Interchange rules and Dawin

[hujsh]

The Bulldogs have looked to increase the number of interchanges for Darwin in the NAB Cup and the AFL said no. Eade has expressed his concerns on numerous occasions about limiting the interchange as it could be dangerous for players nearing exhastion.

Any player sent off because of the blood rule will count as an interchange meaning clubs need to keep a few saved up.

There will also be an eight man bench which will make no difference if a team runs out of interchanges

Thoughts?

[GVGjr]

The Bulldogs have looked to increase the number of interchanges for Darwin in the NAB Cup and the AFL said no. Eade has expressed his concerns on numerous occasions about limiting the interchange as it could be dangerous for players nearing exhastion.

Any player sent off because of the blood rule will count as an interchange meaning clubs need to keep a few saved up.

There will also be an eight man bench which will make no difference if a team runs out of interchanges

Thoughts?


Yes it is a problem. The fact that you can only have 16 changes per quarter means that some players have to play the full quarter. Normally that wouldn't sound too bad but in the heat I'd bet they would like to rotate some players off 3 or 4 mins before the end of the quarters to give them extra recovery time.

Not sure what to make of the 8 man interchange.

[LostDoggy]

Is this bullshit rule going to be just for the NAB Cup? Will it effect the NAB Challenge?

Im also concerned about this rule. Look its the pre season cup, they can play around with the rules all they want but to bring in a rule like this is just absurd. Do they have any common sense?

[Mantis]

Yes it is a problem. The fact that you can only have 16 changes per quarter means that some players have to play the full quarter. Normally that wouldn't sound too bad but in the heat I'd bet they would like to rotate some players off 3 or 4 mins before the end of the quarters to give them extra recovery time.

Not sure what to make of the 8 man interchange.

It is a deadset waste when you can only make 64 changes for the match.

The AFL have to be flexible with this rule and there must be allowances for games in extreme weather conditions like we will face in Darwin.

[hujsh]

Is this bullshit rule going to be just for the NAB Cup?



Yes. But obviously they are thinking about using it in real games some time in the future

[Bulldog Revolution]

Its a ridiculous rule particularly for a game in Darwin. These things are potentially worth trialling, but surely not in the humidity of Darwin.

How will this effect team selection?

[hujsh]

Its a ridiculous rule particularly for a game in Darwin. These things are potentially worth trialling, but surely not in the humidity of Darwin.

How will this effect team selection?

Well you know the older blokes won't play that's for sure.

[aker39]

The most ridiculous part of this rule is that a blood rule change counts as one of the 16 interchanges. If the AFL think this may be flaunted, then it is up to them to police it, and fine clubs that do it.

[The Underdog]

You'd be better off losing and playing the rest of your practice matches under normal rules.
Not much of an incentive to win the comp is it?

[LostDoggy]

The blood rule..rule is particularly bad, they should allow say 2-3 blood rule interchanges, or even 1 would do, as the likelihood of having more than 2 is low, and they last for the match...once they're up then they count as interchanges maybe, that would at least be somewhat more reasonable. I don't understand how they plan on reducing injuries, as the game will probably remain around the same pace because of the whole play on from backwards kicks, they can't even slow the game down...it's ridiculous logic...not even logic at all.

[LostDoggy]

It's absolutely ridiculous. Especially in the extreme conditions, where players become more lethargic and dehydrated in a shorter period. And im quite sure research has shown a strong correlation between the two. Im not sure why this rule is being introduced in the first place, when i've always thought the bench's main purpose was to give tired players a break, or players performing poorly a talking to. I dont see the need to change it.
I do recall Richmond or COllingwood or someone's ridiculous number of interchanges in a game sometime last season, but surely thats not applicable to every game, every club, every season. Plus, i still can't figure out what they're trying to stop here?

[hujsh]

Plus, i still can't figure out what they're trying to stop here?

The theory is that increased rotations have allowed for the game to be played at a higher pace throughout the match increasing injuries (yet i remember them introducing the kickout rule to increase the speed of the match).

In theory this should stop flooding as it becomes too taxing to run back and forward

[LostDoggy]

The theory is that increased rotations have allowed for the game to be played at a higher pace throughout the match increasing injuries (yet i remember them introducing the kickout rule to increase the speed of the match).

In theory this should stop flooding as it becomes too taxing to run back and forward

I don't understand though, they want to slow it down, yet they introduce a play on from a backwards kick in the back half, therefore a team can't catch it's breath at all, as there are minimal interchanges and they are forced to play on, even from a 40m kick in some cases. They're making it harder for themselves to slow the game down, if they want to reduce flooding then minimise the number of players allowed in each 50m arc or half of the ground (which would also be a bad rule, but would make more sense as far as reducing flooding goes) don't force injuries by not allowing players to rest.

[hujsh]

I don't understand though, they want to slow it down, yet they introduce a play on from a backwards kick in the back half, therefore a team can't catch it's breath at all, as there are minimal interchanges and they are forced to play on, even from a 40m kick in some cases.

I reckon that they're trying to make it more traditional. Instead of flooding and tempo football they might be going for the contested marks and long kicks of yesteryear.

[hujsh]

They're making it harder for themselves to slow the game down, if they want to reduce flooding then minimise the number of players allowed in each 50m arc or half of the ground (which would also be a bad rule, but would make more sense as far as reducing flooding goes) don't force injuries by not allowing players to rest.

I believe the main reason for the rule was to reduce high speed collisions. The flooding was something that could be seen as an added bonus.

[LostDoggy]

I think no one in AFL or the rules committee really has a clue.
If you want to change the way the game is played you develop new tactics not new rules. It should be done through coaching not umpiring. The game evolves just like most sports.

In the end it just confuses everyone on both sides of the fence.