Cap on interchange

[lefty]

I'd prefer back to having 4 on the bench, and a cap of 30 per quarter (120).
There should also be a SUB, which can ONLY be activated for a serious injury, not for rest etc.

I absolutely HATE the sub rule, it does nothing good for developing kids when they get 1 quarter of game time.

edit - ignore, didn't realize I posted the same thing months ago :S

[plugger66]

I'd prefer back to having 4 on the bench, and a cap of 30 per quarter (120).
There should also be a SUB, which can ONLY be activated for a serious injury, not for rest etc.

I absolutely HATE the sub rule, it does nothing good for developing kids when they get 1 quarter of game time.

But you are still having a sub that way. I would have had 80 interchanges maximum in a game and 2 subs but we all want different things. Slow the game down and stop 30 on the ball.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

honestly i hate the whole sub rule , interchange cap and interchange gates .. it’s a load of nuff .. the sub sits on his butt all game to come on in the third qtr for what advantage to the viewers ? for what advantage to the player ? it’s pointless ..

interchange cap means that on top of everything else that is going on in the coaches box someone has to keep tally of the changes we have left in the game ... where is the advantage to the viewers ? where do the players benefit from this ? how will this reduce the injuries and improve the game ? all it will do is make for the players to slow down as they run out of puff quicker coaches will then try and slow the game down to conserve energy at time during the game therefore making it less of a game ...

and the interchange gates how some one can say having your toe over a line is such a bad offense it will cost a goal is beyond me ... how does a player coming in from the side of the interchange gate disadvantage the opposition ? it’s a knee jerk reaction to an issue that happened once in a game where the swans had one player too many on the field ... stupid rule overly harsh penalty and does nothing to enhance the game ...

to me the rule committee should ask the question of how will this rule improve the game for the viewer and the players ... if it doesn’t then it’s an unnecessary rule

[plugger66]

honestly i hate the whole sub rule , interchange cap and interchange gates .. it’s a load of nuff .. the sub sits on his butt all game to come on in the third qtr for what advantage to the viewers ? for what advantage to the player ? it’s pointless ..

interchange cap means that on top of everything else that is going on in the coaches box someone has to keep tally of the changes we have left in the game ... where is the advantage to the viewers ? where do the players benefit from this ? how will this reduce the injuries and improve the game ? all it will do is make for the players to slow down as they run out of puff quicker coaches will then try and slow the game down to conserve energy at time during the game therefore making it less of a game ...

and the interchange gates how some one can say having your toe over a line is such a bad offense it will cost a goal is beyond me ... how does a player coming in from the side of the interchange gate disadvantage the opposition ? it’s a knee jerk reaction to an issue that happened once in a game where the swans had one player too many on the field ... stupid rule overly harsh penalty and does nothing to enhance the game ...

to me the rule committee should ask the question of how will this rule improve the game for the viewer and the players ... if it doesn’t then it’s an unnecessary rule

133 wont improve the game but many less would. It would stop coaching having so many players running all over the ground. The sub rule also means a side getting an injury still has as many players to interchange. it only changes after 2 injuries.

And a toe over the line when kicking out forces the ball all the way back to the goal square. In the 100 metres at the Olympics it costs you a chane to run.

[Gershwin]

The only problem with saying that is the amount rotations is the same as the average this year so I fail to understand why he has to change at all apart from Dal going but that has nothing to do with the numbers.[/quote]
Not understanding you plugger66.
"No team in the competition averaged fewer than 120 interchanges during 2013."
We will have to reduce our interchanges. Our high interchange players such as Steven and Armitage may have to stay on the ground longer.[/quote]


The AFL average was 134 and you can now have a maximum of 133 so there is bugger difference.[/quote]
So it is important where we were against the average. Do you know that oh mighty one?

[plugger66]

The only problem with saying that is the amount rotations is the same as the average this year so I fail to understand why he has to change at all apart from Dal going but that has nothing to do with the numbers.

Not understanding you plugger66.
"No team in the competition averaged fewer than 120 interchanges during 2013."
We will have to reduce our interchanges. Our high interchange players such as Steven and Armitage may have to stay on the ground longer.[/quote]


The AFL average was 134 and you can now have a maximum of 133 so there is bugger difference.[/quote]
So it is important where we were against the average. Do you know that oh mighty one?[/quote]


Strange reaction for just pointing out some facts. No idea what our average was. Couldnt give a stuff to be honest. We now have a different coach and players from this season. The point is the average is the same as the new cap.

[st_Trav_ofWA]

honestly i hate the whole sub rule , interchange cap and interchange gates .. it’s a load of nuff .. the sub sits on his butt all game to come on in the third qtr for what advantage to the viewers ? for what advantage to the player ? it’s pointless ..

interchange cap means that on top of everything else that is going on in the coaches box someone has to keep tally of the changes we have left in the game ... where is the advantage to the viewers ? where do the players benefit from this ? how will this reduce the injuries and improve the game ? all it will do is make for the players to slow down as they run out of puff quicker coaches will then try and slow the game down to conserve energy at time during the game therefore making it less of a game ...

and the interchange gates how some one can say having your toe over a line is such a bad offense it will cost a goal is beyond me ... how does a player coming in from the side of the interchange gate disadvantage the opposition ? it’s a knee jerk reaction to an issue that happened once in a game where the swans had one player too many on the field ... stupid rule overly harsh penalty and does nothing to enhance the game ...

to me the rule committee should ask the question of how will this rule improve the game for the viewer and the players ... if it doesn’t then it’s an unnecessary rule

133 wont improve the game but many less would. It would stop coaching having so many players running all over the ground. The sub rule also means a side getting an injury still has as many players to interchange. it only changes after 2 injuries.

And a toe over the line when kicking out forces the ball all the way back to the goal square. In the 100 metres at the Olympics it costs you a chane to run.

personally , i like seeing the players running at full flight chasing the ball , i love the speed of the game the running all over the ground making every posession a contest is what excites .. having blokes slowing down cause they havent had the rest will cause teams to play the chip chip type footy more as they try to regroup ....

the toe on the line in the 100m sprint is justified because one millisecond is a huge differance in the result , someone going through the interchange gate over going around it makes no differance to the result , as for kicking in i dont get why players gt so close to the line to start with but again i see it adding no value the umps looking at that when they could be looking at the rest of the game ...

[Sainternist]

Wonderful. Yet another idiosyncrasy to make the game even more confusing to the outsider.

[lefty]

133 wont improve the game but many less would. It would stop coaching having so many players running all over the ground. The sub rule also means a side getting an injury still has as many players to interchange. it only changes after 2 injuries.

And a toe over the line when kicking out forces the ball all the way back to the goal square. In the 100 metres at the Olympics it costs you a chane to run.

I have no issues with reducing the rotations what so ever. Bring it down to 20 a quarter, I couldn't care.

The issue I have is with the stupid sub rule and 3 players on the bench. The game isn't soccer.

Injuries are part of the game. Everyone remembers those games you won with only 18 players etc. Injuries are part of the game, just get on and deal with it, so what if you down two players in the second quarter, get on and deal with it.

I see no point with "substitute" players getting 20 minutes of game time. How that is good for the fan or player is ridiculous, especially when we are in a rebuild phase where our young players need game time, yet support from the older blokes.

I'll only stand for a substitute if its only to replace an injured player, never to simply "rest" a player and get some fresh legs on the park, hence I'd rather 4 on the bench, and 1 sub for injury only. Also, to ensure no faking of an injury, the player subbed cannot play the following week to ensure no rubbish tactics.

[Zed]

interesting discussion is the interchange cap and sub rule.

Personally I think having a mix of interchange and sub is not a great look for our game. All bench players should be interchangeable or all bench players should be subs (like soccer).

I thought the whole reason the sub was brought in was to slow the game down - which seems to have had minimal impact. If you really want to slow the game down, then increase it to 6 subs and have no interchange. Not only does it mean the competitions better players stay on the ground longer , its also means the Ross Lyon style manic defensive game plan becomes much harder to maintain in the 4th quarter thus opening up the game. Clubs will argue it opens players up to more fatigue induced injury so will never happen, but I would like to see it employed for just 1 season.

[plugger66]

honestly i hate the whole sub rule , interchange cap and interchange gates .. it’s a load of nuff .. the sub sits on his butt all game to come on in the third qtr for what advantage to the viewers ? for what advantage to the player ? it’s pointless ..

interchange cap means that on top of everything else that is going on in the coaches box someone has to keep tally of the changes we have left in the game ... where is the advantage to the viewers ? where do the players benefit from this ? how will this reduce the injuries and improve the game ? all it will do is make for the players to slow down as they run out of puff quicker coaches will then try and slow the game down to conserve energy at time during the game therefore making it less of a game ...

and the interchange gates how some one can say having your toe over a line is such a bad offense it will cost a goal is beyond me ... how does a player coming in from the side of the interchange gate disadvantage the opposition ? it’s a knee jerk reaction to an issue that happened once in a game where the swans had one player too many on the field ... stupid rule overly harsh penalty and does nothing to enhance the game ...

to me the rule committee should ask the question of how will this rule improve the game for the viewer and the players ... if it doesn’t then it’s an unnecessary rule

133 wont improve the game but many less would. It would stop coaching having so many players running all over the ground. The sub rule also means a side getting an injury still has as many players to interchange. it only changes after 2 injuries.

And a toe over the line when kicking out forces the ball all the way back to the goal square. In the 100 metres at the Olympics it costs you a chane to run.

personally , i like seeing the players running at full flight chasing the ball , i love the speed of the game the running all over the ground making every posession a contest is what excites .. having blokes slowing down cause they havent had the rest will cause teams to play the chip chip type footy more as they try to regroup ....

the toe on the line in the 100m sprint is justified because one millisecond is a huge differance in the result , someone going through the interchange gate over going around it makes no differance to the result , as for kicking in i dont get why players gt so close to the line to start with but again i see it adding no value the umps looking at that when they could be looking at the rest of the game ...

You also get disqualified in the 1500 metres with the toe over the line. And what about the kickout from FB. Hardly going to change the game if his toe goes over but has been a ball up for many years. As for the game being fast, I love that as well but im unsure I love packs around the ball and thats where I really see the game improving if there are less interchange. Should also lead to more scoring and the return of the big goalkicker because not as many players will get back to cover the forwards.

[BringBackMadDog]

Plugger, the 133 average is only those that occurred during game time NOT at breaks. So clubs will have to reduce their rotations

[Jacks Back]

Looks like Steven and Armitage will be most affected. Expect both could meet the challenge and stay on the ground for longer periods.

"St Kilda

TOP THREE: Jack Steven (2013 season: 238 times, average 10.8 per game), David Armitage (211, 10), Leigh Montagna (171, 8.1)

WHAT THE CAP MEANS FOR… JACK STEVEN: Steven played more than 100 minutes only once in 2013 (against Greater Western Sydney in round three), compared to Nick Dal Santo, who passed the mark 13 times. The challenge for Steven is clear – stay on the park longer and influence the game even more. With Dal Santo gone, Steven will have increased responsibility, and the club champion would presumably have been expected to lift his minutes regardless of his teammate's departure. At 23, he is entering his prime and should be capable of tweaking his rotations to suit the new cap."

As long as he's not twerking then I'm happy!

[bigcarl]

Hey Plugs, how are they going to police this? It seems an overly complicated way to reduce rotations. Why not just reduce the bench to two and a sub.

[kalsaint]

Official. Its 120 plus extras.[/quote]

Extras???[/quote]


3 at the start of each quarter, one when the sub goes on and then if you want to do 3 late in the game you can as long as those 3 dont come back on. Well that last bit was allowed this season so i think it would next season.[/quote]


Good grief. Again the AFL complicate things and I wait for stuff ups on the interchange line again as this gets mismanaged at some stage. When are they going to stick to something easily manageable within a fast checking game?

I can just see more goals resulting from interchange plays as teams get the hang of this. Why not make the game more simple and accountable rather than opportunistic?

[dragit]

It would be pretty simple to do via the gps units that each player wears now.

Each time a player crossed the interchange gate it could trigger an interchange tally clock which the stewards could watch…

[Jacks Back]

It would be pretty simple to do via the gps units that each player wears now.

Each time a player crossed the interchange gate it could trigger an interchange tally clock which the stewards could watch…

Like an e-tag? Even more money for the AFL coffers.

[dragit]

It would be pretty simple to do via the gps units that each player wears now.

Each time a player crossed the interchange gate it could trigger an interchange tally clock which the stewards could watch…

Like an e-tag? Even more money for the AFL coffers.

charge each player for interchanges

[Moorabbin Man]

If it played a role in Lenny's decision to go around again, then I'm all for it.
Still think harves retired a year early - could have managed him through the season and had him firing fit and keen for the final. would've been nice to see him break 400 games as well.

...and I think we would have grabbed the 2009 Premiership as well.