new sub rule and the bench

[Solar]

What is everyone's view on how the sub rule will be used by clubs and especially the saints?

Personally I like the idea of a stanley playing as a super sub. We can therefore either sub him with a ruckman, forward or send a forward down back. We could also move one of schneids or milne into the middle if we have a mid go down injured.

Will teams use a ruckman, midfielder ? Utility?

When would you look at subbing a player. Wait until an injury or risk it during say the third quarter to freshen up your bench?

[#1GILL]

Teams will use a utility I think.

I would think Blake is odds on to be our most regular sub.

He's getting on in age, and he can come on in the second half and replace any player just about.

[#1GILL]

In games where we are clearly winning at half time I wouldn't be surprised to see players like Lenny subbed off either.

[Gershwin]

Blake is too good a player to sit on the bench. He is an important part of the defence and should play all game.
I think Raph Clarke might get the sub role. Whoever goes off injured the team could be rejigged with Raph slotted in either down back, midfield or forward. If it was a ruck then Blake could help ruck and Raph to the backline.
If winning save the sub, if losing might have to bring him on to turn things around and hope you don't get an injury.

[super dooper]

I believe that most teams will simply pick their best 22.

The weakest link of the 22 should be the sub. pretty simple

[hAyES]

I think with the lack of interchanges available teams will bring in a fresh midfielder off the bench to run and run.

[saintsRrising]

I think with the lack of interchanges available teams will bring in a fresh midfielder off the bench to run and run.

This...



Teams will still run their mids-ragged...but now they will run one extra ragged for the first 3 quarters and sub in the fully thresh mid for him if no injuries.

If someone is having a real dog of a game, then they may be sub.

They look for a mid who is versatile...but I would expect it to be an extra mid.

[plugger66]

I think with the lack of interchanges available teams will bring in a fresh midfielder off the bench to run and run.

This...



Teams will still run their mids-ragged...but now they will run one extra ragged for the first 3 quarters and sub in the fully thresh mid for him if no injuries.

If someone is having a real dog of a game, then they may be sub.

They look for a mid who is versatile...but I would expect it to be an extra mid.

We may have an extra mid as the sub but I doubt it will be for a mid replacement. IMO it is more likely a tall will be replaced by a mid about half way through the third term. I still think a Blake type will be sub more than most.

[#1GILL]

I think with the lack of interchanges available teams will bring in a fresh midfielder off the bench to run and run.

This...



Teams will still run their mids-ragged...but now they will run one extra ragged for the first 3 quarters and sub in the fully thresh mid for him if no injuries.

If someone is having a real dog of a game, then they may be sub.

They look for a mid who is versatile...but I would expect it to be an extra mid.

We may have an extra mid as the sub but I doubt it will be for a mid replacement. IMO it is more likely a tall will be replaced by a mid about half way through the third term. I still think a Blake type will be sub more than most.

+1

[3rd generation saint]

This rule has the potential to hurt the filth, they we're the ones with the most interchanges for their midfield.
Personally, I think it was a stupid knee jerk reaction by the AFL, for years they we're looking at ways to speed the game up, now they want to slow the game down.
As a supporter, geez I wish they would just leave the damn game alone.

[hAyES]

This rule has the potential to hurt the filth, they we're the ones with the most interchanges for their midfield.
Personally, I think it was a stupid knee jerk reaction by the AFL, for years they we're looking at ways to speed the game up, now they want to slow the game down.
As a supporter, geez I wish they would just leave the damn game alone.

Couldn't agree more. It's one thing to limit the number of interchanges but WTF is this sub rubbish? Classic knee-jerk AFL.

[stinger]

This rule has the potential to hurt the filth, they we're the ones with the most interchanges for their midfield.
Personally, I think it was a stupid knee jerk reaction by the AFL, for years they we're looking at ways to speed the game up, now they want to slow the game down.
As a supporter, geez I wish they would just leave the damn game alone.

Couldn't agree more. It's one thing to limit the number of interchanges but WTF is this sub rubbish? Classic knee-jerk AFL.

plus 1

[I Love Peter Kiel]

3rd gen saint, you've touched on something there.

Personally I think that the AFL doesn't want 'dynasties" i.e. a run of multiple Premierships. So every year for the last few they've changed the rules to make that difficult.

After the Hawks' 08 Flag there were 2 "anti-Hawthorn rules":
1. free kick for deliberate behind (they had rushed 11 in the GF)
2. 'transferred 50m, i.e. if you fell the guy who's just handballed it to a kicker (which Hawthorn did all the time to stop flow-on play), the kicking team is awarded 50m.
Hawthorn missed the Finals in '09.


After Geelong's '09 Flag (yes I still hate mentioning it) the "anti-Geelontg rule was effectively "let's get Ablett to the Gold Coast...even though he won't go until 2011 it will weaken the club".
Amazingly Geelong still made the Prelim in 2010 but many people think by then coach Thompson was a little 'off his game" after all the persistent rumours. Were there internal divisions in the club? Certainly the result was an upset...flogged by Collingwood.

After Collingwood's 2010 Flag (yes, hate to mention it too) the AFL has seen how Malthouse took the interchange bench to its ultimate extent and so have changed it from 4 interchange players to 3 plus a sub.
This is effectively the "anti-Collingwood rule".

[#1GILL]

3rd gen saint, you've touched on something there.

Personally I think that the AFL doesn't want 'dynasties" i.e. a run of multiple Premierships. So every year for the last few they've changed the rules to make that difficult.

After the Hawks' 08 Flag there were 2 "anti-Hawthorn rules":
1. free kick for deliberate behind (they had rushed 11 in the GF)
2. 'transferred 50m, i.e. if you fell the guy who's just handballed it to a kicker (which Hawthorn did all the time to stop flow-on play), the kicking team is awarded 50m.
Hawthorn missed the Finals in '09.


After Geelong's '09 Flag (yes I still hate mentioning it) the "anti-Geelontg rule was effectively "let's get Ablett to the Gold Coast...even though he won't go until 2011 it will weaken the club".
Amazingly Geelong still made the Prelim in 2010 but many people think by then coach Thompson was a little 'off his game" after all the persistent rumours. Were there internal divisions in the club? Certainly the result was an upset...flogged by Collingwood.

After Collingwood's 2010 Flag (yes, hate to mention it too) the AFL has seen how Malthouse took the interchange bench to its ultimate extent and so have changed it from 4 interchange players to 3 plus a sub.
This is effectively the "anti-Collingwood rule".

Biggest load of s*** I've ever read on this forum, and that's saying something!

[I Love Peter Kiel]

Gill, very eloquently put!

It's funny that you choose to single me out for abuse.

Are you a troll?
Have anything to back up your statement or do you just like abusing people?

[#1GILL]

Your entire post was based around a conspiracy theory that the AFL try to put an end to any potential upcoming dynasty's and the reasoning you used was just ridiculous.

The 'rushed behind' rule was brought in to put an end to teams copying the loophole teams started to cash in on during the 08 season. IIRC Joel Bowden was the first player to do this in the dying stages of a game when Richmond were infront, Hawthorn then took this tactic and used it to their own advantage in the GF. The AFL wanted to make sure that close, exciting games remained exactly that, close and exciting! So they made changes to the game to prevent this tactic.

The rule you provided for the AFL to stop the Geelong dynasty wasn't even a change in rule, even though you stated that the AFL likes to tweak the rules each year to make it tougher for the premiers. Incase it escaped your notice, Geelong were the best team in 07 and 08 despite missing out on the 08 flag. They were already well and truely into their 'dynasty'.

And now you claim that the AFL has brought in this new sub rule to limit Collingwood, even though it was being discussed LONG before Collingwood had won the flag, back when many still doubted that they had the ability to win the flag. If we jag an extra goal in GF1 do you still claim the interchange rule is to stop us from entering a 'dynasty'?

So there's a bunch of reasons, pick one!

[I Love Peter Kiel]

All true...perhaps.

Nevertheless, the rule changes had the desired effect. It doesn't matter that Richmond STARTED the clever abuse of the rushed behind. They were never going to make a Grand Final. Hawthorn used it and kind of spoilt the spectacle of the Grand Final. I don't begrudge them doing it. I wouldn't care if the Saints led by 4 goals at 3/4 time of the GF, then spent 30 minutes kicking the ball backwards playing keepings off and got booed off the ground! Would you?

Also if you think that Demetriou and the powers of the AFL had nothing to do with Ablett going to the GC then...I'm glad you are not a cynical person.

One of the coaches who started the extreme rotation of the midfield was Grant Thomas. It doesn't matter that he did...he is forgotten. Malthouse has taken it to ridiculous levels and obviously the AFL is worried about injuries from things like players having to warm up and warm down constantly during a game.

So, taking away the tactic which is often the one which the Premier team has used is effectively the same as penalising the Premiership team.

[plugger66]

All true...perhaps.

Nevertheless, the rule changes had the desired effect. It doesn't matter that Richmond STARTED the clever abuse of the rushed behind. They were never going to make a Grand Final. Hawthorn used it and kind of spoilt the spectacle of the Grand Final. I don't begrudge them doing it. I wouldn't care if the Saints led by 4 goals at 3/4 time of the GF, then spent 30 minutes kicking the ball backwards playing keepings off and got booed off the ground! Would you?

Also if you think that Demetriou and the powers of the AFL had nothing to do with Ablett going to the GC then...I'm glad you are not a cynical person.

One of the coaches who started the extreme rotation of the midfield was Grant Thomas. It doesn't matter that he did...he is forgotten. Malthouse has taken it to ridiculous levels and obviously the AFL is worried about injuries from things like players having to warm up and warm down constantly during a game.

So, taking away the tactic which is often the one which the Premier team has used is effectively the same as penalising the Premiership team.

Hilarious.

[Wrote for Luck]

All true...perhaps.

Nevertheless, the rule changes had the desired effect. It doesn't matter that Richmond STARTED the clever abuse of the rushed behind. They were never going to make a Grand Final. Hawthorn used it and kind of spoilt the spectacle of the Grand Final. I don't begrudge them doing it. I wouldn't care if the Saints led by 4 goals at 3/4 time of the GF, then spent 30 minutes kicking the ball backwards playing keepings off and got booed off the ground! Would you?

Also if you think that Demetriou and the powers of the AFL had nothing to do with Ablett going to the GC then...I'm glad you are not a cynical person.

One of the coaches who started the extreme rotation of the midfield was Grant Thomas. It doesn't matter that he did...he is forgotten. Malthouse has taken it to ridiculous levels and obviously the AFL is worried about injuries from things like players having to warm up and warm down constantly during a game.

So, taking away the tactic which is often the one which the Premier team has used is effectively the same as penalising the Premiership team.

Hilarious.

Very funny. Nowhere near convincing.

[I Love Peter Kiel]

Are you just trying to suck up to the 'boys' club" on this forum?

[#1GILL]

Are you just trying to suck up to the 'boys' club" on this forum?

Hahahahaha, if there's a boys club on here, I'm definetly not in it and Plugger certainly isn't haha.

[I Love Peter Kiel]

Actually, I meant millarsaint

[#1GILL]

Actually, I meant millarsaint

I know, but you could have only meant he was trying to suck up to Plugger by agreeing with him.

[dcstkfc]

Back to the topic, I think we will see our young mids play there as midfield rotation will be good and teams will treat it as an extra runner that can come on after half-time.

So expect Ali Smith, Armo, Cripps, even Jack Steven to be considered.

Either that or an out and utility that is the contingency for any position- e.g. Dempster, Blake, Raph

[PJ]

I'm really interested to find out where this rule is going. If a team has no injuries will the sub - he who plays in the last quarter (sometime) become the bench warmer until near the end.

If you are picked as sub regularly you could end up playing 1 full match over 1 month. Even worse it could end up being like soccer where they sub in the last 5 minutes of the game.