Coaches are so predictable. Brad Scott wants to increase the interchange to five and dump the sub. No surprise there and another example of why coaches should not have control of the rules of the game. I would suggest the game would be much better off if we keep four on interchange and either dump the sub altogether or go back to last year's iteration where it was supposed to be for injury only. I would change it though, so that the player subbed off must miss the following game his team plays. No exemptions, even if the next game is the Grad Final. The moment you provide exemptions, it will be rorted. Nothing surer.

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/it-just-makes-sense-essendon-coach-wants-sub-scratched-for-five-on-the-bench-20230409-p5cz4e.html

Edited April 10, 20232 yr by La Dee-vina Comedia
Added link

but why stop at 5.

Surely 22 is better

A Scott idea. So no.

Why didn’t he bring it in when he was working the AFL?

I agree with him though, I hate the sub.

I liked the sub idea for when it was used for injuries but we all knew that it was going to be rorted. Don't think I like the idea of the player that gets subbed out missing the next week because it may stop coaches from subbing a player off for a light injury that turns into a big injury.

At the end of the day if they're going to stick with a sub, this is the way to do it as it creates less controversy.

Don’t like the sub. 4 on the bench is enough.  Either that or have 8 subs however once a player comes off they can’t come back on like soccer

And here we go. As sure as night follows day, an AFL coach says "why have we got a guy just sitting there doing nothing, who could be playing?"

The AFL will roll over as they always do. Then as sure as day follows night, an AFL coach will say, "one of my players got injured so I'm down to 4 players rotating .... but my rival coach still has 5! Unfair! Why do we have to use all our interchange players, why can't we reserve one/have an extra one in case of injury?"

Why not get it over with and have the entire list of 44 available on game day without limit? (Assuming that that will actually appease the coaches!)

The coaches do not know what they want except what suits them right now. Their whims are not good for the game.

AFL, please ignore Brad "This Isn't Because Of Anything That Happened To My Team In Today's Game At All" Scott.

The season is a marathon. His job as coach is to come up with a game plan and condition his players to survive and thrive the season rather than tinker with the rules to suit how you’d rather do it instead. Nobody else making noise over this.
 

He should stay in his lane, particularly as another poster observed, he had the power last year when working for the AFL to make this change but didn’t.

I have no problem with an extra player on the bench, makes no difference to me and further incentivises teams to take concussions seriously.  Don't like the sub, in any of its forms.  

 

 

I don't like stuffing around with the game but honestly I think I'd prefer another interchange over any form of sub. Anything involving a vest is just stupid in this game.

The issue that could arise from having a 5th interchange is the reason why the first version of the sub and capped interchanges were introduced in the first place. The game was getting too fast and constant fresh legs 'did not help' matters. I'm going back to the Kevin Bartlett method of needing to tire players out more so it would get slower (instead of showcasing great athletic ability but that's another conversation). What happens if the game gets too fast again? 

I never ever want to see 3 interchanges and a sub again. 

Why not go the whole hog and have 36 players with half on the bench and half playing then we would have a defensive group and an offensive group

That would work well and we could have an extra 100 minutes time to accommodate the team changes, Just think of the extra advertising time!!!!

Hold on isn't there a game like that already?

Saw an article where Brad Scott said coaches preferred the sub to 5 on the bench after they were all asked. Bit surprising.

For health and safety reason the more substitutes the better. The game is more faster and brutal and every player is expected to give a 100%. Too many players return to the play after suffering injuries which on the surface may be minor but they won’t get any better by continuing to play. 

Edited April 10, 20232 yr by John Crow Batty

5 minutes ago, John Crow Batty said:

For health and safety reason the more substitutes the better. The game is more faster and brutal and every player is expected to give a 100%. Too many players return to the play after suffering injuries which on the surface may be minor but they won’t get any better by continuing to play. 

Couldn't the argument be put another way, though? Would the game be safer with fewer interchanges because players would tire more readily and therefore not be subjected to so many collision injuries? If this theory is correct (and I'm not convinced it necessarily is), then if player safety were the primary concern, the game would be better with no interchanges and just substitutes.   

i hate the sub and don’t get the AFLs agenda with it. was an abject failure and cancelled and now brought back

it is hard for kids like Bedford to get a real opportunity. either play the full game or play for the 2s

I don't mind the sub rule. I think the AFL recognises that you can't have massive benches (4 max is about right), as (i) it's a game of fatigue and (ii) they need to try to maintain parity between teams with varying sized injury lists.

It allows a selection committee to actually give an untried kid a go, on the basis he'll play less than a half of footy and get a feel for footy at the highest level without compromising a full time rotation. It allows us to get veterans up to milestone games at the club, and use their footballing talents in a short burst for maximum effect, where we would otherwise have picked someone younger, fresher and less banged up.  

Otherwise we're picking 5 athletes who can run a marathon at high speed every week.

i'd cut rotations down to 60 with 3 interchange players

13 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i'd cut rotations down to 60 with 3 interchange players

I agree, for the next two years. Then I'd cut it to 40 from then on. The important point, that the AFL seems to forget, is that decisions like these shouldn't be made in an ad hoc fashion between seasons, or worse, just before a new season begins.

These type of decisions which are intended to change anything to do with physicality, fitness, or the way the game is played (including any rule changes) should be announced well in advance of taking effect to allow clubs to plan accordingly. It might mean clubs draft or trade for different types of players, change their gameplan or change their fitness and conditioning regimen. The clubs need time to prepare for that.   

 

1 hour ago, DubDee said:

i hate the sub and don’t get the AFLs agenda with it. was an abject failure and cancelled and now brought back

it is hard for kids like Bedford to get a real opportunity. either play the full game or play for the 2s

It stretches the depth of the comp just that little bit more, when Tassie and possibly a 20th team are going to come in. Should be max 4 on bench and possibly fewer.

25 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i'd cut rotations down to 60 with 3 interchange players

I'd make it 10 rotations!

2 hours ago, Mazer Rackham said:

 

I'd make it 10 rotations!

Go back to the days where being on the bench was punishment!

2 minutes ago, AzzKikA said:

Go back to the days where being on the bench was punishment!

Kids these days have it too soft. We had to walk 8 miles to the ground, carrying night soil buckets on our shoulders, just for the right to fight to the death so the survivors could watch the 19th and 20th men lacing up their boots. On a really good day Ted Whitten would king hit us and we'd spend the night in hospital. Only way you get get a bowl of ice cream. Ah, memories.

15 minutes ago, Mazer Rackham said:

Kids these days have it too soft. We had to walk 8 miles to the ground, carrying night soil buckets on our shoulders, just for the right to fight to the death so the survivors could watch the 19th and 20th men lacing up their boots. On a really good day Ted Whitten would king hit us and we'd spend the night in hospital. Only way you get get a bowl of ice cream. Ah, memories.

and you try telling that to young ones today