Sub rule (again)

[sue 9,106]

Sorry to start a new thread, cant find the old one (anyone know how to search for an old thread which hasn't surfaced for weeks?)

Eade is suggesting allowing a sub to replace an injured player who then cannot play the following week.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-05-12/bring-back-the-sub-for-concussion-cases-says-rodney-eade

I can see that being loop-holed (if there is such a verb) quickly.  Just replace the 'injured' player who is playing badly and whom you'll probably want to drop next week anyway.

[Demon Jack 6,909]

Love Ben Kennedy's response!

 

[monoccular 17,428]

So some poor bugger is going to sit on the bench all day without a run??

Great for player development!

And pretty useless for Grand Finals.

[Old Man Rivers 326]

Just like Mick..... Rocket is out of touch with the modern game.

Gold Coast Should of kept Bluey.

Edited May 12, 2016 by Old Man Rivers

[MrReims 315]

9 minutes ago, Old Man Rivers said:

Just like Mick..... Rocket is out of touch with the modern game.

Gold Coast Should of kept Bluey.

Sincerely sorry to do it, but have. Should have.

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

How about this then- 4 on the bench,  plus a sub who doesn't have to be activated. It's essentially sitting the emergency on the bench. 

Pros- can replace an injured player with no impact on rotations,  can give new players a soft introduction, can give players repeatedly on the cusp of selection (ANB for example) a sense of greater involvement,  gives you the flexibility to sub out an underperforming player, gives flexibility to changing weather conditions or tactics. 

Still get the advantage of having a full 4 players on the bench AND a sub who was deemed the 23rd player anyway. 

[What 18,810]

5 hours ago, Demon Jack said:

Love Ben Kennedy's response!

 

haha first thing I think of when I hear sub rule is Ben  Kennedy who had something like 49% game time at the Pies cos of that rule , and there he is voicing his displeasure publicly

 

[Uncle Fester 2,848]

28 minutes ago, Jesse Christ said:

How about this then- 4 on the bench,  plus a sub who doesn't have to be activated. It's essentially sitting the emergency on the bench. 

Pros- can replace an injured player with no impact on rotations,  can give new players a soft introduction, can give players repeatedly on the cusp of selection (ANB for example) a sense of greater involvement,  gives you the flexibility to sub out an underperforming player, gives flexibility to changing weather conditions or tactics. 

Still get the advantage of having a full 4 players on the bench AND a sub who was deemed the 23rd player anyway. 

No. Just no. The idea was a bad one from the get go. You are trying to resurrect a stinking corpse.

[leucopogon 1,519]

37 minutes ago, Jesse Christ said:

How about this then- 4 on the bench,  plus a sub who doesn't have to be activated. It's essentially sitting the emergency on the bench. 

Pros- can replace an injured player with no impact on rotations,  can give new players a soft introduction, can give players repeatedly on the cusp of selection (ANB for example) a sense of greater involvement,  gives you the flexibility to sub out an underperforming player, gives flexibility to changing weather conditions or tactics. 

Still get the advantage of having a full 4 players on the bench AND a sub who was deemed the 23rd player anyway. 

I was about to post this. Essentially the emergency player becomes a sub for an injured/concussed player, I think its not a bad idea, not sure about the player subbed off being ineligible to play the next week however.

[rjay 24,928]

45 minutes ago, Jesse Christ said:

How about this then- 4 on the bench,  plus a sub who doesn't have to be activated. It's essentially sitting the emergency on the bench. 

Pros- can replace an injured player with no impact on rotations,  can give new players a soft introduction, can give players repeatedly on the cusp of selection (ANB for example) a sense of greater involvement,  gives you the flexibility to sub out an underperforming player, gives flexibility to changing weather conditions or tactics. 

Still get the advantage of having a full 4 players on the bench AND a sub who was deemed the 23rd player anyway. 

...and you think a kid like ANB would like to sit around all afternoon or be out racking up possessions at Casey and making a good case for selection????

The sub rule was one of the worst ever brought in by the AFL, just leave it where it belongs...a memory becoming more distant by the day.

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

29 minutes ago, rjay said:

...and you think a kid like ANB would like to sit around all afternoon or be out racking up possessions at Casey and making a good case for selection????

The sub rule was one of the worst ever brought in by the AFL, just leave it where it belongs...a memory becoming more distant by the day.

But doesn't the emergency travel with the team anyway?

[Ricky P 757]

A festering turd of an idea. 

Loved Kennedy's response.

[MadAsHell 4,212]

8 hours ago, Jesse Christ said:

How about this then- 4 on the bench,  plus a sub who doesn't have to be activated. It's essentially sitting the emergency on the bench. 

Pros- can replace an injured player with no impact on rotations,  can give new players a soft introduction, can give players repeatedly on the cusp of selection (ANB for example) a sense of greater involvement,  gives you the flexibility to sub out an underperforming player, gives flexibility to changing weather conditions or tactics. 

Still get the advantage of having a full 4 players on the bench AND a sub who was deemed the 23rd player anyway. 

 

7 hours ago, leucopogon said:

I was about to post this. Essentially the emergency player becomes a sub for an injured/concussed player, I think its not a bad idea, not sure about the player subbed off being ineligible to play the next week however.

But then clubs will hold a 24th player over for matches in case of any late changes.

Effectively means that most weeks we'll have 2 players that don't geta run at either level. 

1 The sub & 2 The 24th man.

No thanks!

Edited May 12, 2016 by AngryAtCasey

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Not enough is being made of how good football is this year without the sub rule, worst decision in history to bring that in, especially after rotations were capped.

[Little Goffy 14,545]

I think Rodney Eade makes a good case for a sub rule... for coaches.

Poor Gold Coast. Terrible to see a club with such a proud history making so many poor decisions.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

I'm a massive fan of the sub rule.

Without it, Collingwood would have had to play Kennedy for full games and they'd have realised how good he is.

Mwahahahahahahaha