Sub rule gone

[Earl Hood 6,086]

Agreed.

I'd like to get down to 40.

Get rid of interchange and go like soccer and have 4 substitutes, no interchange at all. The sub came in because of coaches moaning that if they had an injury early on their team was at a disadvantage on rotations. So the AFL brought in the one sub rule and since coaches have complained endlessly. You can't win, just revert to how we started 18 starting players with some reserves or substitutes or injuries.

[jnrmac 20,108]

90 i/change! Down from 120 is a huge change!

It means players with stamina and speed will be highly valued.

David Misson will need to change the fitness/training regime.

This will have a significant impact on our list management and trading/recruiting, this season.

It might be why we let Cross go but are considering a contract extension for Jimmy.

Other 'slow' players or those with a poor 'tank' will be in danger of being delisted.

I'm trying to think or our players 'with speed' but struggling to think of many.

Hope we recruit a few.

Hardly It takes us back to around 2011 levels....

[Bang Bang Bang 5,826]

So which of our games featured the best cameo from the sub? Funnily enough, I reckon it was the first... the Round 1 game where Petterd came on in the last quarter against Sydney and we drew the game after being a long way behind.

As for the worst? Jordie McKenzie against Freo this year was simply bizarre.

[Henrietta Lumbago 331]

So hopefully we won't see players running off the ground straight after kicking a goal...

[CityDee 738]

If players are tired quicker and need to rest on the ground wont they just drop those players as loose men in defense and if a defender has been run ragged move them forward?

The game will reward endurance runners more than the athletic types and dare i say it footballers. Wont bring back the contested mark as was a focus I believe.Players will be leaner not gorilla style forwards or defenders.more will have to be utilities and move through the midfield.

[jnrmac 20,108]

Thank the lord they have reduced the rotations. Was a blight on the game and the cause of many of the stupid speed up the game rule changes.

[DistrACTION Jackson 8,772]

Great news for Dream Team and Super coach fans! Nothing worse than finding out your player has been given the vest!

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,816]

It's easy to criticise the decision to introduce the sub, but I understood the motivation at the time.

What I'd like the AFL to do now is look at every rule introduced (or "interpretation changed", whatever that means) in the last 30 years and decide whether they should be abolished too. And it needs to be a sophisticated analysis. For example, the rule which changed the kicking in from a behind. Previously, the ball could not be kicked into play until after the goal umpire had waved the flags with the statement at the time that this would speed up the game. But what other impacts did it have? If the ball is not kicked in straight away, players get extra time to rest on the ground. So, did the supposed advantage of "speeding up play" get offset by increased rotations and, eventually, greater congestion?

I would love to see a "test" game played in the preseason using the rules in place in about 1985.

[Pipefitter 2,163]

The problem with the sub rule when its used on a day with no injuries you are effecting dropping a player in real time in front of a live audience. Must do wonders for their confidence.

[baysidedave 246]

Just heard on SEN the sub rule has been abolished and interchange rotations will be capped at 90 in 2016

Farewell to the worst rule the AFL ever made

Best decision afl made in years

[AzzKikA 2,371]

I think it will help the cause for Gorilla like players on the field, maybe players will not be able to push up the ground as much as they do so will be a stay at home FF. The rolling zone defense will not be an easy thing to do with less rotations either. Oh and hopefully it stops players running off the field while the ball is coming towards them.

Edited September 4, 2015 by AzzKikA

[Little Goffy 14,583]

That new cap of 90 is on stupid rule variations and arbitrary unannounced interpretations, right?

[Red and Bluebeard 2,084]

How did common sense sneak back into footy ?

What next....consistency at the MRP...lol

Can't help dumb luck, BB

[daisycutter 29,622]

Can't help dumb luck, BB

bit like the broken clock, r&b

[Chris 2,892]

some arithmetic

current system

120 rotations, 3 on bench 18 on field = 21 players

lets ignore sub (as sub + subbed = 1 player)

120 minutes of play. 18 x 120 minutes = 2160 total minutes

divide by 21 = 103 min per player

so each player spends 17 minutes on bench

120 rotations divide by 21 = 5.7 rotations per player

103 min divide by 5.7 rotations = 18.1 min average stay on ground

17min divide by 5.7 rotations = 3 min average stay on the bench

new system

90 rotations, 4 on bench 18 on field = 22 players

120 minutes of play. 18 x 120 minutes = 2160 total minutes

divide by 22 = 98 min per player

so each player spends 22 min on bench

90 rotations divide by 22 = 4.1 rotations per player

98 min divide by 4.1 rotations = 23.9 min average stay on ground

22 min divide by 4.1 rotations = 5.4 min average stay on the bench

Nett:

total game time drops from 103 min to 98 min = 4.9% drop

time on ground interval increases from 18.1 min to 23.9 min = 32% increase

time on bench interval increases from 3 min to 5.4 min = 80% increase

ok, these are only averages and will vary from midfield to fwd to backmen, but gives an idea of impact

(probably some arithmetic errors, so pls check)

What may come of that is we will see the midfield still rotate massively but the backs and forwards less so. To counter this the backs and forwards will probably cut down running and press will become looser. Would only be good for the game.

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,816]

bit like the broken clock, r&b

Some broken clocks are better than others.

[daisycutter 29,622]

Some broken clocks are better than others.

he probably uses a 24 clock or a 12 hour clock with am/pm indicator

alternatively he is mentored by mr abbott

[dee-luded 2,959]

Get rid of interchange and go like soccer and have 4 substitutes, no interchange at all. The sub came in because of coaches moaning that if they had an injury early on their team was at a disadvantage on rotations. So the AFL brought in the one sub rule and since coaches have complained endlessly. You can't win, just revert to how we started 18 starting players with some reserves or substitutes or injuries.

early emergency's are the asnswer, by severiity, to be decided on by the umpires doctor of the day. if he says yes, then they get to bring in one emergency to replace the seriosly injured player.

2 x 2 as I was saying back about 4 years ago. 2 interchange, & 2 emergancies. Or i think in those days, I was calling them 'subs'. but not meant to be just another rotation player.

[dee-luded 2,959]

That new cap of 90 is on stupid rule variations and arbitrary unannounced interpretations, right?

If its to be a number of rotations, then it needs to be a specified maximum maximum Per Quarter.. not per game.

[Red and Bluebeard 2,084]

bit like the broken clock, r&b

At least the broken clock is trying to tell the right time ...

[daisycutter 29,622]

At least the broken clock is trying to tell the right time ...

yes, clocks can be very trying at times