IDIOTIC INTERCHANGE LIMIT!

[saintspremiers]

What a faarking stupid trial rule this is.

They need to get rid of it ASAP as these are praccy matches and injury prevention is paramount.

[plugger66]

Fantastic idea. Will open the game.

[bobmurray]

What a faarking stupid trial rule this is.

They need to get rid of it ASAP as these are praccy matches and injury prevention is paramount.

Thanks for the heads up Mick

[SainterK]

Why are you yelling?

[kosifantutti]

Did it cause Stanley's injury?

[fingers]

Swan had 22 in the last quarter according to the muppets on Fox.....no penalty??

[vergs]

Absolutely ridiculous rule which guarantees that it will be enforced in the 2014 home and away season.

[plugger66]

Absolutely ridiculous rule which guarantees that it will be enforced in the 2014 home and away season.

Funny but the last quarter was clearly the best to watch for the game. Great rule and hope it comes in next year. I dont think it should be 20 a quarter though. 80 for the game is what it should be.

[SainterK]

Hate to say, but I liked that there was a lot more one on one battles, that the game opened up (first quarter had a lot of stoppage, not going anywhere about it) and I wouldn't be opposed to them pegging back the number a little.

I really doubt it had anything to do with Stanley tutti, he has unfortunately been injured quite a lot in his young career

[vergs]

Absolutely ridiculous rule which guarantees that it will be enforced in the 2014 home and away season.

Funny but the last quarter was clearly the best to watch for the game. Great rule and hope it comes in next year. I dont think it should be 20 a quarter though. 80 for the game is what it should be.

I'd suggest there are other factors that were more important in the quality of today's final quarter rather than the newly introduced rule. I think that if the rotation rule gets introduced for the home and away season next year based on the short term data gathered over the pre-season competition then there will be issues, especially later on in the year. In my opinion the injury rate would increase rather than decrease as a result.

[plugger66]

Absolutely ridiculous rule which guarantees that it will be enforced in the 2014 home and away season.

Funny but the last quarter was clearly the best to watch for the game. Great rule and hope it comes in next year. I dont think it should be 20 a quarter though. 80 for the game is what it should be.

I'd suggest there are other factors that were more important in the quality of today's final quarter rather than the newly introduced rule. I think that if the rotation rule gets introduced for the home and away season next year based on the short term data gathered over the pre-season competition then there will be issues, especially later on in the year. In my opinion the injury rate would increase rather than decrease as a result.

Well there is no data to suggest either way and you must think every AFL club has poor doctors. And SK why do you hate to say it opened up the game. Is it because you may be agreeing with me or the AFL may have got something right?

[SainterK]

Agreeing with you, loathe it...

[plugger66]

Agreeing with you, loathe it...

Fair enough. My ex felt the same and so does my daughter

[vergs]

Well there is no data to suggest either way and you must think every AFL club has poor doctors. And SK why do you hate to say it opened up the game. Is it because you may be agreeing with me or the AFL may have got something right?

I think the AFL are being very creative with their statistics if they believe the rule will reduce injury rates, which is one of the main reasons behind it's proposal. It may well open the game up due to the resultant fatigue of players and decreased speed of movement, and while this could lessen collision injuries I believe it will increase soft tissue injuries. The AFL will effectively be robbing Peter to pay Paul in that regard. Clubs will then begin to rest players from whole games even more to keep them fresher because their load cannot be managed as well within a match. If the best players are rested more then I can't see the spectacle of the game improving. I'm just not sure why the sport needs to be tampered with every year. Sometimes it's as if the Laws of the Game Committee come up with these new rules merely to justify their own existence.

[plugger66]

Well there is no data to suggest either way and you must think every AFL club has poor doctors. And SK why do you hate to say it opened up the game. Is it because you may be agreeing with me or the AFL may have got something right?

I think the AFL are being very creative with their statistics if they believe the rule will reduce injury rates, which is one of the main reasons behind it's proposal. It may well open the game up due to the resultant fatigue of players and decreased speed of movement, and while this could lessen collision injuries I believe it will increase soft tissue injuries. The AFL will effectively be robbing Peter to pay Paul in that regard. Clubs will then begin to rest players from whole games even more to keep them fresher because their load cannot be managed as well within a match. If the best players are rested more then I can't see the spectacle of the game improving. I'm just not sure why the sport needs to be tampered with every year. Sometimes it's as if the Laws of the Game Committee come up with these new rules merely to justify their own existence.

So do you have any proof? Its your opinion and mine.

[vergs]

So do you have any proof? Its your opinion and mine.

I'm currently doing a thesis on training loads in AFL football and that's my opinion based on the research I've read. I'm no more right or wrong than you or anyone else at this early stage but I don't believe that the introduction of such a rule would result in an overall benefit to the game. For years there have been new rules enforced to speed the game up and yet now the focus is on slowing it down. I'm all for trialling new ideas in the pre-season competition but perhaps the real stuff should be left alone for a while to enable it to evolve naturally and allow for longer term trends to be evaluated.

[plugger66]

So do you have any proof? Its your opinion and mine.

I'm currently doing a thesis on training loads in AFL football and that's my opinion based on the research I've read. I'm no more right or wrong than you or anyone else at this early stage but I don't believe that the introduction of such a rule would result in an overall benefit to the game. For years there have been new rules enforced to speed the game up and yet now the focus is on slowing it down. I'm all for trialling new ideas in the pre-season competition but perhaps the real stuff should be left alone for a while to enable it to evolve naturally and allow for longer term trends to be evaluated.

I dont think any rule was designed to speed up the game, it was designed to be continuous so that players wouldnt always get around the ball. Do people actually realise that the interchange didnt exist 40 years ago and 22 players didnt exist around 10 years ago.

[SainterK]

Do you think we've recruited with the interchange cap in mind in recent times?

We look really good when the game opens up through tiredness, with smalls buzzing around the taller clunkier frames.

We certainly seem to have focused on athletic talls and buzzy smalls.

[kosifantutti]

Does the rule change have to be based on injuries?

Can't it just be because the game is a better spectacle when two players are matched up against each other for more than the 3 minutes and 27 seconds they get to stay on the field at the same time?

I reckon it's a blight on the game having this constant rotation of players. I'd much rather see the interchange used as a tactical tool rather than another part of the game managed by the fitness staff.

[desertsaint]

Make it four subs, no interchange. Cut down the frenetic on ball activity and bring back one on one duels.

[SainterK]

Does the rule change have to be based on injuries?

Can't it just be because the game is a better spectacle when two players are matched up against each other for more than the 3 minutes and 27 seconds they get to stay on the field at the same time?

I reckon it's a blight on the game having this constant rotation of players. I'd much rather see the interchange used as a tactical tool rather than another part of the game managed by the fitness staff.

This.

Not to mention we look good when everyone tires, I think we have recruited well in this regard...whether flukey or otherwise.

[desertsaint]

Do you think we've recruited with the interchange cap in mind in recent times?

We look really good when the game opens up through tiredness, with smalls buzzing around the taller clunkier frames.

We certainly seem to have focused on athletic talls and buzzy smalls.

No more posting for you until you get a new sig.
and it better be something about Lenny and the brownlow!

[saintbrat]

I wonder if Sydney are going on the ' well we have a bigger cap don't we?"

assuming their greater salary cap extends to the interchange cap

[vacuous space]

I'd much rather see the interchange used as a tactical tool rather than another part of the game managed by the fitness staff.

Surely this will put a greater emphasis on the fitness staff and give the sports scientists more power. Every one of those 20 rotations will be carefully micromanaged. Rests through the forward line won't be optional. Who is playing where will be determined more by the fitness staff and less by the coach.

[terry smith rules]

Does the rule change have to be based on injuries?

Can't it just be because the game is a better spectacle when two players are matched up against each other for more than the 3 minutes and 27 seconds they get to stay on the field at the same time?

I reckon it's a blight on the game having this constant rotation of players. I'd much rather see the interchange used as a tactical tool rather than another part of the game managed by the fitness staff.

This.

Not to mention we look good when everyone tires, I think we have recruited well in this regard...whether flukey or otherwise.

agree

the tactical side will be great

imagine 4 minutes to go in a close game, no more interchange left, but you have got stuck with your gamebreaker on the bench, do you give up an almost certain goal penalty to bring them on or finish without them

the fitness thing is rubbish, it is sport, people are suposed to get fatigued