During game injuries

[ledge]

Just had a thought that we seem to be getting more players injured during the game nowadays and not being able to come back on.
I have an idea to maybe help the team that loses a player during a game .. For every player not able to come back on you get an extra 3? Interchange rotations.
At least it evens up the fatigue factor a little.
What's people's thoughts?

[jeemak]

Just had a thought that we seem to be getting more players injured during the game nowadays and not being able to come back on.
I have an idea to maybe help the team that loses a player during a game .. For every player not able to come back on you get an extra 3? Interchange rotations.
At least it evens up the fatigue factor a little.
What's people's thoughts?

It has some merit. Good thinking.

[bulldogtragic]

As above. Seems common sense, so the AFL are unlikely to do it.

[GVGjr]

Just had a thought that we seem to be getting more players injured during the game nowadays and not being able to come back on.
I have an idea to maybe help the team that loses a player during a game .. For every player not able to come back on you get an extra 3? Interchange rotations.
At least it evens up the fatigue factor a little.
What's people's thoughts?


It would quickly be abused by some teams in tight games.
The AFL introduced the sub rule to ensure teams were not disadvantaged by early injuries. The stats to support that decision were overwhelming because teams that lost a player early were just run into the ground by the opposition rotations. Supporters and some coaches hated the rule so that is why we have a full compliment of players but a limited number of changes so that clubs can't exploit it.

Players being fatigued isn't a bad thing. Yesterdays last quarter to me highlights why we don't need to change anything. Down a very good player for half the game we lifted in the last quarter and won the game.

If we need to adjust the number of rotations without giving the coaches a chance to wreck it then that makes more sense to me.

[soupman]

It would quickly be abused by some teams in tight games.
The AFL introduced the sub rule to ensure teams were not disadvantaged by early injuries. The stats to support that decision were overwhelming because teams that lost a player early were just run into the ground by the opposition rotations. Supporters and some coaches hated the rule so that is why we have a full compliment of players but a limited number of changes so that clubs can't exploit it.

Players being fatigued isn't a bad thing. Yesterdays last quarter to me highlights why we don't need to change anything. Down a very good player for half the game we lifted in the last quarter and won the game.

If we need to adjust the number of rotations without giving the coaches a chance to wreck it then that makes more sense to me.

Not if you design it right. Maybe you get an extra 2 changes per quarter the player doesn't play.

That means if they go down in the second quarter you get 4 more interchanges, if they go down in the third it'll be 2 and if they go down in the last you get none.

It would better reflect the loss of the extra rotation spot on the bench and if a team wants to game the system they are missing a player for a whole quarter to do so.

[GVGjr]

Not if you design it right. Maybe you get an extra 2 changes per quarter the player doesn't play.

That means if they go down in the second quarter you get 4 more interchanges, if they go down in the third it'll be 2 and if they go down in the last you get none.

It would better reflect the loss of the extra rotation spot on the bench and if a team wants to game the system they are missing a player for a whole quarter to do so.

My response was based on the OP so if you basically sub a player out you pick up 3 extra rotations.
The current rotations limit clubs being disadvantaged by an injury so my gut feel is that the current set-up needs a few season before changing it

[ledge]

My response was based on the OP so if you basically sub a player out you pick up 3 extra rotations.
The current rotations limit clubs being disadvantaged by an injury so my gut feel is that the current set-up needs a few season before changing it

The player isn't subbed out they are injured .. There is no sub anymore, you don't get to choose who goes out its the one who is injured. Don't get subbed and injured confused.

[GVGjr]

The player isn't subbed out they are injured .. There is no sub anymore, you don't get to choose who goes out its the one who is injured. Don't get subbed and injured confused.

In theory yes, but the coaches will effectively sub a player out to gain extra rotations if they needed it. Your theory is fine, worth considering sometime in the future but we have a lot of coaches that would do anything to gain an advantage in tight games and the potential to abuse it would be too tempting.

[SonofScray]

Attrition is an acceptable and meaningful part of our game. I wouldn't support that change.

[GVGjr]

Attrition is an acceptable and meaningful part of our game. I wouldn't support that change.

I tend to agree. Players being fatigued is also part of the game. If a team loses a player through an injury they aren't really disadvantaged because the other side has exactly the same number of rotations just spread across 22 players not 21.

[ledge]

In theory yes, but the coaches will effectively sub a player out to gain extra rotations if they needed it. Your theory is fine, worth considering sometime in the future but we have a lot of coaches that would do anything to gain an advantage in tight games and the potential to abuse it would be too tempting.

The coach can't sub a player out he has to be injured and the Dr is the one who said a player is injured not the coach.. It's not a sub it's an injury where a player can't come back on. Sub and injured are two different things .. Why your calling it a sub and mentioning the coach is beyond me, it has nothing to do with the coach.
But I do like the idea of depending on what qtr it happens how many are given.

[GVGjr]

The coach can't sub a player out he has to be injured and the Dr is the one who said a player is injured not the coach.. It's not a sub it's an injury where a player can't come back on. Sub and injured are two different things .. Why your calling it a sub and mentioning the coach is beyond me, it has nothing to do with the coach.
But I do like the idea of depending on what qtr it happens how many are given.

Your suggesting that clubs will get extra rotations if they say a player won't be coming back on because he is injured.
Effectively a player would then have to don a vest to highlight that they can't come back on to the ground.
What would you suggest they call a player that can't come back on?

So you don't think there is any scope for a coach to get a player to feign an injury to gain extra rotations?

[1eyedog]

Watch how many cusp players all of a sudden get injured early in the game.

[hujsh]

Watch how many cusp players all of a sudden get injured early in the game.

Would that really help? You're still spreading the running out over 21 players instead of 22. When Collingwood lost players to injury against us they struggled to even use all their rotations.

[ledge]

Your suggesting that clubs will get extra rotations if they say a player won't be coming back on because he is injured.
Effectively a player would then have to don a vest to highlight that they can't come back on to the ground.
What would you suggest they call a player that can't come back on?
Injured !

So you don't think there is any scope for a coach to get a player to feign an injury to gain extra rotations?
Why would you do that and be a player down? Number 2 I will say it again it's not to do with the coach it's the Doctor.

[ledge]

Would that really help? You're still spreading the running out over 21 players instead of 22. When Collingwood lost players to injury against us they struggled to even use all their rotations.

Because they had no one left to replace they were all injured on the bench.
Even if they had one good player on the bench you can only replace one at a time., so you would struggle to use your rotations in that case.

[1eyedog]

Would that really help? You're still spreading the running out over 21 players instead of 22. When Collingwood lost players to injury against us they struggled to even use all their rotations.

What do you think is a better scenario. Cory Gregson playing an extra three quarters or Patty Dangerfield and Joel Selwood getting 4 extra blowers each a match?

Collingwood lost Toovey, Fasolo, Moore and Adams so effectively had no-one on the bench which is why they struggled to get near the rotation cap.

Sorry ledge missed your post above explaining this.

[hujsh]

What do you think is a better scenario. Cory Gregson playing an extra three quarters or Patty Dangerfield and Joel Selwood getting 4 extra blowers each a match


If they're getting more TOG then even with a few shorter breaks they may fatigue and be less effective. Someone/s is doing extra running to make up for losing Gregson in that scenario.

Might work once or twice but sounds like a great way to wear your best players down over a season

Also when you eventually do get an injury or two during a match you are screwed.

[comrade]

Just leave it as it is. Injuries, fatigue they're part and parcel of footy. Winning a game with a bloke down is a great feeling and forces players to reach their physical limit.

Sometimes it works for you, sometimes it works against you. It's the nature of sport and you can't adminstrate yourself out of the clutches of fate and fortune.

[ratsmac]

Most times that we have lost a player during a game we have not used up all our rotations anyway. Its often a bit less than the opposition also. I'm not sure getting extras would actually help or not.
It must get tricky managing the cap though, especially when nearing the end of a game making sure that you don't have say The Bont stuck on the bench when the game is in the balance. That's where a couple extras up your sleeve might come in handy.

[Twodogs]

Your suggesting that clubs will get extra rotations if they say a player won't be coming back on because he is injured.
Effectively a player would then have to don a vest to highlight that they can't come back on to the ground.
What would you suggest they call a player that can't come back on?

So you don't think there is any scope for a coach to get a player to feign an injury to gain extra rotations?

That would be a breach of Workcover if a doctor knowingly said a player was injured and incapable of performing his duties but knew it to be untrue.