Five interchange players, please. I can't believe they managed to find a way to backdoor the old sub rule back in after (justifiably) getting rid of it just seven years ago.
Not a massive fan of the interchange caps either, tbh. Have a feeling North fans might agree...
Sub or Extended Bench?
Moderator: bbmods
-
stui magpie
- Posts: 54649
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 71 times
- Been liked: 73 times
-
magpieazza
- Posts: 2305
- Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:27 am
- Location: Griffith N.S.W
Very unfair on Norf last week and it just takes away from the sentiment of the game. Let the players play...dont let red tape dictate the game.
Solution would be to penalise the next weeks interchange amount by a factor of however much it takes to hurt and for every
interchange infraction you make the official on all sides get notified and penalties increase two fold for every interchange extra. ie if you go over
the limit by one you get penalised 10 the next week and then 20 after that etc etc.
I dont care so much for capping the interchanges but there would have to be a limit so its not farcical...probably cap it at 100..
4 and a medical sub is fine seems to work so far
Solution would be to penalise the next weeks interchange amount by a factor of however much it takes to hurt and for every
interchange infraction you make the official on all sides get notified and penalties increase two fold for every interchange extra. ie if you go over
the limit by one you get penalised 10 the next week and then 20 after that etc etc.
I dont care so much for capping the interchanges but there would have to be a limit so its not farcical...probably cap it at 100..
4 and a medical sub is fine seems to work so far
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
-
Charlie Oneeye
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 11:17 pm
- Has liked: 17 times
- Been liked: 14 times
-
Jezza
- Posts: 29176
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:28 pm
- Location: Ponsford End
- Has liked: 128 times
- Been liked: 191 times
Never liked the sub rule. It was first introduced off the back of our high rotation policy under Mick.
The AFL introduced interchange caps thinking it would reduce congestion as players would be too tired to get to every stoppage rather than being fresh because of the constant rotations.
I get the impression Fly is frustrated by it as well. He's needed to have conversations with players such as Ginnivan clearly emphasising they weren't being omitted even if the team changes said so, but rather they were being used as tactical subs. I'm sure the same would apply to WHE today.
The AFL introduced interchange caps thinking it would reduce congestion as players would be too tired to get to every stoppage rather than being fresh because of the constant rotations.
I get the impression Fly is frustrated by it as well. He's needed to have conversations with players such as Ginnivan clearly emphasising they weren't being omitted even if the team changes said so, but rather they were being used as tactical subs. I'm sure the same would apply to WHE today.
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 | 
I didn't like going from a starting team of 22 to 21+1 under the old sub rule because it was a backwards move and you felt as a fan you were being robbed of witnessing one of your players (often young) take to the field each game.
With 22+1 however the +1 feels like a bonus and a good way of managing a veteran or exposing a rookie to senior level.
Importantly it also helps maintain the integrity of why it was introduced in the first place and that's to aid a side who loses a player to injury early in the game.
Make it 5 on the bench then how long before coaches decry how they were disadvantaged due to injuries and want the option of a 24th player as medical substitute?
Reckon the AFL made the correct call with how they've implemented the addition of a 23rd man.
With 22+1 however the +1 feels like a bonus and a good way of managing a veteran or exposing a rookie to senior level.
Importantly it also helps maintain the integrity of why it was introduced in the first place and that's to aid a side who loses a player to injury early in the game.
Make it 5 on the bench then how long before coaches decry how they were disadvantaged due to injuries and want the option of a 24th player as medical substitute?
Reckon the AFL made the correct call with how they've implemented the addition of a 23rd man.
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD!
-
magpieazza
- Posts: 2305
- Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:27 am
- Location: Griffith N.S.W
A real interesting subject.
I felt today the sub rule worked bc Sidey came off early and a sub was used. (WHE ) Meaning that one club wasnt disadvantaged with player fatigue.
However if we had 5 straight interchanges on the bench ( with no sub ) then we would have been slightly penalised with Norf being able to use more fresher legs.
albeit with the same amount of rotations but they could spread the fatigue over one extra player.
Basically thats it!! So on that basis, I can see why the sub rule has been implemented.
Injuries do play a big part in our game and anything that can minimise the disadvantage when a player gets injured makes sense to me.
I felt today the sub rule worked bc Sidey came off early and a sub was used. (WHE ) Meaning that one club wasnt disadvantaged with player fatigue.
However if we had 5 straight interchanges on the bench ( with no sub ) then we would have been slightly penalised with Norf being able to use more fresher legs.
albeit with the same amount of rotations but they could spread the fatigue over one extra player.
Basically thats it!! So on that basis, I can see why the sub rule has been implemented.
Injuries do play a big part in our game and anything that can minimise the disadvantage when a player gets injured makes sense to me.
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.