Substitutes in for 2011

[bornadog]

By Adam McNicol (http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/103656/default.aspx)
12:15 PM Mon 04 Oct, 2010

AFL TEAMS will have three interchange players and one substitute on their benches in 2011 after the League acted to curb the dramatic rise in the number of rotations during matches.

The new rule, which was trialled in the 2009 and 2010 NAB Cup competitions, will allow clubs to introduce their substitute into games at any time, but the player who is replaced cannot return to the field.

"Interchange numbers per club have doubled from an average of 58 per game in 2007 to 117 per game in 2010," AFL football operations manager and chairman of the laws of the game committee Adrian Anderson said.

The AFL has cited three reasons - congestion, fairness and injuries - for changing the interchange rules for the first time since the fourth bench player was added in 1998.

"The use of interchange has created more congestion, more stoppages, more defensive pressure and has contributed to a drop in disposal efficiency," Anderson said.

"The laws committee was also concerned about the increasing effect of the interchange on match fairness.

"The interchange was originally designed to help teams when they had an injury, but was increasingly a disadvantage to a team with an injury, because it was unable to rotate their players as much as the opposition.

"The medical advice was also telling us that a restriction should be applied to try to arrest the current injury trend."

Three different interchange rules were floated for discussion by the laws committee in August.

They were:

- three interchange players and one subtitute
- two interchange players and two substitutes
- four interchange players, with a cap of 80 interchanges per game

The laws committee subsequently chose to recommend the one-sub system to the league executive, which endorsed it. The new rule was then ratified by the AFL Commission.

The league has made two other changes for the 2011 season.

The advantage rule trialled in this year's pre-season NAB Cup competition, whereby the player not the umpire determines whether there is an advantage in playing on after a free kick, will be introduced.

In addition, the rule on head high bumps has been clarified.

A player who elects to apply a bump in any situation can now expect to be reported if he makes forceful contact with the head, unless:

- the player was contesting the ball and did not have a realistic alternative way to contest the ball
- the contact was caused by circumstances outside the control of the player which could not be reasonably foreseen.

The laws committee did not recommend any change to the game's scoring system, nor any change to the length of quarters.

The laws committee consists of Anderson, Kevin Bartlett, Luke Darcy, Andrew McKay, Leigh Matthews, Matthew Pavlich, Luke Power, Rowan Sawers and Michael Sexton.

[bornadog]

This will change the game again. No thought by the rules committee on what will happen.

1. Good bye second ruck
2. Rotations to grow even more
3. interesting to see what tactics will be used by coaches on the sub
4. When injuries happen, wait for the outcry?
5. What does this really achieve?

[mighty_west]

This will change the game again. No thought by the rules committee on what will happen.

1. Good bye second ruck
2. Rotations to grow even more
3. interesting to see what tactics will be used by coaches on the sub
4. When injuries happen, wait for the outcry?
5. What does this really achieve?

Goodbye to the one dinosaur ruckman that serves no purpose but playing purely in the ruck.

Would be a risk for coaches to sub a player without an injury, would kind of suck to only have 2 bench warmers and one subbed out fit player.

[mighty_west]

Would also kind of suck having a sub that may not get any game time what so ever for the weekend if their VFL team played the same day!

[The Coon Dog]

Would also kind of suck having a sub that may not get any game time what so ever for the weekend if their VFL team played the same day!

Really will need careful management.

I can't see someone sitting out a whole game. Even without injuries, teams will want a fresh pair of legs in games.

[Bulldog Joe]

This will change the game again. No thought by the rules committee on what will happen.

1. Good bye second ruck
2. Rotations to grow even more
3. interesting to see what tactics will be used by coaches on the sub
4. When injuries happen, wait for the outcry?
5. What does this really achieve?

Perhaps it means no rotation for ruckmen as they can stay on the ground and maybe rest forward.

Clubs will look to ways that they can still maximise the midfield rotations and I see that as probably increasing the players with little or no rotation.

For the Dogs it probably means players like Lake, Hudson, Hall stay on the ground.

[mighty_west]

Really will need careful management.

I can't see someone sitting out a whole game. Even without injuries, teams will want a fresh pair of legs in games.

True, it's going to be interesting to see if a team subs a player after half time or even 3/4 time, especially in a tight tough game and suffer an injury after that sometime, it could be the difference between winning and losing a game to only have 2 players to rotate with.

[Greystache]

Perhaps it means no rotation for ruckmen as they can stay on the ground and maybe rest forward.

Clubs will look to ways that they can still maximise the midfield rotations and I see that as probably increasing the players with little or no rotation.

For the Dogs it probably means players like Lake, Hudson, Hall stay on the ground.

That's what I think will happen too. The running players will be rotated just as much as they are now, but the more fixed postition players won't be part of the rotations. I'm not sure this change will work the way the AFL hope, I think it will just further highlight the gulf between the fixed position players (ie ruckmen and KP forwards and defenders) and the fresher burst running players.

The only advantage it might have is potentially restricting the less rotated forwards from pushing deep into defence the way St Kilda do.

[mjp]

Will be a bit more 'coaching' and a few less player driven rotations.

That is what makes me laugh about all this - it isn't as if the coaches are sitting up in the box 'ringing the changes' - when the players are tired or NEAR the bench, or there is a break in play....they come off.

There will be less of their mates to change with so this might be marginally restricted...I doubt things will change that much though.

[bornadog]

Will be a bit more 'coaching' and a few less player driven rotations.

That is what makes me laugh about all this - it isn't as if the coaches are sitting up in the box 'ringing the changes' - when the players are tired or NEAR the bench, or there is a break in play....they come off.

There will be less of their mates to change with so this might be marginally restricted...I doubt things will change that much though.

Then I wonder what the the thinking is to change the rules?

[Mantis]

Then I wonder what the thinking is to change the rules?

Because for the AFL doing something is better than nothing.

This is something.

[Pickenitup]

I think this rule ends Will Minson career at the Dogs

[LostDoggy]

In turn might it revive Everitt's career? If we are going to trade for Setanta to fill the gap here, I'd rather keep Everitt.

[Mantis]

In turn might it revive Everitt's career? If we are going to trade for Setanta to fill the gap here, I'd rather keep Everitt.

Setanta?

I haven't heard his name mentioned as someone we are looking at.

[GVGjr]

It's a significant change without allowing clubs the chance to adjust their lists in advance.

I think this is a change that could have been made 12 months further down the track.

[soupman]

Massive change.

But what is the thinking behind it? It means the bench will be used even more frequently.

It will be interesting though to see the clubs come up with new and different ways to gain an advantage through the sub.

Theoretically you could play 2 pure ruckman through the sub system. Get one to work his arse off in the first half with minimal breaks, then sub him at half time and repeat. Might work well with wearing down the opponents ruckman.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

The whole concept of a 'substitute' just doesn't fit into the AFL game. I'd rather see a five man bench as opposed to a three man/one sub bench. It just doesn't achieve anything for the greater good.

Another stupid move IMO.

[jazzadogs]

Massive change.

But what is the thinking behind it? It means the bench will be used even more frequently.

It will be interesting though to see the clubs come up with new and different ways to gain an advantage through the sub.

Theoretically you could play 2 pure ruckman through the sub system. Get one to work his arse off in the first half with minimal breaks, then sub him at half time and repeat. Might work well with wearing down the opponents ruckman.
The ruckman idea was one way which I thought teams would attack it, but I think it's an extremely risky way to go.

I think that interchange numbers will go down as a consequence of having one less player to change, but proportionally there will be very little difference.

[GVGjr]

The whole concept of a 'substitute' just doesn't fit into the AFL game. I'd rather see a five man bench as opposed to a three man/one sub bench. It just doesn't achieve anything for the greater good.

Another stupid move IMO.


I think a 3 man IC bench with 2 Subs is more workable but it does appear to be another overreaction by the AFL.

Would we have been better off with an IC cap? Harder to police but a better outcome.

[Go_Dogs]

Would we have been better off with an IC cap? Harder to police but a better outcome.

Rather than a cap, which is hard to police, I think a rule that you can't interchange for say, the first 10 minutes of a 1/4 would have been good. Obviously if there is an injury that player can be substituted but then perhaps they couldn't come back on for at least 10 minutes.

I think this is a pretty interesting change.

Could see a specialist type role develop, perhaps with a couple of players that each play a half each week. Interesting stuff.

[soupman]

Could see a specialist type role develop, perhaps with a couple of players that each play a half each week. Interesting stuff.

Could it prolong players careers? I seem to remember Ricardi at Geelong being used as an impact player in his later years, but this may no longer apply to the modern game.

[LostDoggy]

Setanta?

I haven't heard his name mentioned as someone we are looking at.

Mentioned here on woof not by me.
http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=8281&highlight=setanta&page=7

[Flamethrower]

I can't believe the AFLPA agreed to this - they have effectively cost their constituents 17 jobs (18 when GWS start), as each team now only plays 21 players at a time. If there are no major injuries the substitute may only get 15 minutes game time (or none at all if a game is really close and the 21 are all playing well). There is no way a club will pay a player a full match payment in this situation.

The MLB, NHL, NBA or NFL players union would go on strike over this.

The only way a substitute system works is if each team still has 22 players, but then also has a minimum of 4 to 6 subs to cover for injuries. Then you could have a ruckman, a couple of midfielders and a couple of KPPs on the bench depending on who gets injured. Could you imagine if Ben Hudson goes down in the first minute and we have Andrew Hooper as the 22nd man. :eek:

[Rocco Jones]

I can't believe the AFLPA agreed to this - they have effectively cost their constituents 17 jobs (18 when GWS start), as each team now only plays 21 players at a time. If there are no major injuries the substitute may only get 15 minutes game time (or none at all if a game is really close and the 21 are all playing well). There is no way a club will pay a player a full match payment in this situation.

The MLB, NHL, NBA or NFL players union would go on strike over this.

The only way a substitute system works is if each team still has 22 players, but then also has a minimum of 4 to 6 subs to cover for injuries. Then you could have a ruckman, a couple of midfielders and a couple of KPPs on the bench depending on who gets injured. Could you imagine if Ben Hudson goes down in the first minute and we have Andrew Hooper as the 22nd man. :eek:

The sub will be used regardless of injury due to the fresh legs they offer.

[bornadog]

The sub will be used regardless of injury due to the fresh legs they offer.

A fresh player coming on say half way through the third quarter and out running everyone at a crucial time when meanwhile the opposition have had a bad injury and have used their sub in the first quarter.

[LostDoggy]

Opens up a new can of worms! All we know the coaches will use it as a major tactic.

[Rocco Jones]

A fresh player coming on say half way through the third quarter and out running everyone at a crucial time when meanwhile the opposition have had a bad injury and have used their sub in the first quarter.

Yep.

I think it will be interesting to see the type of player teams go with for their sub. A player with a great tank would be wasted in the spot. It would end up lengthening the careers of players as 35-40% TOG can end up being quite legitimate.

I am the godfather of the part time ruck option as a 2nd ruck This rule makes playing two pure ruckmen as redundant as the discman. I think it makes anyone who can easily warrant 80% TOG now even more important, whether they be the pure ruckman in the 1st ruck role, a KPP or a runner. A good day for Daniel Cross.

[Go_Dogs]

A good day for Daniel Cross.

And a good day for the "let's train Roughead up to spend 50%+ game time in the F50" cause in my mind too, which is a good thing.

[Bulldog Joe]

Might it also lead to more game by game rotation.

If we are going to need players like Hudson and Hall to play close to 100% game time might they then need to have games off more often.

Perhaps the idea of keeping Minson and having Roughead, Hudson and Hall as a regular rotation with three of the four playing each week and one being rested. Hudson and Hall having full weeks off every 4 would make it more likely that they could get to finals in a better state.

[Mofra]

This could make injuries during the game substantially more fo a disadvantage.

Sub 1 comes on after halftime, and a player immediately is injured. The team is then down to 2 available for rotations on the bench as the player subbed off cannot return.
The teams with the fewest soft tissue injuries ( up to round 17 or 18 anyway) were the Bulldogs & Collingwood - the teams that had the highest number of rotations. This could be a disaster waiting to happen on two fronts.

[bornadog]

If the aim of this rule is to reduce rotations then it ain't gunna work.

Lets say a team currently averages 140 rotations per game, or 35 per quarter divided by four players that works out to 8.75 rotations based on four players, spread amongst 18 players on the field. Based on 30 minute quarters and 8.75 rotations per qrt, this is an average of 3.43 minutes per rotation

Under the new rules if teams continue with 140 rotations and only have 3 on the bench then that means 11.67 rotations per each on the bench or an extra 3 per quarter or a rotation every 2.57 minutes.

Not much difference.