Sub rule gone, capped interchange for 2016

[SemperFidelis]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/a ... jedoi.html

http://www.saints.com.au/news/2015-09-0 ... -abolished

[plugger66]

90 is still a bit to high. 60 to 80 would be the way to go I think. Interested what others think.

[St Chris]

90 is still a bit to high. 60 to 80 would be the way to go I think. Interested what others think.

Agree. But there would be a bit of push back if they jumped that low in one hit, so I'd expect more reductions over the next couple of seasons to get down around the 60 mark.

[mambo2706]

90 is still a bit to high. 60 to 80 would be the way to go I think. Interested what others think.

I thought it should be reduced to 15-20 per quarter so agree with P66

[Armoooo]

Great result for us, I think the Hickey / Longer combo has a lot of potential.

[borderbarry]

I was hoping that the cap was low enough to stop the players running off after kicking a goal. Makes no sense at all to me, and would create 10 - 15 interchanges a game.

[mambo2706]

Great result for us, I think the Hickey / Longer combo has a lot of potential.

Wish I had a much confidence with Billy Longer as a lot of other supporters do.

[plugger66]

Great result for us, I think the Hickey / Longer combo has a lot of potential.

I think this will make 2 ruckmen even less likely. They will be wanting players who can run for over 80% of the game. They wont want one of those interchange spots left for one ruckman.

[Armoooo]

Great result for us, I think the Hickey / Longer combo has a lot of potential.

Wish I had a much confidence with Billy Longer as a lot of other supporters do.

He's the beat we've had in the ruck since Gardiner and while he has a long way to go around the ground he is still pretty young. Hickey has looked ok in the forward line when we've been competitive.

With Longer and Hickey continuing to improve and a stronger list developing around them I think they could be a great combo.

[mambo2706]

Great result for us, I think the Hickey / Longer combo has a lot of potential.

Wish I had a much confidence with Billy Longer as a lot of other supporters do.

He's the beat we've had in the ruck since Gardiner and while he has a long way to go around the ground he is still pretty young. Hickey has looked ok in the forward line when we've been competitive.

With Longer and Hickey continuing to improve and a stronger list developing around them I think they could be a great combo.

Around the ground is what worries me about Longer. He is slow and not a great mark (although like a lot of other players that could be a confidence thing). His ruck work has improved but I still don't think it's fantastic. Would much prefer Hickey if we had to choose between the two. As you said though he is still young and bigger players generally take more time to develop.

I think McEvoy would be the best ruckman we've had since Gardiner (more so around the ground than in the ruck)

[Toy Saint]

90 is still a bit to high. 60 to 80 would be the way to go I think. Interested what others think.

Personally I reckon it's way too high.

The theory is that the greater the rotations = the greater flooding = greater congestion = ugly football

Reduce rotations and players are more likely to stay in their set positions = forward may stay in the forward line

Personally I had no problem with the old 19th & 20th man, and I have no problem with the soccer substitutes.

So my theory is to limit rotations, effectively to 16 per game. My suggestion is to not allow a player to return to the field in the same quarter that he's substituteed. Once the player is off in the quarter, he cannot return.

[prwilkinson]

If it were up to me I'd make it about 40. 90 and 4 interchange.... isn't that pretty much the same as 3 and 120 interchange? I guess it's good for strategy and playing 2 ruckmen etc.

[plugger66]

90 is still a bit to high. 60 to 80 would be the way to go I think. Interested what others think.

Personally I reckon it's way too high.

The theory is that the greater the rotations = the greater flooding = greater congestion = ugly football

Reduce rotations and players are more likely to stay in their set positions = forward may stay in the forward line

Personally I had no problem with the old 19th & 20th man, and I have no problem with the soccer substitutes.

So my theory is to limit rotations, effectively to 16 per game. My suggestion is to not allow a player to return to the field in the same quarter that he's substituteed. Once the player is off in the quarter, he cannot return.

I think we need to start at around this number but just a little lower to see the impact. Coaches have said if it goes to low they will play many players behind the ball and it will be back to the flooding days. We don't flood anymore but we have many players on the ball. Even in our D grade ammos side we play 6 onballers plus the wings. I don't like that but I also don't like flooding. Lets have a look at 90 and if it slightly works then drop it to 60 and if that works even better then drop it lower again.

[saintsRrising]

Great result for us, I think the Hickey / Longer combo has a lot of potential.

I think this will make 2 ruckmen even less likely. They will be wanting players who can run for over 80% of the game. They wont want one of those interchange spots left for one ruckman.

While I do not know if it makes it more likely for 2 ruckmen to be picked, I cannot see how it makes it less likely.


In either case I am still nota fan of ruckmen who can mainly only ruck, and that is why at present I prefer Hickey over Longer/Holmes

[Toy Saint]

90 is still a bit to high. 60 to 80 would be the way to go I think. Interested what others think.

Personally I reckon it's way too high.

The theory is that the greater the rotations = the greater flooding = greater congestion = ugly football

Reduce rotations and players are more likely to stay in their set positions = forward may stay in the forward line

Personally I had no problem with the old 19th & 20th man, and I have no problem with the soccer substitutes.

So my theory is to limit rotations, effectively to 16 per game. My suggestion is to not allow a player to return to the field in the same quarter that he's substituteed. Once the player is off in the quarter, he cannot return.

I think we need to start at around this number but just a little lower to see the impact. Coaches have said if it goes to low they will play many players behind the ball and it will be back to the flooding days. We don't flood anymore but we have many players on the ball. Even in our D grade ammos side we play 6 onballers plus the wings. I don't like that but I also don't like flooding. Lets have a look at 90 and if it slightly works then drop it to 60 and if that works even better then drop it lower again.

I'll accept the fact that we need to start somewhere and to see the impact. Can't quite remember when we moved away from 19th & 20th man, my guess is about 40 years. In that time there has been a lot of 'cause and effect', and I don't particurarily enjoy the effect.

There is an arguement to suggest that it may have taken coaches 15-20 years to realise they could 'exploit' the interchange rule (and effectivelt cause ugly congestion). So it's important that we don't make too many changes too quickly - else we may change the game that I once considered the best game on the plannet.

Ultimately we need to settle the rules, and not change them. I'm embarrased to admit that I umpired football for a few years in the early 1980's, and I've been a regular at Saints games since then.....but sadly, I don't know the rules anymore. It's not just embarrasing, but it reduces my level of engagement. The majotity of the worlds great sports like soccer and baseball hardly ever change the rules.

[plugger66]

Great result for us, I think the Hickey / Longer combo has a lot of potential.

I think this will make 2 ruckmen even less likely. They will be wanting players who can run for over 80% of the game. They wont want one of those interchange spots left for one ruckman.

While I do not know if it makes it more likely for 2 ruckmen to be picked, I cannot see how it makes it less likely.


In either case I am still nota fan of ruckmen who can mainly only ruck, and that is why at present I prefer Hickey over Longer/Holmes

Its less likely IMO because they can now only rotate 90 times. Coaches will still want players to rest but there will be more emphasis on players being able to get around the ground more. The downside I see from less interchanges in there will be even less big one dimensional men on the ground unless the game somehow goes back to how it was played 6 or so years ago. I would love that to happen but most coaches work on defence first and attack second.

[magnifisaint]

about time they scrapped the most ridiculous rule ever.

Was demeaning to players

[plugger66]

about time they scrapped the most ridiculous rule ever.

Was demeaning to players

The good thing about it though is if you got an injury it was still equal for both sides. Injuries now will have a bearing on that club. And I suppose it was any different to the old 19th and 29th man. One of our players didn't even get on the ground in the 1966 GF.

[OldGeorgeYoung]

I'm probably wrong but I'm just wondering if there could be an unintended consequence.

What if coaches think that they can get an advantage if they can field a whole team of elite runners that can still flood (with less interchange rest).
Imagine no ruckman, no natural footballers, just a team full of 'atheletes' that can play keepings off as outside runners.

I'm not saying that reducing rotations is a bad thing, its just coaches will alway look for the best way to exploit the system.
This may lead to the next revolution. I heard and interesting 'expert' radio discussion about how Ports downturn this year was due to being unable to mentally 'backup' their gut running style.

[Toy Saint]

I'm probably wrong but I'm just wondering if there could be an unintended consequence.

What if coaches think that they can get an advantage if they can field a whole team of elite runners that can still flood (with less interchange rest).
Imagine no ruckman, no natural footballers, just a team full of 'atheletes' that can play keepings off as outside runners.

I'm not saying that reducing rotations is a bad thing, its just coaches will alway look for the best way to exploit the system.
This may lead to the next revolution. I heard and interesting 'expert' radio discussion about how Ports downturn this year was due to being unable to mentally 'backup' their gut running style.

I reckon the Ross Lyon coached Saints may have struggled to 'backup' their gut running style at the pointy end of a long season.

[Goose is king]

I think the coaches saying a low cap would bring back flooding is bull dust.
The press now is ideally a front on press. You want the ball stuck in your front half.
If the opposition flood back then you lock it in and have your defenders about 60-70 meters out and mark all the hurried kicks out.
The flood is gone

[bergholt]

As far as I can tell this just means you need an extra midfielder in your rotations. Yet another reason that we should be only drafting mids for the next few years.

[Con Gorozidis]

Change of subject, but speaking of rule changes, I am now firmly in the camp that all teams should play each other once in the first 17 rounds and that the Draft order should be the ladder positions at the end of Rd 17. Seems much fairer and reduces the chance of tanking. Not many teams will start tanking in Rd 13.

[matrix]

Sub gone
Good

Stupid rule.