AFL players as one on interchange

[bornadog]

Link (http://www.sportsnewsfirst.com.au/articles/2012/08/29/afl-players-as-one-on-interchange/)

By Kim Hagdorn
29 August 2012 01:03PM EST

A UNITED AFL player front is gearing up to steadfastly reject a proposed further reduction of interchange players.

http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa198/mmsalih/murphy-preview.jpgRobert Murphy (pictured) has spoken out on proposed interchange changes

Players spread around the nation are meeting within their clubs and reporting to their player’s union executive all views on mounting expectation that the league will further modify interchange rules from next year.

AFL Player’s Association executive board member Robert Murphy revealed that players through the 18-team competition are totally united against any change.

The Western Bulldogs veteran expects responses from all clubs later this week, ahead of the final round of home-and-away fixtures over the weekend and some player heading into holiday early next month during the league’s finals series.

Murphy and fellow executive board member Brad Sewell said their union of players has their strongest ever bonds among the 900-plus AFL player group after last year’s highly successful stand-off with league powerbrokers for pay improvements.

Murphy said on his regular Tuesday night segment on Fox Footy’s popular AFL 360 segment that players are ready to repel the league’s push for any adjustment to interchange regulations.

“The adjustment to three and one, was a big one and as far as I can tell we are very united in that another change in such a short period would probably go against what the hopes are for the players,” Murphy said.

“I don’t want any change.

“We’ve met as an executive and as far as I can tell I haven’t spoken to a player or heard of a player, that is for a change to the current.”

Murphy disclosed that all clubs will hold player meetings this week.

Sewell said players are more united on important issues than ever before.

“In the past 12 to 18 months and the CBA negotiations there is a real ground swell amongst the players and we haven’t had that union in the past,” he said.

“Now off the back of that CBA there really is something there.”

Tension between AFL players and league management is mounting with raging speculation through the industry that from next season teams could be forced to operate with just two interchange players and two substitutes.

For the past two seasons AFL games have operated with three interchange and one substitute after moves from the league operations department to attempt to reduce a rapidly spiralling number of rotations in every match.

League advisors claimed at the time of reducing interchange numbers from four to three, with a substitute, that dragging back the number of rotations would assist in slowing down an alarming increase in speed and tempo of games as well as reduce injury prospects.

Another argument from league headquarters in defence of an interchange and rotations reduction was to keep the best players engaged in the action and on grounds longer.

Players, coaches as well as club-based sports science experts roundly reject those claims.

[bornadog]

two years on and having a sub has done nothing to improve AFL football.

[bornadog]

AFL may scrap the sub when they further reduce the interchange rotations. see story here (http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-could-scrap-substitute-rule-20150224-13nrzw.html)

Really the AFL doesn't have a clue how to run the game with all the tinkering.

[comrade]

Piss the sub off once and for all. I hate it with a passion.

Anyone like it?

[Go_Dogs]

Piss the sub off once and for all. I hate it with a passion.

Anyone like it?

I don't know anyone who does. I'm not against a cap, but I'm definitely all for eradicating the sub.

[boydogs]

Piss the sub off once and for all. I hate it with a passion.

Anyone like it?

It's alright, adds another point of interest to the game and reduces the impact of an early game ending injury on the contest

[GVGjr]

Piss the sub off once and for all. I hate it with a passion.

Anyone like it?

I can understand why they tried it but it's time for a rethink. Lower the changes to 90 or 100 and get rid of the sub.

[Remi Moses]

I can understand why they tried it but it's time for a rethink. Lower the changes to 90 or 100 and get rid of the sub.

Agree entirely . The sub is just a waste of time, and just have 4 on the pine and limit the interchange .

[LostDoggy]

It's alright, adds another point of interest to the game and reduces the impact of an early game ending injury on the contest

I'd disagree on that one, all it does is force a team to use their sub early. The other team then has a fit and fresh player to bring on at the optimum time. Now lose the sub, and you've just got one less interchange. The opposition is still advantaged, but not as much as being able to bring on an impact player late in the third.

[bornadog]

I can understand why they tried it but it's time for a rethink. Lower the changes to 90 or 100 and get rid of the sub.

Why have a limit at all?

[Greystache]

I'd disagree on that one, all it does is force a team to use their sub early. The other team then has a fit and fresh player to bring on at the optimum time. Now lose the sub, and you've just got one less interchange. The opposition is still advantaged, but not as much as being able to bring on an impact player late in the third.

I don't think the fresh sub coming on really has a great impact purely because they're fresh. Often the sub can't get into the game for the first 10-15 mins and has no impact. The thing I did like about the sub was we didn't have to hear the losing coach pissing and moaning that being one rotation down early cost them the game, and there should be 5, 7, 10 etc subs to stop teams being at a disadvantage. Coaches like Brad Scott, Malthouse, and Roos use that as their excuse for losing every time and it's pathetic.

[Ozza]

I certainly would support eradicating the sub.

But also think a restricted interchange would be beneficial. Nothing ridiculous, but about 100 might be right.

I have changed my tune on the restricted interchange. As I think it may be one of the ways that the game can avoid looking like it does, where all 36 players find themselves in the one half of the ground many times during the game.

[bornadog]

I certainly would support eradicating the sub.

But also think a restricted interchange would be beneficial. Nothing ridiculous, but about 100 might be right.

I have changed my tune on the restricted interchange. As I think it may be one of the ways that the game can avoid looking like it does, where all 36 players find themselves in the one half of the ground many times during the game.

Other than keeping within zones, 36 players can be in one half of the ground anytime.

[Ozza]

Other than keeping within zones, 36 players can be in one half of the ground anytime.

But my point is that if interchanges are restricted - it will be simply too hard for all players to go up and back all day - so you will see less of this sort of activity. Forwards won't be working up to the back half quite so much as they will have to pace themselves better over a whole match.

[Happy Days]

Piss the sub off once and for all. I hate it with a passion.

Anyone like it?

Carlton Draught.

[boydogs]

I'd disagree on that one, all it does is force a team to use their sub early. The other team then has a fit and fresh player to bring on at the optimum time. Now lose the sub, and you've just got one less interchange. The opposition is still advantaged, but not as much as being able to bring on an impact player late in the third.

If that were the case, teams would create a second sub by not using an interchange player until the 3rd quarter

[lemmon]

Why have a limit at all?

All about creating player fatigue. Less congestion because players don't have enough run in their legs to push all the way into the back half or all the way up to the contest. We get the best players on the ground for longer, resting forward rather than using an interchange and we see more one on one duels because players aren't losing an opponent constantly heading to the bench.

I'm no fan of the sub but the interchange restriction has grown on me, I don't think it's any coincidence the most attractive football is played late in quarters and games. I'd be knocking it back to 80 a match with serious considerations about going to 60 depending on whether it's safe for the players.

[bornadog]

All about creating player fatigue. Less congestion because players don't have enough run in their legs to push all the way into the back half or all the way up to the contest. We get the best players on the ground for longer, resting forward rather than using an interchange and we see more one on one duels because players aren't losing an opponent constantly heading to the bench.

I'm no fan of the sub but the interchange restriction has grown on me, I don't think it's any coincidence the most attractive football is played late in quarters and games. I'd be knocking it back to 80 a match with serious considerations about going to 60 depending on whether it's safe for the players.

You can't make a game look like what you what it to through rule changes. Every rule change has a consequence and unforeseen change in the game because of coaching tactics as well as players becoming bigger and faster.

During last ten years the game has changed dramatically, all due to rule tampering, coaching tactics and human development. The game is constantly evolving, so let's leave it evolve

[Greystache]

You can't make a game look like what you what it to through rule changes. Every rule change has a consequence and unforeseen change in the game because of coaching tactics as well as players becoming bigger and faster.

During last ten years the game has changed dramatically, all due to rule tampering, coaching tactics and human development. The game is constantly evolving, so let's leave it evolve

The game looks the way is does because of the original changes to interchange, first changing to interchange from substitutes, then to 3, then 4. It took a couple of years for the coaches to really exploit the extra interchange resources (which only came in because the coaches complained about lack of injury cover), but it's still a byproduct of the rule change allowing so many interchange players.

The logical option is to reduce interchanges, or the number on the bench, or both.

[GVGjr]

Why have a limit at all?

Because I want to see players staying on the ground more. It looks stupid to have 4 players running off after a goal is scored.

Players can rest in a pocket or a flank rather than on a bench.

How silly would it look in the EPL if players were running off for a 3 or 4 minute breather?

[bornadog]

The game looks the way is does because of the original changes to interchange, first changing to interchange from substitutes, then to 3, then 4. It took a couple of years for the coaches to really exploit the extra interchange resources (which only came in because the coaches complained about lack of injury cover), but it's still a byproduct of the rule change allowing so many interchange players.

The logical option is to reduce interchanges, or the number on the bench, or both.

My point is proven, should have left it as it was.


Because I want to see players staying on the ground more. It looks stupid to have 4 players running off after a goal is scored.

Players can rest in a pocket or a flank rather than on a bench.

Coaches can send them to the backline and they can rest there and create a flood.

[jeemak]

I've posted this before, but I'll post it again anyway.

Coaches have a tendency to be risk averse, and those with teams of limited talent level compared to their opposition will just park numbers behind the ball, stifle forward entries and move the ball forward slowly themselves.

The game's rules will be caught by the athletic prowess of the players playing it and any tinkering with the interchange will only be a short term fix. If the powers that be insist the game's aesthetic needs to be changed drastically, then the only thing that will do it will be a change to the positional structures and placing restrictions on the movement of some of them. I'm not for it, but I think we'll eventually get there.

[bornadog]

I've posted this before, but I'll post it again anyway.

Coaches have a tendency to be risk averse, and those with teams of limited talent level compared to their opposition will just park numbers behind the ball, stifle forward entries and move the ball forward slowly themselves.

The game's rules will be caught by the athletic prowess of the players playing it and any tinkering with the interchange will only be a short term fix. If the powers that be insist the game's aesthetic needs to be changed drastically, then the only thing that will do it will be a change to the positional structures and placing restrictions on the movement of some of them. I'm not for it, but I think we'll eventually get there.

That is what I am afraid of. Agree, tinkering with interchange will not work. When I say that I mean it won't achieve what the AFL thinks it will achieve.