Scrap the Sub

[pitchfork 181]

Get rid of it this off-season.

AFL now have two rules for the same purpose – Sub and interchange cap.

Set the cap to an appropriate level and have 22 men and no vests.

Can't think of a single benefit it brings.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Get rid of it this off-season.

AFL now have two rules for the same purpose – Sub and interchange cap.

Set the cap to an appropriate level and have 22 men and no vests.

Can't think of a single benefit it brings.

Agreed entirely.

[Little Richard 6,262]

Get rid of it this off-season.

AFL now have two rules for the same purpose – Sub and interchange cap.

Set the cap to an appropriate level and have 22 men and no vests.

Can't think of a single benefit it brings.

What would you deem 'an appropriate level' for the interchange cap?

I'd like to see it set at around 80 per match - the current limit of 120 doesn't seem to have much, if any effect on the way the game is being played.

[DistrACTION Jackson 8,734]

I think maximum of 25 per quarter and they don't accrue so if you don't use 25 then you can't use more the next quarter.

And definitely no sub! I hate that rule

[Little Goffy 14,532]

I've got little time for bureaucratic systems set up to try to control the game.

Interchange cap I have even less time for than the sub.

Throw in the idiotic officiousness at the interchange gates, created as a knee-jerk reaction to one incident, and the bench bureaucracy is becoming one of the biggest parts of the game.

Coaches and players and umpires all have much better things to be concentrating on than tapping on and tapping off their myki card.

[Wrecker45 3,378]

Can't think of a single benefit it brings.

I can as a MFC member. I am the most overoptimistic supporter / member going around but when we serve up some the rubbish the MFC has served up over the last 5 years sometimes the only solace I take during the game is who should be subbed off. It's a form of instant gratification before we drop (or fail to drop) someone the following Thursday.

Otherwise, I agree it is a rubbish rule.

[rjay 24,919]

I think the sub will be gone next season, the AFL have flagged this already. Not official by any means but it's for the scrap heap.

[What 18,810]

Sub rule is the worst rule ever invented

Has made the game so much more boring

Its frightening to think a panel of people or should I say morons actually sat down and had many meetings and thought it was a good idea and went ahead with it

[jnrmac 20,060]

Here is an idea. 4 bench players. Once you get taken off you can't come back on.

Wow How radical.

That would stop congestion.

[jnrmac 20,060]

Sub rule is the worst rule ever invented

Has made the game so much more boring

Its frightening to think a panel of people or should I say morons actually sat down and had many meetings and thought it was a good idea and went ahead with it

You clearly don't understand why it was brought in. If you think really hard you might work it out.

Tip. Look at the % of games won when a team is one down on the bench

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

Here is an idea. 4 bench players. Once you get taken off you can't come back on.

Wow How radical.

That would stop congestion.

LOVE IT!!!!!!!

[What 18,810]

You clearly don't understand why it was brought in. If you think really hard you might work it out.

Tip. Look at the % of games won when a team is one down on the bench

Yeah lets bring in a rule to try and counter a part of the game thats been happening for 100+ years

How about leave the game alone?

Sub rule is a joke

Edited October 1, 2014 by hogans_heroes

[Fitz Fitzpatrick 886]

How good was footy back in the early 2000s! Interchange numbers were about 30-40 per game. If you stuffed up you game off. Otherwise, get a tank and keep running son!

Positional footy. I miss those days.

The popular counter argument is the disingenuous one where some poster says footy is better than back in the 70s and 80s. Well, perhaps it is. But we don't have to go back that far to talk about games without congestion.

It all changed with Roos and then Malthouse in the mid 2000s. Before that, footy was super quick. Today , players are quick but ball movement can be slow. With congestion the footy can spend a long time in one part of the game.

10 years ago players were perhaps slower due to less rest but with more positional play the footy used to zip from one end of the ground to the other. I remember when it would go inside 50 from one wing, to a 2 on 2 contest, then a few handballs and out it would fly back down the opposite wing to a contest on the outer side.

Forget about the 70s. yes footys better than then . But the days of the Bombers and North sides of the late 90s , the Lions of the early 2000s, NOW THAT WAS GREAT FOOTY!!

Edited October 1, 2014 by Munga

[daisycutter 29,613]

Yeah lets bring in a rule to try and counter a part of the game thats been happening for 100+ years

How about leave the game alone?

Sub rule is a joke

lets leave it alone, huh?

you want to go back to 2 subs, no interchange, with just a 19th and 20th man then?

[rjay 24,919]

Sub rule is the worst rule ever invented

Has made the game so much more boring

Its frightening to think a panel of people or should I say morons actually sat down and had many meetings and thought it was a good idea and went ahead with it

On that Roos agrees with you, I'm not sure it was the worst rule.....but I've never liked it.

[pitchfork 181]

You clearly don't understand why it was brought in. If you think really hard you might work it out.

Tip. Look at the % of games won when a team is one down on the bench

That's not really why it was brought in. It was mainly about the massive increase in interchange numbers in the late part of the past decade.

I'm not even sure if this rule has changed that reality. Teams that have to use the sub early are still disadvantaged later in the game - would like to see some numbers.

I don't mind them setting some regulation, as the Dane Swan on/off thing was getting a bit ridiculous. The issue is of course 'the Sub' is totally artificial in a way that the interchange isn't for anybody under 35.

Roosy put it best: Coaches need to talk about it for 10 minutes, then probably get it wrong and regret it...plus a player that deserves to be in the team ends up getting half an opportunity.

4 on the interchange - keep it at 120 with the increased number of players.

Edited October 1, 2014 by pitchfork

[Demon Disciple 12,122]

Scrap the Sub? That would mean that the members' of the rules committee (aka Kevin Bartlett) would admit they were wrong. We've got a better chance of getting Dangerfield!

[Tatu 416]

They will never scrap it..

The consistent rule changes create confusion, which makes the game harder to follow and easier to manipulate;) This includes the sub rule...

[Je Roos Salem 661]

It disallows many young players to make meaningful impressions, but sometimes if they make a really good impression they may become a "specialist sub" which also limits their career. It would've been much better for their development if JKH, Salem and Kent could've tried to do something from the start rather than get 3 possessions in the last quarter when we're 10 goals down

[dee-luded 2,959]

Get rid of it this off-season.

AFL now have two rules for the same purpose – Sub and interchange cap.

Set the cap to an appropriate level and have 22 men and no vests.

Can't think of a single benefit it brings.

IMO, 3 man interchange bench; + 2 emergencies for hospital cases.... at the start of the game the team would have 2 emergencies at their disposal for hospital cases. During the half time break, the club should have to choose which 1 of the 2 emergencies they want to go with for the 2nd half of the match.

[autocol 448]

AFL now have two rules for the same purpose – Sub and interchange cap.

These two rules were not brought in for the same purpose at all. The sub rule was implemented because the probability of a team winning the game after losing a man in the first quarter plummeted to almost zero. It has very successfully resolved that issue.

The interchange cap was implemented because the combination of unlimited interchanges and massively increased player fitness allowed players to swarm the contest all over the ground. The rule was clearly introduced with a very high cap (significantly higher than almost all teams average per game) so that the teams and fans could get used to it, before the number would be reined in over time to actually start affecting the game. Whether it will function effectively or not at reducing congestion remains to be seen. The cap probably needs to be halved (or even less) before having the desired effect.

So, the purpose of the two rules is different. The cause of them might be related - teams have realised that playing positional footy is tactically outdated, and having the bulk of the side cover the entire ground is a much more effective method of play. Frankly, other than the introduction of zones, I can't see this ever changing back. Introducing rules to maximise the effect of fatigue might reduce congestion by reducing the optimum number of players at the contest (because you need some further away to receive the ball, because otherwise the team is too fatigued by the end of the game), but we won't know until that variable has been tested.

Yes, the sub rules sucks for the kid that only plays for 20 minutes, but it doesn't suck as much as knowing you're almost certainly going to lose when a midfielder gets knocked out at the opening bounce.

Personally, I reckon the idea of 4 subs, no interchanges sounds brilliant. If a cap of 60 rotations was likely to reduce the number of players at the contest by, say, one or two, I reckon a "4 subs no interchange" rule would drop it by three or four. That would see the game open right up, and the fresh players would be able to play some exciting bursts out of defence and down a wing when the rest of the field is struggling to keep up.

Edited October 1, 2014 by autocol

[pitchfork 181]

These two rules were not brought in for the same purpose at all. The sub rule was implemented because the probability of a team winning the game after losing a man in the first quarter plummeted to almost zero. It has very successfully resolved that issue.

Are we sure this rule has successfully resolved that issue - is there data? I'm honestly not trolling, I'd like to see the numbers.

I also wonder if you took a larger sample size back through to the mid 90s if this probability of win holds up. When one team is able to rest their mids that much more across a game, of course it's big, but that's a recent phenomenon. But if the cap is set at a meaningful level, I imagine it would diminish the advantage.

[KingDingAling 3,757]

The sub is another ridiculous idea. Beggers belief really. In this day and age the AFL chop and change rules - yet keep the bounce.

The majority of the time the bounce is uneven, goes sides ways and halts momentum. Throw the friggin thing up you muppets.

[jnrmac 20,060]

Yeah lets bring in a rule to try and counter a part of the game thats been happening for 100+ years

How about leave the game alone?

Sub rule is a joke

Its not the sub rule. Its the interchange that is the problem.

[Trisul 664]

I'd like the sub to go. Re reducing the chance of winning to almost 0% if a player goes does early, I don't believe that for a second. In fact just this year our opponent had 2 players down in the first half, three for the game, and still won.