New Substitute Rule
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 624
- Joined: Thu 13 Nov 2008 8:06pm
New Substitute Rule
Will the team change its structure with the new rules of 3 interchange and 1 substitute.
How will we setup? Will we still go with 2 pure ruckman and 2 tall forwards? Or we continue with our setup from the Grand Final?
Is Gardiner staying on for 1 more year? because this could really be the death of him as he is unable to ruck more than 60% gametime.
How will we setup? Will we still go with 2 pure ruckman and 2 tall forwards? Or we continue with our setup from the Grand Final?
Is Gardiner staying on for 1 more year? because this could really be the death of him as he is unable to ruck more than 60% gametime.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006 8:34am
- Location: Jurassic Park
I think this rule will as popular with the coaches as a bad injury to a star player.
Personally I think it is a BS rule made by players who have had their day but just can't stop interferring with a game that has passed them by.
Just wish those morons would just leave the friggin game alone and let it evolve naturally.
Personally I think it is a BS rule made by players who have had their day but just can't stop interferring with a game that has passed them by.
Just wish those morons would just leave the friggin game alone and let it evolve naturally.
Except for the sanity nothing much has been lost.
- Eastern
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14357
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 1:46pm
- Location: 3132
- Been thanked: 1 time
I think Gardi staying on for 1 more year. The substitute rule is made for guys who can play in positions other than ruck. We have Kosi, Benny Mac and Rhys Stanley who can all play Ruck/Forward or Forward/Ruck as well as Blakey who is a backman who can "Pinch-Hit" in the ruck.
Having said that, I believe the days of having 2 specialist ruckmen in the side are finished. The way of the future appears to be 1 x Specialist Ruckman and 1 or 2 x Adequate ruckman who can also play in other positions (normally as the 3rd forward) !!
Having said that, I believe the days of having 2 specialist ruckmen in the side are finished. The way of the future appears to be 1 x Specialist Ruckman and 1 or 2 x Adequate ruckman who can also play in other positions (normally as the 3rd forward) !!
NEW scarf signature (hopefully with correct spelling) will be here as soon as it arrives !!
- SaintPav
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 19072
- Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
- Location: Alma Road
- Has thanked: 1599 times
- Been thanked: 2015 times
- SaintPav
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 19072
- Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
- Location: Alma Road
- Has thanked: 1599 times
- Been thanked: 2015 times
It will reduce the capacity of rotations by at least 1/4 so in my opinion, it will limit somewhat the better teams output like the Collingwoods of this world. Apart from the AFL giving giving the newbies a head start in goals, what other rules coud they possibly tinker with to try and level the playing field?plugger66 wrote:Cannot see how it helps those teams at all.SaintPav wrote:New rule is about helping level the playing field for GC and GWS. The other crap you hear about it helping to avoid high collision injuries etc is friggin baloney.
I of course could be wrong and it's just an opinion but I'm happy to put it out there.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
How does it work?
Can a SUB replace another player at any time - or does the replaced player have to be injured? And if the latter, there's surely a whole lot of grey area there.
If the SUB can replace a player at anytime during the game (midway through the 3rd springs to mind), it's going to make for some interesting tactics.
Run a midfielder ragged then bring on another? Same with the ruck, then go mobile?
I actually don't mind the rule, ATM - but will reserve judgement until I've seen what happens and, for now, re-iterate - STOP f****** AROUND WITH THE GAME, Ok? I mean really - what has Adrian Anderson ever actually known about FOOTBALL?
Can a SUB replace another player at any time - or does the replaced player have to be injured? And if the latter, there's surely a whole lot of grey area there.
If the SUB can replace a player at anytime during the game (midway through the 3rd springs to mind), it's going to make for some interesting tactics.
Run a midfielder ragged then bring on another? Same with the ruck, then go mobile?
I actually don't mind the rule, ATM - but will reserve judgement until I've seen what happens and, for now, re-iterate - STOP f****** AROUND WITH THE GAME, Ok? I mean really - what has Adrian Anderson ever actually known about FOOTBALL?
Fortius Quo Fidelius Yo
- Eastern
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14357
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 1:46pm
- Location: 3132
- Been thanked: 1 time
I think the easiest way to describe it is to look at the guy who is "Substituted Off". He cannot go back on once sub'd but the "sub" who replaces him is permitted to be part of the normal rotations from the time he is sub'd on !!
NEW scarf signature (hopefully with correct spelling) will be here as soon as it arrives !!
- SaintPav
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 19072
- Joined: Wed 16 Jun 2010 9:24pm
- Location: Alma Road
- Has thanked: 1599 times
- Been thanked: 2015 times
Once the sub come on, the player who is replaced cannot come back on for the rest of the game. It reduces the bench to three interchange.Quixote wrote:How does it work?
Can a SUB replace another player at any time - or does the replaced player have to be injured? And if the latter, there's surely a whole lot of grey area there.
If the SUB can replace a player at anytime during the game (midway through the 3rd springs to mind), it's going to make for some interesting tactics.
Run a midfielder ragged then bring on another? Same with the ruck, then go mobile?
I actually don't mind the rule, ATM - but will reserve judgement until I've seen what happens and, for now, re-iterate - STOP f****** AROUND WITH THE GAME, Ok? I mean really - what has Adrian Anderson ever actually known about FOOTBALL?
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4432
- Joined: Sun 25 May 2008 5:39pm
- barks4eva
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 10748
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 12:39pm
- Has thanked: 190 times
- Been thanked: 92 times
Agree!3rd generation saint wrote:I think this rule will as popular with the coaches as a bad injury to a star player.
Personally I think it is a BS rule made by players who have had their day but just can't stop interferring with a game that has passed them by.
Just wish those morons would just leave the friggin game alone and let it evolve naturally.
The new rule is sheer stupidity!
How easy is it if they're concerned about the number of interchanges?
Just fricken cap them!
Same should be done to Demetriou and Anderson!
Absolute assclowns!
DO THE MATHS AND THE SQUARES ARE ALL ROOTED.
- kosifantutti23
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri 26 Sep 2008 12:55am
- Location: Horgen
Who gives a stuff what the coaches think? The game belongs to the fans. The coaches have their own agendas.3rd generation saint wrote:I think this rule will as popular with the coaches as a bad injury to a star player.
Personally I think it is a BS rule made by players who have had their day but just can't stop interferring with a game that has passed them by.
Just wish those morons would just leave the friggin game alone and let it evolve naturally.
Do you think the game "evolved naturally" to give us four interchange players or were there rule changes that did it?
I would have preferred an interchange cap, like four per quarter, but it will be interesting to see what impact the sub has on the game.
Furtius Quo Rdelious
- Enrico_Misso
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11662
- Joined: Tue 13 Jun 2006 12:11am
- Location: Moorabbin Chapter of The Royal Society of Hagiographers
- Has thanked: 315 times
- Been thanked: 720 times
If they seriously want to slow the game down
- go back to 20 men
ie two on the bench and make them both subs and put an end to this interchange madness.
The best part of that is we would be back to one on ones.
Players would have the same opponent for the whole game.
Whereas at the moment a midfielder might have up to 6 different opponents during a game.
- go back to 20 men
ie two on the bench and make them both subs and put an end to this interchange madness.
The best part of that is we would be back to one on ones.
Players would have the same opponent for the whole game.
Whereas at the moment a midfielder might have up to 6 different opponents during a game.
The rest of Australia can wander mask-free, socialise, eat out, no curfews, no zoning, no police rings of steel, no illogical inconsistent rules.
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
They can even WATCH LIVE FOOTY!
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 25303
- Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005 4:25pm
- Location: Trump Tower
- Has thanked: 142 times
- Been thanked: 284 times
The problem with the sub is that if you wait too long to sub off a player, you'll tire out the other 21 that are rotating with only 3 on the bench.
Also, if a player gets a injury early, it may be tempting to sub him off.
IF the player somehow unexpectedly recovers to full strength a quarter later, you've blown it and he can't come back on.
So it's gambling/punting during the game.
Bloody tough gig with only 3 on the bench - so if it's a top player injured, the coaches may think we'll try with 2 on the bench if the top player is likely to be back within, say 20 minutes, but much more than that you are almost forced into a sub to keep up your 3 rotations.
Basically, the rule is farked.
Why can't they have 4 interchanges and a sub instead?
That would be sensible.......
Also, if a player gets a injury early, it may be tempting to sub him off.
IF the player somehow unexpectedly recovers to full strength a quarter later, you've blown it and he can't come back on.
So it's gambling/punting during the game.
Bloody tough gig with only 3 on the bench - so if it's a top player injured, the coaches may think we'll try with 2 on the bench if the top player is likely to be back within, say 20 minutes, but much more than that you are almost forced into a sub to keep up your 3 rotations.
Basically, the rule is farked.
Why can't they have 4 interchanges and a sub instead?
That would be sensible.......
i am Melbourne Skies - sometimes Blue Skies, Grey Skies, even Partly Cloudy Skies.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Fri 29 Oct 2004 1:01pm
- Has thanked: 91 times
- Been thanked: 162 times
I don't think it will affect the game that much. It's most likely going to kill off the second ruckman, which was a bit of an endangered species to start with. Teams will look at it as three midfield rotations and will rotate a Kosi/Hawkins type through the ruck. I think it highly unlikely that teams carry a tall on the bench for 50% of the game now.
Rotations will drop, thanks to a person not being on the bench, and the AFL will claim victory. They'll probably pull out an equally dubious stat about a decrease in injuries next year. I'd really like to see this data linking injuries to rotations. From what Eade and others have been saying, it sounds like they've been searching for numbers to suit what they wanted to do anyway.
I'm not sure where the AFLPA is on this one either. Surely pulling a player out of the lineup isn't going to be a good thing for them. It will be interesting to see how regularly the sub is used. If it's infrequent then it could really impact careers. I think the talls are already feeling the heat. Guys like McEvoy, who lack mobility, have got to be wondering if the AFL is out to get them.
Rotations will drop, thanks to a person not being on the bench, and the AFL will claim victory. They'll probably pull out an equally dubious stat about a decrease in injuries next year. I'd really like to see this data linking injuries to rotations. From what Eade and others have been saying, it sounds like they've been searching for numbers to suit what they wanted to do anyway.
I'm not sure where the AFLPA is on this one either. Surely pulling a player out of the lineup isn't going to be a good thing for them. It will be interesting to see how regularly the sub is used. If it's infrequent then it could really impact careers. I think the talls are already feeling the heat. Guys like McEvoy, who lack mobility, have got to be wondering if the AFL is out to get them.
Yeah nah pleasing positive
I think it being used infrequently is out of the question. Teams will use the advantage of fresh legs every time surely?vacuous space wrote:I don't think it will affect the game that much. It's most likely going to kill off the second ruckman, which was a bit of an endangered species to start with. Teams will look at it as three midfield rotations and will rotate a Kosi/Hawkins type through the ruck. I think it highly unlikely that teams carry a tall on the bench for 50% of the game now.
Rotations will drop, thanks to a person not being on the bench, and the AFL will claim victory. They'll probably pull out an equally dubious stat about a decrease in injuries next year. I'd really like to see this data linking injuries to rotations. From what Eade and others have been saying, it sounds like they've been searching for numbers to suit what they wanted to do anyway.
I'm not sure where the AFLPA is on this one either. Surely pulling a player out of the lineup isn't going to be a good thing for them. It will be interesting to see how regularly the sub is used. If it's infrequent then it could really impact careers. I think the talls are already feeling the heat. Guys like McEvoy, who lack mobility, have got to be wondering if the AFL is out to get them.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Fri 29 Oct 2004 1:01pm
- Has thanked: 91 times
- Been thanked: 162 times
I'm not sure it's an advantage to get a lesser player on the field, fresh or not. Ideally, you're going to be taking your best 21 into the game. Fresh legs may be an advantage in a tough game late, but unless you're trowing the guy into the middle, I'm not sure how much impact fresh legs will have. Surely you're not going to be throwing a lesser player into an important spot in the dying stages of a critical game.#1GILL wrote:I think it being used infrequently is out of the question. Teams will use the advantage of fresh legs every time surely?
IMO the tactical advantages will be limited and the sub will be nothing more than a novelty. My guess is it will seldom be used for it's intended purpose and it will have minimal impact on the most important part of the rotations.
Yeah nah pleasing positive
- mad saint guy
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7077
- Joined: Tue 26 Jul 2005 9:44pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 52 times
- Been thanked: 366 times
Stupid, crappy pointless rule that has been brought in for the sake of change. It just means developing/backup ruckmen will have a much harder time getting a game, older players will probably expire sooner if they can't rotate as often and kids breaking into the side (as a sub) might only get 25-30 minutes of TOG instead of 40-50.
I can see Geary, Armo and Clarke being our regular sub contenders for a good part of the year. Likely to come on with 10 mins to go in the third quarter. This rule is bad news for Ben McEvoy; he's not strong or experienced enough to be the number one ruckman and he's not mobile enough to play enough as a forward to justify his selection at the expense of another runner. I can see Kosi being our regular backup ruck with Gilbert/Goddard swinging forward to cover for him.
I can see Geary, Armo and Clarke being our regular sub contenders for a good part of the year. Likely to come on with 10 mins to go in the third quarter. This rule is bad news for Ben McEvoy; he's not strong or experienced enough to be the number one ruckman and he's not mobile enough to play enough as a forward to justify his selection at the expense of another runner. I can see Kosi being our regular backup ruck with Gilbert/Goddard swinging forward to cover for him.