play, brings back the pack mark. If a player can't run out 100mins of football once a week with 3 breaks and some interchange time then the games moved away from where it needs to be,

[Tatu 416]

Should be 3/3.... 3 subs and 3 interchange....

That way you would have 6 backs, 6 mids, 6 forwards and 6 on the bench, it makes sences....

[dee-luded 2,959]

Paul Roos commented that this rule would see a fundamental shift in drafting players favouring those who could run. Neeld and Buckley have essentially backed up what Roos has said.

I am not sure you can dispute (as Bartlett and Mark Robinson have done) the premise of the argument.

The more you restrict the interchange, the longer players will stay out on the ground.

A fundamental necessity is to be able to run out 4 quarters of football.

Players who have the big tank and can run all day are therefore surely favoured by this as opposed to your burst player.

Therefore if you have your turn at the draft and you cant decide between a big motor and burst player at the same pick would you not lean to the big engine ?

The Whole aussie rules was built on this premis of staying onfield for the duration of the match. Being replaced only when incapacitated.

And the 70's saw some players who could grind on all game and others who were quick players but may have tired toward the end. So to the 90's but a slightly lesser extent.

The flooding, And the zones, are a scurge of negativilty, a blight on the game.

Making players run all game or most of, will improve it. the 90's was a better, more exhilarating spectacle. Even if the occaisional intellectual gets bored & chucks his magnetic board & GPS down.

Real football & real footballers will return. Lockett, Deisel, Ablett, Dunstall, Brereton, Doull, Flower, Baldock, Dempsey, Simon Madden, Tuck, TWatson, Carey, Schwartz, Jakovich, Farmer, Viney, & then some burst players as well, Bartlett, Daicos, etc.

And you can look forward to a matchups like, Flower v Greig or Schimma. Neitz v Carey. SWight v GAblett. O'Dwyer v Madden. Keenan v Scott. Lockett v Silvani. Archer v Hird. +++++

[Swampfox 190]

Have never liked the change from the traditional 18 on the ground and 19th and 20th man to what it is today

I would accept 4 - 6 reserves but once your off you stay off

[Arsene Wenger 72]

I think the eventual effect this will have, is shortening playing lists in the AFL.

Less players = more money per player, without an increase in the total money given to players.

The AFL will be looking at ways to cut the player wage bill, after the CBA negotiations and clubs struggling financially.

I'm not a fan of it at all - our list has been built for the game the way it is now.

This could be like when our dominant ruckman had his leaping advantage stolen by a reactionary rule change, and we suffered as a result.

[nutbean 8,838]

Good rule change. Reduces flooding, increases one on one contested play, brings back the pack mark. If a player can't run out 100mins of football once a week with 3 breaks and some interchange time then the games moved away from where it needs to be,

There are lots of good arguments for adopting the different interchange and sub configuration but I was more interested if everyone agreed with the end result of going down the 2+2 path.

My original idea of posting this topic was to get a feel for the belief of Roos, Neeld and Buckley that if we go down the 2+2 path recruiting philosophy will change as to the type of player who will and wont get a look in.

There are lots of players these days who cannot run out 100 mins of a game.

So my question remains - do you agree with Roos, Neeld and Buckley that if we go down the 2+2 route that super athletes like O'Meara would get a look in before say a Cyril Rioli - who is burst player that gasps for air after one or two efforts ?

[olisik 4,060]

This rule would suit T$

Anything that suits him I am against

[dee-luded 2,959]

I think the eventual effect this will have, is shortening playing lists in the AFL.

Less players = more money per player, without an increase in the total money given to players.

The AFL will be looking at ways to cut the player wage bill, after the CBA negotiations and clubs struggling financially.

I'm not a fan of it at all - our list has been built for the game the way it is now.

This could be like when our dominant ruckman had his leaping advantage stolen by a reactionary rule change, and we suffered as a result.

Why don't you go through our list & pick the players who would benefit from staying On for longer periods. I'll mention one to kick it off, Trenners. Then Jones. etc...

[titan_uranus 24,980]

Anything that opens up the game and reduces flooding/pressing/zoning is a good thing.

Why? Flooding/pressing/zoning are all legitimate team strategies invented and developed by teams. Why must the AFL see a new tactic and stamp it out with a rule change? IT'S THE GAME! Let the game be played. We're already beginning to see teams work out how to overcome the press (longer kicking, deeper forwards), why do we need the AFL to attempt to do it themselves.

Good rule change. Reduces flooding, increases one on one contested play, brings back the pack mark. If a player can't run out 100mins of football once a week with 3 breaks and some interchange time then the games moved away from where it needs to be,

How ridiculous.

I'm not a fan of it at all - our list has been built for the game the way it is now.

This could be like when our dominant ruckman had his leaping advantage stolen by a reactionary rule change, and we suffered as a result.

Agree. I can't stand reactionary, knee-jerk rule changes which are unnecessary. This is one of them. The 3-1 rule has had an effect on the game, but let's see how the game reacts.

[Sir Why You Little 36,991]

I agree with T.U. on this. Coaches evolve tactics by being innovative. Rather than the AFL & little sh!ts like KB changing rules, why can we not let another Coach come up with a counter strategy?? I don't like any rules that promote injury fatigue. Unless it is Carlscum...

[dee-luded 2,959]

I agree with T.U. on this. Coaches evolve tactics by being innovative. Rather than the AFL & little sh!ts like KB changing rules, why can we not let another Coach come up with a counter strategy?? I don't like any rules that promote injury fatigue. Unless it is Carlscum...

Becuase the problem has arisen due to the increase of the bench numbers in the 1990's, and now Sports Science has affected it over the last 4 Years or so, its becoming like the Tour De France'...With enhancers spoiling it...

[Sir Why You Little 36,991]

Becuase the problem has arisen due to the increase of the bench numbers in the 1990's, and now Sports Science has affected it over the last 4 Years or so, its becoming like the Tour De France'...With enhancers spoiling it...

So what. Let other coaches better it. Don't change rules yearly.

[dee-luded 2,959]

So what. Let other coaches better it. Don't change rules yearly.

So when you drive down a country road you don't know & get lost deep in the Forest, running short of fuel, you stop there, & just hold your breath.

[Roost It 1,434]

How ridiculous

No it's not

Flooding is a blight on the game as is keepings off

The lack of true one on one contests and the disappearance of the FF are partly due to the high rotation of the bench

2 subs and 2 interchange is a good rule

Players and coaches will adapt quickly and the game will be much better because of it

Burst players will need to work on their tanks but will still be part of the game

Give me a CONTEST anyday

[Sir Why You Little 36,991]

So when you drive down a country road you don't know & get lost deep in the Forest, running short of fuel, you stop there, & just hold your breath.

What??

Has nothing to do with changing AFL rules each year..