Rule Changes, have your say

[bornadog]

http://www.afl.com.au/aflrulesyoursay/tabid/16504/default.aspx

The AFL has asked fans to have a say.

For your info, I voted to change nothing, leave everything as is. In regard to capping the bench, they don't give you all choices, so if you don't agree, leave it blank and make a comment in the box.

[Flamethrower]

I heard Adrian Anderson on SEN tonight, and my blood was boiling. The AFL are jumping at shadows with regards to the proposed changes to the rules.

The AFL's argument is that their medicos say that interchange numbers should be reduced now because there may be an increase in collision injuries in the future because of the high rotations. The fact is that the teams with the highest number of rotations also have the lowest number of soft tissue injuries. Capping the interchange will see an increase in soft tissue injuries, because players will run just as hard but will become more fatigued. Muscle fatigue = soft tissue injuries.

The other negative with capping interchanges is player welfare when they play in oppresive conditions eg Darwin, Brisbane and Perth early in the season. Increased player rotations allows the teams involved to compete on an even playing field in the subsequent weeks. A cap will force teams to make wholesale personel changes or give up a massive advantage to their opponents, in the next few matches.

The next suggestion is to reduce the number of interchange players and replace them with substitutes. That is a fundamental change to the game, as it means it will be 20 v 20 or 21 v 21. While it is likely that they will, there is no guarantee that the substitute players will ever get any game time. A better sugestion is to add 2 substitutes to the 22 current players.

[GVGjr]

I'm normally of the opinion that we don't need many changes but I have been considering that an emergency player could be justified to replace someone is has been injured in the first half and will take no further part in the game. This will ensure that no team is disadvantaged if they lose someone early.

Of course the coaches are good at finding ways around any options provided but I do think capping the number of interchanges is necessary in some way.
It's become like ice hockey were a 2,3 or 4 players are all coming off at the same time and I don't think it's a great spectacle.

[SonofScray]

I'm normally of the opinion that we don't need many changes but I have been considering that an emergency player could be justified to replace someone is has been injured in the first half and will take no further part in the game. This will ensure that no team is disadvantaged if they lose someone early.

Of course the coaches are good at finding ways around any options provided but I do think capping the number of interchanges is necessary in some way.
It's become like ice hockey were a 2,3 or 4 players are all coming off at the same time and I don't think it's a great spectacle.

I'm not fussed but you are bang on with the hockey call. Maybe they could cap the amount of "shifts" a player can do? So, something like they can interchange any individual player 5 times a game only, a further interchange effectively becomes a substitution for the rest of the match.

Probably a bit messy but it'd introduce a few new aspects to he game with some players being used purely as a "power player" while your gut runners might battle it out ina war of attrition, or you get more stay at home forwards etc etc.

[Throughandthrough]

A few of those "possible" changes (like the scoring ones) are ambit deflectors, will never get thru and arent even gonna be considered. Just there so they can say that "they listened to the people and..."

I read somewhere once earlier this year, that the higher level/number (or intensity?) of impact injuries can be traced to zoning. In "man on man" footy the players were rarely more then a few metres away from each other to start with. With zoning they may be (say) 10 metres apart and be going at a higher speed at moment of impact.

(dunno if thats right, but it sounds good)

NB I personally really, really enjoy watching modern AFL footy with the high level tactics/speed/interchanges.

[LostDoggy]

The thing with Ice Hockey, there are reasons for every time a player comes on & off the ice.

AFL teams just seem to be doing it purely because the players are manufactured that why, not because they are a specialist at what is happening at that moment in the game.

[soupman]

Just leave it as is. I will admit than pretty much all the changes the afl has made in the recent past have been acceptable, even the ins I was dead against like the rushing rule, however I feel the proposed interchange adjustments have the potential to negatively impact the game as we know it, all to prevent a largely unproven issue.

[angelopetraglia]

I'm for limiting the rotations to 80.

Everyone says, stop changing everything all the time.

The people who change everything the most are the coaches.

There are more coaches than ever all collectively thinking on how to improve their edge, this is changing the game radically every season. One team makes a breakthrough (e.g. Clarko's cluster) another takes it to another extreme (e.g. Ross Lyon's frontal zone).

In 2007 teams averaged only 58rotations per game, we are now seeing teams have 150+ rotations. In 2003 it was only 22 per game!

The AFL by changing the rule is trying to ensure that the game still resembles what we all love it about it.

We want to see endurance and speed, we don't want players to have the energy and freshness to always be in the immediate vicinity of the ball, we want players spread over the ground.

[bornadog]

I'm for limiting the rotations to 80.

t.

Why? What does that achieve? Whats wrong with 150 rotations?. Does it spoil the spectacle?

[angelopetraglia]

Why? What does that achieve? Whats wrong with 150 rotations?. Does it spoil the spectacle?

It changes the game. Changes it drastically from what we know and only in two short years. Who knows how much more growth in rotations we will see and what impact that will have.

My biggest concern is the more freshness and constant energy there is, the more we will see players have the capacity to surround the ball, put untold pressure on the ball carrier and zone more than we are even seeing now. Also, does anyone know who is playing on who anymore? Is the one on one battle dead forever?

The game will change, we all accept that. But limiting or restricting how different the game becomes can't be a bad thing. When the Swans were turning it into Rugby, the kick in rule and the enforcing of not allowing a player to drag the ball in had a big impact. The changes were positive in restoring the elements we all like.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I heard Adrian Anderson on SEN tonight, and my blood was boiling. The AFL are jumping at shadows with regards to the proposed changes to the rules...


... The next suggestion is to reduce the number of interchange players and replace them with substitutes. That is a fundamental change to the game, as it means it will be 20 v 20 or 21 v 21. While it is likely that they will, there is no guarantee that the substitute players will ever get any game time. A better sugestion is to add 2 substitutes to the 22 current players.

I have been a massive critic of the rules committee but in this instance I am very strong on 2 interchange and 2 reserves.

Firstly, I don't believe we are changing the game by doing this. We are not changing the scoring or how the game is being umpired, we are actually making it more like it was, repairing a mistake of the past as it were.

My problem with other recent rule changes is they haven't considered how each change would affect the game in other ways.

My pet hate are the 'hands in the back' and 'chopping the arms rules'. Lets leave aside for a moment the fact that they are paid about 4 times a game (almost always to forwards) but actually happen about 40 times a game.

What we have done here is make it almost impossible for the defenders to defend, so the only way a coach can stop someone from scoring is to drop players back - these rule changes encourage flooding. Step 1 is to get rid of these ridiculous, poorly thought out rules and let adventurous coaches back their defenders in to win one-on-one.

Step 2 is to change to 2 interchange and 2 reserves. The purpose here will be to tire out the players making it almost impossible to flood. Impact injuries will reduce, not because the players won't be colliding at such speed, but because there will be fewer players guarding space and fewer players smashing into each other from different directions.

If soft tissue injuries increase with fatigue then it's up to the coaching staff to manage it. If fatigue causes soft tissue injuries, make sure your players aren't fatigued as much, perhaps by not making them bolt the length of the ground every 2 minutes?

I wan't to see Adam Cooney resting in a forward pocket, not on the bench and I want to see two ruckmen on the ground at a time for each team, one in the ruck and the other in a forward pocket.

The only risk I see is that ben hudson style ruckmen who can't play forward may go the way of the dodo and that would be bad.

[Remi Moses]

I support any rule that helps and is beneficial to our side

Besides I'd like to leave it alone but the boffins are going to change the interchange rule I like the three and the sub used. Do not bring in that moronic goal post rule Ffs

[GVGjr]

Why? What does that achieve? Whats wrong with 150 rotations?. Does it spoil the spectacle?

It does to me. Games should not be decided by excessive player interchanges plus I want to see a game where footballers still have a spot in a side not just the athletes. I want to see games decided more on what happens on the field not off it.

I'm not sure of the right number to cap the interchanges at but I'm not against it.

[chef]

NB I personally really, really enjoy watching modern AFL footy with the high level tactics/speed/interchanges.

Me too and I wouldn't change a thing.

[bornadog]

It changes the game. Changes it drastically from what we know and only in two short years. Who knows how much more growth in rotations we will see and what impact that will have.

My biggest concern is the more freshness and constant energy there is, the more we will see players have the capacity to surround the ball, put untold pressure on the ball carrier and zone more than we are even seeing now. Also, does anyone know who is playing on who anymore? Is the one on one battle dead forever?

The game will change, we all accept that. But limiting or restricting how different the game becomes can't be a bad thing. When the Swans were turning it into Rugby, the kick in rule and the enforcing of not allowing a player to drag the ball in had a big impact. The changes were positive in restoring the elements we all like.

Why should we legislate to change the game to be played how we use to remember it in the 1980's etc. The game is evolving all the time, we can't just keep changing the rules. The coaches are getting smarter and smarter.



I have been a massive critic of the rules committee but in this instance I am very strong on 2 interchange and 2 reserves.

Step 2 is to change to 2 interchange and 2 reserves. The purpose here will be to tire out the players making it almost impossible to flood. Impact injuries will reduce, not because the players won't be colliding at such speed, but because there will be fewer players guarding space and fewer players smashing into each other from different directions.

.
Rocket said today that he will increase the rotations even more if he has less on the bench. The game was changed forever when the AFL allowed the two reserve players to be interchanged during a game.


It does to me. Games should not be decided by excessive player interchanges plus I want to see a game where footballers still have a spot in a side not just the athletes. I want to see games decided more on what happens on the field not off it.

I'm not sure of the right number to cap the interchanges at but I'm not against it.

Capping will have other effects, players that are stuffed will push themselves more and more and injuries will rise.

As SS said, the rules committee never think ahead of what effect these rules have on players. The play on after a point is kicked and the four boundary umpires have helped speed up the game so players don't get a rest on the field, so they have to be interchanged more for their rest.

[Ozza]

It does to me. Games should not be decided by excessive player interchanges plus I want to see a game where footballers still have a spot in a side not just the athletes. I want to see games decided more on what happens on the field not off it.

I'm not sure of the right number to cap the interchanges at but I'm not against it.

If there were less rotations, then coaches and recruiting officers would be more likely to recruit and select 'athletes' who can run out games at a high intensity. With less rotations there is less room for the 'genuine footballers'.

[bornadog]

Lets assume they cap the changes to 80, or 100. What happens when a team reaches the cap, and they also sustain an injury at the same time? What happens if the cap is at 80 and there is 5 minutes to go, scores are close and no injuries. Does the coach fake an injury to get a player on the field.

There are so many things the coach can do to manipulate the cap. It.s a bloody joke

[LostDoggy]

I think the interchange should remain uncapped. Different circumstances happen in all games whether it be injuries, weather conditions, game intensity. Just leave it alone FFS!!

[Scorlibo]

I am truly shocked that the AFL is even considering capping interchanges, and the data they have provided to prove that increased interchanges are related to injury is bogus. Guess which other stats have risen in the last five years? Kicks, handballs, goals, just about every other game stat. Are we to limit the amount of kicks or handballs that a team can make because they have risen in accordance with the injury list? Any idiot can see that extreme fatigue will cause far more injury than 'running too fast'. Then there's the unfair disadvantage after having players injured during a game, fine, sure, let substitutes become a part of the game, but NOT instead of the 4 interchanges. Just turn emergencies into substitutes, easy.

As for the spectacle of the game, how is it better to watch guys run half as fast as they usually would? The pace of the game is what makes it the most loved sport in the country, we would be going backwards to make it slower, less tactical, less skilled, have fewer footballers and more athletes.

[Sockeye Salmon]

I am truly shocked that the AFL is even considering capping interchanges, and the data they have provided to prove that increased interchanges are related to injury is bogus. Guess which other stats have risen in the last five years? Kicks, handballs, goals, just about every other game stat. Are we to limit the amount of kicks or handballs that a team can make because they have risen in accordance with the injury list? Any idiot can see that extreme fatigue will cause far more injury than 'running too fast'. Then there's the unfair disadvantage after having players injured during a game, fine, sure, let substitutes become a part of the game, but NOT instead of the 4 interchanges. Just turn emergencies into substitutes, easy.

As for the spectacle of the game, how is it better to watch guys run half as fast as they usually would? The pace of the game is what makes it the most loved sport in the country, we would be going backwards to make it slower, less tactical, less skilled, have fewer footballers and more athletes.

All I see is bunches of about 32 players around the ball like U10's and a rugby-like scrum rolling the ball forward until someone gets clear and they eventually kick a goal from a soft one over the back.

[Scorlibo]

All I see is bunches of about 32 players around the ball like U10's and a rugby-like scrum rolling the ball forward until someone gets clear and they eventually kick a goal from a soft one over the back.

What makes you think this would stop with less interchanges? Such U10 clusters occur when there are stoppages, and players will always have time to arrive at these stoppages, pretty well regardless of how tired they are. So assuming player instructions remain the same, the density of players around the ball at stoppages will stay the same.

The only thing that less interchanges will do regarding the clusters is negatively affect players' abilities to break from the stoppage and find space.

[bornadog]

All I see is bunches of about 32 players around the ball like U10's and a rugby-like scrum rolling the ball forward until someone gets clear and they eventually kick a goal from a soft one over the back.

Come on SS that is not true.

I remember standing in front of the EJ Whitten stand, in the Melbourne Winter, watching guys slog it out in the mud and only a few goals kicked.

We cannot change the game through rules into something we want to see happen on the field. The game just continually evolves, and as you said in your post, the changes have different effects that no one can predict and the coaches come up with a new tactic.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Come on SS that is not true.

I remember standing in front of the EJ Whitten stand, in the Melbourne Winter, watching guys slog it out in the mud and only a few goals kicked.

We cannot change the game through rules into something we want to see happen on the field. The game just continually evolves, and as you said in your post, the changes have different effects that no one can predict and the coaches come up with a new tactic.

As I said in my earlier post, this is only one aspect I am changing.

My rule changes are about fixing up the rules committees earlier balls-ups, not changing the game. The evolution of the game has come about because we have dicked with the rules, you don't really think that coaches today have suddenly got smarter than those for the last 100 years?

New tactics and innovations will always occur, they are just happening at a massive rate because we have changed the rules on a whim and without thinking of the concequences.


Rolling mauls were unavoidable back in the days of the suburban grounds; there is no excuse today but they are more common than ever.

I don't want to cap interchanges, I don't understand why 150 interchanges are a blight on the game. I want the players resting less and getting too tired to flood. We already see games opening up after half time when players start getting tired. The coach that continues to flood with less chances to rest his players is destined to get smashed the longer the game goes on. Make him hold something back, we just need to give his defenders a chance to beat their opponents on their merits.

Let defenders defend and make it harder to sit 17 blokes in D50.

[GVGjr]

If there were less rotations, then coaches and recruiting officers would be more likely to recruit and select 'athletes' who can run out games at a high intensity. With less rotations there is less room for the 'genuine footballers'.

Disagree as there is nothing to suggest that would the the case. IMO, If the pace of the game wasn't at a premium then the more natural footballers would get a better go.

The problem that I see is that players sprint their hardest to come off the ground only to sprint back on sometimes 3 minutes later.

I'm not saying this is workable but I'd look at something like one rest per player per quarter and if they need to come off for a second time then they say off for the balance of the quarter.

[soupman]

The implications of a cap would be terrible, both on the spectacle and the game itself. It would encourage clubs to play a chipping around in the back line style of play to conserve energy, much like we have done in the last quarter of matches much like the Freo one after Darwin. On this, it disadvantages sides coming off a trip the previous week. And theoretically if more refreshed players result in more collision injuries why aren't there more injuries early in matches.

Weirdly in this year with all it's rotations I feel as if there have been fewer muscle injuries. We've barely had any player pull a hammy or the like, with most injuries coming from issues such as groin problems, which as I understand them are largely because of a weak core and more running, something which less interchanges would require. And those serious hamstring injuries that have occurred have either been freak injuries or something like the Riewoldt one where he was put back on after having already twanged it.

[soupman]

Just to add to my point I've just read in an article regarding the issue that part of the reason the AFL is looking to introduce these changes is to ensure sides that suffer injuries mid game don't suffer as a consequence. How does a cap help them in this regard? It actually means it's harder for them, as with 21 players it means more rotations are required to give their players an rest, and as they are capped the opposition has one player to run the game out better with.

It's just so poorly thought through and such an undesirable change.

[Go_Dogs]

What about something as simple as no interchanges for the first 10 minutes of a qtr? If a player is interchanged (due to suffering an injury) they cannot come back on for the duration of the qtr.

[Murphy'sLore]

What about something as simple as no interchanges for the first 10 minutes of a qtr? If a player is interchanged (due to suffering an injury) they cannot come back on for the duration of the qtr.

At least that has the virtue of simplicity. Suggestions of a cap on each player, even capped totals per game, are going to be a nightmare to track and enforce.

[bornadog]

I'm not saying this is workable but I'd look at something like one rest per player per quarter and if they need to come off for a second time then they say off for the balance of the quarter.

The other consideration to this and capping interchanges is the officiating that would be required to keep records of players going on and off. Mistakes will happen and then what is the penalty etc?