NAB Cup Interchange Rules

[daisycutter 29,807]

I agree with what is said above...but when does human nature in anything regress.

It doesn't. The running game evolved with the era of the professional footballer.

Sports Science will work out another way to keep players running without rotations. I am not saying it is right but KB or anyone is delusional if they believe they can return the game to a one on one contest.

you are the only one talking about one on one football

it doesn't have to go back there

it is a question of setting the correct balance without ruining the very essence of football

it is not a black or white issue

it can still be a running game with zoning.

it is just that it has gone too far in one direction (IMHO)

[old dee 23,928]

Good point....probably run back to their position.

Now there is a radical thought jr

[old dee 23,928]

you are the only one talking about one on one football

it doesn't have to go back there

it is a question of setting the correct balance without ruining the very essence of football

it is not a black or white issue

it can still be a running game with zoning.

it is just that it has gone too far in one direction (IMHO)

Amen to that dc

[Macca 17,088]

Those who want more positional play are both young and old. I don't believe that type of thinking falls into any particular demographic.

I also believe that many who don't want rule changes are perhaps not thinking things through. Our game lends itself to change like no other sport. We don't have an offside rule and the sport is played on a vast arena (compared to every other type of variation of football) . The game changes primarily because of coaching (not necessarily the rule makers).

It seems the rule makers are constantly fiddling with the rules to counteract the exploitation of the rules by the coaches. It's often a case of pointing the finger at the rule makers but it's the coaches who should cop the brunt of the criticism. "Leave the rules alone" is what we constantly hear but the accusation is often thrown in the wrong direction.

The 4th interchange was brought in originally because we started to see a higher incidence of injury back in the mid 90's and if a club was caught short it was seen as an unfair advantage to the other team. One thing led to another and now we've got a sport where we were heading to 400 interchanges per game.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Macca

[Sir Why You Little 37,242]

you are the only one talking about one on one football

it doesn't have to go back there

it is a question of setting the correct balance without ruining the very essence of football

it is not a black or white issue

it can still be a running game with zoning.

it is just that it has gone too far in one direction (IMHO)

but zoning is a way to stop running. I do not think it will happen.

[daisycutter 29,807]

but zoning is a way to stop running. I do not think it will happen.

well if coaches keep pushing the envelope with more gut running and physical congestion the next big thing you will see is player rotation a'la cricket or baseball with most players being rested for a number of games each season

I don't think you or the public will like to see that

(apart from the fact that it will smack of tanking list management)

[Sir Why You Little 37,242]

well if coaches keep pushing the envelope with more gut running and physical congestion the next big thing you will see is player rotation a'la cricket or baseball with most players being rested for a number of games each season

I don't think you or the public will like to see that

(apart from the fact that it will smack of tanking list management)

but how do you stop a player from being in a certain part of the ground? That will change the game completely to something akin to American Football. It is not our game.

Once the 19th & 20th men were phased out the player staying in one position was done.

[daisycutter 29,807]

but how do you stop a player from being in a certain part of the ground? That will change the game completely to something akin to American Football. It is not our game.

Once the 19th & 20th men were phased out the player staying in one position was done.

why are so fixated on this one-on-one fixed position scenario

can't you think more subtly in shades of grey?

[Sir Why You Little 37,242]

why are so fixated on this one-on-one fixed position scenario

can't you think more subtly in shades of grey?

because you want players to stop running. Stand still.

I do not think that will happen.

[Macca 17,088]

well if coaches keep pushing the envelope with more gut running and physical congestion the next big thing you will see is player rotation a'la cricket or baseball with most players being rested for a number of games each season

I don't think you or the public will like to see that

(apart from the fact that it will smack of tanking list management)

Players being 'rested' is already happening. Clubs aren't making a big deal of it because they don't want to show their hand.(as is the AFL way) Can't ever see Jimmy's record for consecutive games being broken.

The Pies only had one player who played every game last season - Cloke. The Hawks had only 3 players who played every game.

We had 4. Howe, Trengove, Garland and Rivers. The clubs are already incorporating a 'player's' bye of sorts.(often happens against the new 'Franchises') It's covered up with some 'Phantom' injury.

... Melbourne Team Page

Edited February 2, 2013 by Macca

[daisycutter 29,807]

Players being 'rested' is already happening. Clubs aren't making a big deal of it because they don't want to show their hand.(as is the AFL way) Can't ever see Jimmy's record for consecutive games being broken.

The Pies only had one player who played every game last season - Cloke. The Hawks had only 3 players who played every game.

We had 4. Howe, Trengove, Garland and Rivers. The clubs are already incorporating a 'player's' bye of sorts.(often happens against the new 'Franchises') It's covered up with some 'Phantom' injury.

... Melbourne Team Page

that's true macca, but i was just hypothesising where it could possibly end up in a more extreme fashion - think baseball

[daisycutter 29,807]

because you want players to stop running. Stand still.

I do not think that will happen.

why are persisting with this silliness?

no-one is suggesting this - sheesh

[Sir Why You Little 37,242]

why are persisting with this silliness?

no-one is suggesting this - sheesh

its not me.

I do not want a restriction on interchange rotations. I want players to go flat out.

[Macca 17,088]

that's true macca, but i was just hypothesising where it could possibly end up in a more extreme fashion - think baseball

Yeah, I knew what you meant dc, but I reckon a few fans may not know that 'resting' players is already happening (to a small degree). As a comparison, if you look at top level Soccer, all or most of the players are rested a few times a season. Who wants our sport to go down that track? All because of a need for a continuous flood or press.

If you bring in new restrictive interchange rules it would help stop the coaches employing these 2 rather ugly parts of our game (the flood and the press). In fact, if you went to 2 and 2 then I reckon the flood and the press could only be used periodically. It will be interesting to see the results of these interchange restrictions during the NAB Cup.

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

Im allfor limiting the interchange. Footy looks like a flock of seagulls fighting over a bag of chips these days. very congested. I think capping the number of interchanges is a complicated solution though. what about injuries etc. I feel the best way to reduce the number of rotations is to put a minimum time the player must stay off the ground once he comes off. so no magic figure on the number of rotations but once the guy comes off he must stay off for a set time minimum - say 10 min. that would slow the rotations down and bring footy back to the exciting one on one contests we havent really seen since the late 90s. this system would also make it musch easier for the afl to ajudicate.

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

Im excited about the trial rules and look forward to seeing how they effect the NAB games. the flood and the press have ruined the game in my opinion. its like rugby. lots of congestion with empty space over the back for a big kick in to space. then watch 36 players all rush down on to the footy. its not the type of footy i grew up to love at all

[daisycutter 29,807]

Im allfor limiting the interchange. Footy looks like a flock of seagulls fighting over a bag of chips these days. very congested. I think capping the number of interchanges is a complicated solution though. what about injuries etc. I feel the best way to reduce the number of rotations is to put a minimum time the player must stay off the ground once he comes off. so no magic figure on the number of rotations but once the guy comes off he must stay off for a set time minimum - say 10 min. that would slow the rotations down and bring footy back to the exciting one on one contests we havent really seen since the late 90s. this system would also make it musch easier for the afl to ajudicate.

hmmm, a mimimum time limit is an interesting thought. it might work. worth considering

[Bossdog 2,002]

because you want players to stop running. Stand still.

I do not think that will happen.

Geeeeezz....When I played footy I stood still a lot....Or so the coach told me....lol....

[Moonshadow 17,678]

So what will players do after they kick a goal?

I remember reading somewhere that coming off after kicking a goal was because there was about 2 or 3 mins between when the ball goes through the goals and when the field ump bounces the ball in the middle. So that's 2-3 extra mins that the player can rest where the ball is not in play. The theory perhaps being that the player who kicked the goal was the last to exert an effort, so needs the rest.

[Moonshadow 17,678]

hmmm, a mimimum time limit is an interesting thought. it might work. worth considering

I wonder what the average rest time on the bench players currently have, particularly midfielders. If there was to be a time limit, this may be a factor in establishing whether the rest time is 5, 7 or 10 mins. Is the idea that a time limit becomes a disincentive for coaches to take players off, or that they choose rotations much more wisely, or that it truly becomes a rest time, or a mix? There may be issues with players 'cooling down' too much and finding it difficult to get back into the pace if the rest time is too long

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

I wonder what the average rest time on the bench players currently have, particularly midfielders. If there was to be a time limit, this may be a factor in establishing whether the rest time is 5, 7 or 10 mins. Is the idea that a time limit becomes a disincentive for coaches to take players off, or that they choose rotations much more wisely, or that it truly becomes a rest time, or a mix? There may be issues with players 'cooling down' too much and finding it difficult to get back into the pace if the rest time is too long

the idea as i see it is that if the players are off for a minimum then due to the time limit of the quarter only so many rotations could take place. it would also remove this new phenomenon of pllayers taking themselves off as they see fit. by basing it on a time min rather than a number of rotations it removes the possibility of a team using up its rotations then having to deal with an injury. i think it could really work quite well. there wouldnt be an issue of players getting cold. remember it was only less than a decade ago that players were off for a lot longer anyway. this argument that therell be more injuries with a restriction is something i dont agree with. how did the players cope before when there were less rotations. yes the game will slow a bit but footy 10 years ago was still bloody quick and fantastic to watch. ive mentioned it before on here that i have lived overseas for 10 years so the difference in the way the game has evlved is probaly more evident to me as i hardly get to see any footy. the image of footy in my mind because of this is still the early 2000's. it was very fast, very exciting , with lots of one on one contests. loved it!!

[Sir Why You Little 37,242]

the idea as i see it is that if the players are off for a minimum then due to the time limit of the quarter only so many rotations could take place. it would also remove this new phenomenon of pllayers taking themselves off as they see fit. by basing it on a time min rather than a number of rotations it removes the possibility of a team using up its rotations then having to deal with an injury. i think it could really work quite well. there wouldnt be an issue of players getting cold. remember it was only less than a decade ago that players were off for a lot longer anyway. this argument that therell be more injuries with a restriction is something i dont agree with. how did the players cope before when there were less rotations. yes the game will slow a bit but footy 10 years ago was still bloody quick and fantastic to watch. ive mentioned it before on here that i have lived overseas for 10 years so the difference in the way the game has evlved is probaly more evident to me as i hardly get to see any footy. the image of footy in my mind because of this is still the early 2000's. it was very fast, very exciting , with lots of one on one contests. loved it!!

munga i agree with what you are saying, but i just don't see the coaches or fitness staff slowing the game down.

The FIA has been trying to slow down Formula one cars for years, but lap records are still broken.

Less rotations will exhaust players and increase injury chances imo.

Your idea of time limits has some good merit if it can be monitored strictly.

[Longsufferingnomore 1,653]

Then do we see the return of the resting ruckman or midfielder to save on interchanges.

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

Those who want more positional play are both young and old. I don't believe that type of thinking falls into any particular demographic.

I also believe that many who don't want rule changes are perhaps not thinking things through. Our game lends itself to change like no other sport. We don't have an offside rule and the sport is played on a vast arena (compared to every other type of variation of football) . The game changes primarily because of coaching (not necessarily the rule makers).

It seems the rule makers are constantly fiddling with the rules to counteract the exploitation of the rules by the coaches. It's often a case of pointing the finger at the rule makers but it's the coaches who should cop the brunt of the criticism. "Leave the rules alone" is what we constantly hear but the accusation is often thrown in the wrong direction.

The 4th interchange was brought in originally because we started to see a higher incidence of injury back in the mid 90's and if a club was caught short it was seen as an unfair advantage to the other team. One thing led to another and now we've got a sport where we were heading to 400 interchanges per game.

nailed it Macca