5 man interchange

[GVGjr]

I see Bevo is suggesting that the AFL move to a 5 man interchange to remove al the red tape and discussion on how it's being used. So no subs each week.

It's not a bad suggestion but my proviso would still be to cap the number of changes that can be made.

What it might mean is that clubs could also play two ruckman each week.

[azabob]

I see Bevo is suggesting that the AFL move to a 5 man interchange to remove al the red tape and discussion on how it's being used. So no subs each week.

It's not a bad suggestion but my proviso would still be to cap the number of changes that can be made.

What it might mean is that clubs could also play two ruckman each week.

I'm not sold on this one.

They should stick with four and remove the sub full stop.

[azabob]

I see Bevo is suggesting that the AFL move to a 5 man interchange to remove al the red tape and discussion on how it's being used. So no subs each week.

It's not a bad suggestion but my proviso would still be to cap the number of changes that can be made.

What it might mean is that clubs could also play two ruckman each week.

I have just listened to Beveridge press conference and he also said he thinks four is nearly one too many.

So not sure he is pushing for five, he is pushing for no sub and no red tape.

[Rocco Jones]

I have just listened to Beveridge press conference and he also said he thinks four is nearly one too many.

So not sure he is pushing for five, he is pushing for no sub and no red tape.

The issue is when someone is injured. I think he was going that line to make a point about the 5th sub not being over used anyway.

[GVGjr]

This from Bevo in 2021

WESTERN Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge has slammed the AFL's new medical substitute, saying the "very rushed" rule will cause a series of "headaches" for clubs.

The rule was raised at last week's meeting between the coaches and League but with Beveridge absent from that discussion, he said it had been a shock to see the new rule introduced just a day before the start of the season.

Clubs will be able to replace a player deemed to have suffered an injury or concussion symptoms at any stage of the game with the substitute, but the 2016 premiership coach said it was a mistake.

"It's been rushed through. As of yesterday, our medical staff hadn't been briefed and are none the wiser on the operational aspect of it," Beveridge said on Thursday ahead of his team's season-opener on Friday night against Collingwood.

"And so when you've got the whole medical establishment not being briefed and going into the competition, it's just been rushed through. If we've got to a stage where we're saying more players will come out of the game through an injury or concussion than ever before that we need to have an extra player on hand, then surely there are some other levers to pull than just introducing a substitute player.

"We've been down this track before with the old sub. The 75 interchanges as a constraint and I wouldn't think any of us as coaches would want to use more than four on the interchange bench because it means players are off the ground for too long.

And from today it's being reported

Western Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge has called on the AFL to scrap the sub rule and merely expand the interchange bench to five players.

The medical substitution rule was hastily introduced on the eve of the 2021 season and was only meant to be used if it was reasonably determined a player would be medically unfit to participate in any match for at least the next 12 days.

But players who are subbed off are often cleared to play the next week, sparking questions about whether coaches have been exploiting the rule to gain a tactical advantage.Richmond coach Damien Hardwick has come under fire after subbing off Ben Miller for the speedy Maurice Rioli midway through the final quarter of last week's draw with Fremantle.

Miller didn't have a visible injury but Hardwick strongly denied the subbing was used for tactical purposes, saying the tall defender was battling a calf complaint.

Beveridge said the best way for the confusion to be taken out of it is by scrapping the medical sub rule and instead allow coaches to field five-man benches.

"Right at the start, quite simply, my drive was just if we think we need one (interchange player) as a buffer for concussion, don't make it a sub," Beveridge said.

"Just say you've got five on the interchange and can use them if you want.

"And that will add a bit of tactical intrigue.

"I'm not going to circulate five players during the game. Four is almost one too many anyway.

"So you're likely going to sit one down until you really need that player.

"You could introduce that player for a quarter here and there and it creates a different angle. All it does is it removes all the red tape.

"We don't have to explain ourselves if you take a player out of the game and it's just so simple, but we don't usually make simple, practical decisions, unfortunately."

Hardwick wants to see a tweak to the rule which would allow coaches to make a substitution at any point in the final quarter - even if the player they are taking off isn't injured.

But the three-time premiership coach was steadfast the substitution he made against Fremantle was for medical purposes.

"What I will say is we find it quite challenging at various stages that a medical practitioner is challenged with regards to the sub," Hardwick said.

"Ben had an incident in the first quarter, he had pain management before the game, he had pain management during the game.

"The fact of the matter is we make a decision that Ben can either try and push on, but he's a possibility of missing two weeks - or we can get Ben off.

"Our personal decision is we'd prefer that player to play the next week."

[GVGjr]

I have just listened to Beveridge press conference and he also said he thinks four is nearly one too many.

So not sure he is pushing for five, he is pushing for no sub and no red tape.

Yeah, it's a little conflicting what is being said and written

[azabob]

Yeah, it's a little conflicting what is being said and written

The media loves to ask Bevo on the state of the game and use an isolated quote as a headline grabber.

Perfect example was the head high rule interpterion last week - media grabbed his comment and ran with it. In the end Luke was proven right with the way the rule was interpreted for some.

[SonofScray]

5 man bench. No interchange. Subs only.

[ratsmac]

They should allow clubs to have as many subs as they like so long as you stay within the interchange cap and only 4 interchange players at one time. Have 10 subs, defenders rucks, forwards, whatever. Keath's having a few kicked on him, sub him out sub Cordy in. Once subbed out you can't be subbed back on of course. Maybe reduce the bench to 3 even.

Players don't get dragged any more and sat on the bench for 2 quarters because of rotations. Subbed out is the new dragged!!

It's a probably stupid idea but if they have a sub option for injuries sake why only one when sometimes you can get multiple injuries in one game. The initial purpose was because of the new concussion rules so a team isn't disadvantaged if a player can't go back on because he is concussed. What if 2 or 3 players get concussed. Too bad? Either have no sub or unlimited.

[Sedat]

10 interchanges max per qtr and none in general play. Then I could live with 5 on the bench and no subs.

[jeemak]

5 man bench. No interchange. Subs only.

If you want an overly defencive shit show with poor skills go for it.

[boydogs]

They should allow clubs to have as many subs as they like so long as you stay within the interchange cap and only 4 interchange players at one time. Have 10 subs, defenders rucks, forwards, whatever. Keath's having a few kicked on him, sub him out sub Cordy in. Once subbed out you can't be subbed back on of course. Maybe reduce the bench to 3 even.

Players don't get dragged any more and sat on the bench for 2 quarters because of rotations. Subbed out is the new dragged!!

It's a probably stupid idea but if they have a sub option for injuries sake why only one when sometimes you can get multiple injuries in one game. The initial purpose was because of the new concussion rules so a team isn't disadvantaged if a player can't go back on because he is concussed. What if 2 or 3 players get concussed. Too bad? Either have no sub or unlimited.

That would be a massive change. It would kill the VFL as you would need to keep your 10 subs fresh. Stats, games played, SuperCoach etc would be all over the shop. Fitness would be much less valued in players and tiring the opposition would lose its value as a tactic, just sprint for a half and call it a day

[jeemak]

I reckon Bevo suffers from spending time out of the game prior to coaching, and by suffers, I mean most of the stuff the AFL does seems as ridiculous to him as it does to us "outers".

It's enjoyable watching him pick apart all the bullshit in my view, someone has to. Everyone else in the industry are industry people by and large, and they're completely up their own arses (and that's not to say Bevo isn't up his own arse some of the time as well, it's just for different reasons that he is).

[Scorlibo]

I'm in the traditionalist basket on this one - scrap the subs. If a player goes down so be it, over the course of a season it evens out.

If we really want to be sticklers for fairness then I'd be open to proposals involving a red card system for players that cause an opposing player's injury by playing outside the rules. Eg. a high bump results in concussion, the player with the concussion doesn't come back on and neither does the offender.

[GVGjr]

I really think that if the main issue is trying to add some integrity to the process when you sub a player out for whatever reason then they have to miss the following week.

Having the 5th player as a sub was originally designed to ensure Doctors weren't pressured into putting a potentially concussed player back on the field or so they could perform a proper test. It quickly morphed into cover other injuries and of course there is a healthy level of skepticism that coaches are using it now to add some run later in games. It was always likely to happen.

There is a concussion protocol of 12 days in place and I think there is some merit of using that number to players that are subbed off from any game. If you get subbed off then regardless of the injury you can't play for 12 days at the senior level. That puts the onus back onto the coaches to consider before substituting a player.

I don't mind Bevo's suggestion but I think a more simple approach clears up the integrity challenge.

[Bulldog4life]

I really think that if the main issue is trying to add some integrity to the process when you sub a player out for whatever reason then they have to miss the following week.

Having the 5th player as a sub was originally designed to ensure Doctors weren't pressured into putting a potentially concussed player back on the field or so they could perform a proper test. It quickly morphed into cover other injuries and of course there is a healthy level of skepticism that coaches are using it now to add some run later in games. It was always likely to happen.

There is a concussion protocol of 12 days in place and I think there is some merit of using that number to players that are subbed off from any game. If you get subbed off then regardless of the injury you can't play for 12 days at the senior level. That puts the onus back onto the coaches to consider before substituting a player.

I don't mind Bevo's suggestion but I think a more simple approach clears up the integrity challenge.

Makes sense to me. Agree.

[ratsmac]

That would be a massive change. It would kill the VFL as you would need to keep your 10 subs fresh. Stats, games played, SuperCoach etc would be all over the shop. Fitness would be much less valued in players and tiring the opposition would lose its value as a tactic, just sprint for a half and call it a day

This isn't the time or place for common sense! ;)