41 minutes ago, rjay said:

I'm waiting for the coaches to start wingeing about how unfair it is if they get an injury early on and are one man down.

...so then we will get a 5 man bench and injury sub.

...but then the cry will be about how some are abusing it and it's not fair.

...then we will go to a 6 man bench.

....but then.

Anyway, you get the idea.

So we end up like the NFL with 90% of the list able to play? I think Mick Malthouse suggested this once when he coached the Filth.

Nothing wrong with a 4 man bench (or 3 man bench for that matter). It's a tough game - injuries happen - bad luck.

Less players on the bench means that players need to be more versatile and coaches more innovative, which is a good thing in my eyes.

The alternative is that we go to the extremes of the NFL and dress a player and his direct replacement every game.

To my mind this evens the playing field for clubs that stuck by the guidelines versus the clubs that utilised the sub to gain an advantage. Common sense approach to a problem that the AFL couldn’t/wouldn’t police fairly.!!!!

Thank the lord they are scrapping the medi sub. What a joke of a decision. Having a bloke sit on the bench and most times not even come on. And then count that as a game played?!

James Jordon to become the answer to quiz questions in future.

If we go back to just another sub I'll be [censored].... it was terrible rule.

I didn't think there was anything wrong with the medical sub rule, other than the player being allowed to play the following week.

If they removed that then less clubs would have used the rule..... pretty simple in my eyes but of course the AFL will have to make complicated rules that make no logical sense to be different....

3 hours ago, rjay said:

I'm waiting for the coaches to start wingeing about how unfair it is if they get an injury early on and are one man down.

...so then we will get a 5 man bench and injury sub.

...but then the cry will be about how some are abusing it and it's not fair.

...then we will go to a 6 man bench.

....but then.

Anyway, you get the idea.

I know that many in AFLHQ want to mimic American Gridiron, which I find unwatchable due to the lack of flow with stopping far more than starting, so this could be just one step towards having a full “oh-fensive” and another “dee-fensive” roster that they change after every play. (Just joking but just a warning). 
Why extend the bench at all?  Cut it to what it once was, 2 non rotatable reserves and get on with the game (ok, maybe rotation s for blood rule). 

3 minutes ago, monoccular said:

I know that many in AFLHQ want to mimic American Gridiron, which I find unwatchable due to the lack of flow with stopping far more than starting, so this could be just one step towards having a full “oh-fensive” and another “dee-fensive” roster that they change after every play. (Just joking but just a warning). 
Why extend the bench at all?  Cut it to what it once was, 2 non rotatable reserves and get on with the game (ok, maybe rotation s for blood rule). 

I would be happy with 4 and dropping the cap on rotations significantly.

That would minimise the issue with injuries.

I hate the sub rule, so this is a good change.

I still think we will need to plan for Gawn and Grundy to play a high percentage of game time on the ground at the same time.

Bring back the 19th and 20th man.  These were my specialist positions in under 12s.

i'd keep 4 interchange, no subs and reduce interchanges to 50

this would reduce 2-way running and congestion, opening the game up more and allowing the more skilful players to entertain us with their skills. ball ups would be reduced. tackling reduced and scoring increased.

the game would be a better spectacle. coaches would initially hate it but they'd soon change and embrace it.

Medi sub rule works pretty well, I don't think.

Not sure about who's the most defensive the dopey doctor or the dopier coach.

go with the 5 man bench, that effectively allows us to use our medical sub who for many times during the year was not used. if we could have used them without sacrificing taking another player off then maybe we would have found what some of our medical subs could really do. A lot of teams seemed to regularly use their medical sub, under somewhat dubious circumstances. lets keep it even for all 5 man bench. if you get injured your down a player.

3 hours ago, Demonstone said:

Bring back the 19th and 20th man.  These were my specialist positions in under 12s.

Almost related to that is my nephew's footy experiences when he was 11 years old. Each kid in the team was made feel welcome, was encouraged to do their best (no matter how bad their respective footballing skills might have been), and many other accolades of good sportsmanship and responsible adult coaching - that included well-behaved mums and dads, and other family members who came along to watch 'Neddy' play in the team. For example, barracking amongst the parents was not encouraged lest an outcry or two 'hurt' someone's feelings, and family spectators were reminded that verbal abuse to opponents and the umpires set poor examples for the children involved in what was in most cases, their first 'team' and competitive venture into sport of any kind.

So, one of the worthy traditions of the club was that each week, three of the players 'won' a small trophy each to compliment a good performance and excellent behaviours, as encouraged. It was a gesture deep in the realms of sociological good manners and effective participation in a meaningful, disciplined engagement with sport (in this case, it encouraged good sportsmanship and respect for others no matter what were the circumstances on the day.  This rotated around the team across the full fixture for the year; every player won 'a trophy'. 

When my nephew won his trophy for 'excellence' on the sporting field, the team actually won the game. The only problem was he had a bad cold, a consequence of which his mum and dad kept him at home that Saturday morning. In other words, he won the  trophy without being in the team and not even turning up at the ground!

 

14 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:

Almost related to that is my nephew's footy experiences when he was 11 years old. Each kid in the team was made feel welcome, was encouraged to do their best (no matter how bad their respective footballing skills might have been), and many other accolades of good sportsmanship and responsible adult coaching - that included well-behaved mums and dads, and other family members who came along to watch 'Neddy' play in the team. For example, barracking amongst the parents was not encouraged lest an outcry or two 'hurt' someone's feelings, and family spectators were reminded that verbal abuse to opponents and the umpires set poor examples for the children involved in what was in most cases, their first 'team' and competitive venture into sport of any kind.

So, one of the worthy traditions of the club was that each week, three of the players 'won' a small trophy each to compliment a good performance and excellent behaviours, as encouraged. It was a gesture deep in the realms of sociological good manners and effective participation in a meaningful, disciplined engagement with sport (in this case, it encouraged good sportsmanship and respect for others no matter what were the circumstances on the day.  This rotated around the team across the full fixture for the year; every player won 'a trophy'. 

When my nephew won his trophy for 'excellence' on the sporting field, the team actually won the game. The only problem was he had a bad cold, a consequence of which his mum and dad kept him at home that Saturday morning. In other words, he won the  trophy without being in the team and not even turning up at the ground!

 

Life and footy is so much different now Ds 56 growing up in my time the same six kids won everything every year and we expected them to because they were the best and most skilful players in the team, every now and then if you had a top game you won a block of chocolate. The thing that us fringe players looked forward to the most was the two pie nights we had each year.

More recently the league that my grandson plays in, the coaches nominate the best player on the opposing team and the opposing coach nominated my grandson as his choice for BOG, he was informed that he was ineligible because he had already won one. My grandson was pumped but took it in his stride and I was very proud of him.

36 minutes ago, DeeZone said:

Life and footy is so much different now Ds 56 growing up in my time the same six kids won everything every year and we expected them to because they were the best and most skilful players in the team, every now and then if you had a top game you won a block of chocolate. The thing that us fringe players looked forward to the most was the two pie nights we had each year.

More recently the league that my grandson plays in, the coaches nominate the best player on the opposing team and the opposing coach nominated my grandson as his choice for BOG, he was informed that he was ineligible because he had already won one. My grandson was pumped but took it in his stride and I was very proud of him.

Some heart-rendering yet socially encouraging stuff being brought out onto the paddock; from your example, I'd bet that certain interactive values arose from your grandson. He must have felt that for the good of the team, Fairy Nuff called the shots and then internalised its merits. He had a considerable personal reward and in logic, hope within these experiences springs eternal.

Im hoping they get rid of the medi sub rubbish. If your picked for the game you should be allowed to be fielded. 

On 10/13/2022 at 10:16 AM, rpfc said:

Because teams going in with one recognised ruck works with a 4 man bench as rotations are a premium and you need to have them through the middle but with an extra spot - suddenly a second ruck is an actual option and we would get massive benefit from that.

What if clubs with one recognised ruck just increase their small gut-running midfield rotation by an extra player and go all out on speed and endurance over a taller 23? Aren't we still back at where we are now, having to balance aerial vs ground capabilities but just with 23 and not 22?

Edited October 26, 20222 yr by John Demonic

4 hours ago, John Demonic said:

What if clubs with one recognised ruck just increase their small gut-running midfield rotation by an extra player and go all out on speed and endurance over a taller 23? Aren't we still back at where we are now, having to balance aerial vs ground capabilities but just with 23 and not 22?

As a coach, there’s a ceiling to mid rotations, the guys just don’t want two min stints. There is also an actual rotation ceiling remember of 75. More teams will see that 5th bench spot as an opportunity to help their number 1 ruck and we have two of the top 4 rucks in the game.

On 10/26/2022 at 9:58 AM, rjay said:

I'm waiting for the coaches to start wingeing about how unfair it is if they get an injury early on and are one man down.

...so then we will get a 5 man bench and injury sub.

...but then the cry will be about how some are abusing it and it's not fair.

...then we will go to a 6 man bench.

....but then.

Anyway, you get the idea.

Just go the whole hog and have the entire playing list "active" like they do in the NFL.

 

On 10/26/2022 at 10:40 PM, 4_Kent_Watts said:

Im hoping they get rid of the medi sub rubbish. If your picked for the game you should be allowed to be fielded. 

Agree.  The medisub is just so inhibiting to player development - Toby Bedford this  year many weeks didn’t play for MFC nor for Casey.  Has he had more time on ground at either level he may have stayed, and may well have developed far more. Absurd rule.  

On 10/26/2022 at 10:41 AM, Clintosaurus said:

So we end up like the NFL with 90% of the list able to play? I think Mick Malthouse suggested this once when he coached the Filth.

We have the best VFL team in the comp, I say bring it on!

I’ll throw in something crazy just to make things totally bonkers (not actually saying this could possibly happen). How about we make 17 players on the field instead of 18, put that extra player on the bench. The reason I put this out there is the possibility of the odd number throwing out traditional positioning and match ups. The odd number could mean one less play in the middle to start (possibly opening up the game) but then the odd player can either be used as an extra forward or back depending on how teams would like to use it. 

There’s also been plenty if talk that there are too many players on the field so could this be an option to creating more field space?

On 11/9/2022 at 5:23 AM, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

We have the best VFL team in the comp, I say bring it on!

We also play a relatively slow game. 5 men on the bench would favour  fast rebounding teams like Collingwood