| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Have six on the bench and as many rotations as you like. Just one restriction: if you go off, you have to stay off till the start of the next quarter.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
 |
jackcass 
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | Have six on the bench and as many rotations as you like. Just one restriction: if you go off, you have to stay off till the start of the next quarter. |
Doesn't that effectively reduce you to 6 rotations a quarter. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Shhhh! The rest of 'em will never figure it out if you don't tell 'em 'coz they can't handle mathimet mathy mathmapic maphemati sums.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
jackcass
Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Our secret! |
|
|
|
|
woftam 
I used to be undecided, but now I'm not so sure.
Joined: 28 Jul 2008
Location: Carum Downs, Vic
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Will be glad to see the back of the sub rule. Don't know any fan that likes it. |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
i actually think if a player simply stood still for the 90 seconds after a goal was scored rather than sprinting to the bench, a player would get his 90 second rest.
It seems exhausting to sprint 100 meters every time you want to go to the bench!
Maybe that will help.
Less rotations following a goal should soak up the loss of 30 rotations a quarter.
dont think you will see much of a change.
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
didick
didick
Joined: 17 Jun 2009
Location: Brisbane
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| E wrote: | i actually think if a player simply stood still for the 90 seconds after a goal was scored rather than sprinting to the bench, a player would get his 90 second rest.
It seems exhausting to sprint 100 meters every time you want to go to the bench!
Maybe that will help.
Less rotations following a goal should soak up the loss of 30 rotations a quarter.
dont think you will see much of a change. |
Exactly. Sammy D kicked a goal on Saturday and expended more energy getting to the bench than the act of being in position, getting the ball, and kicking it.
_________________
"The night is a very dark time for me" Chaz Michael Michaels |
|
|
|
|
E
Joined: 05 May 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | Players wont be more tired as they will simply stay off the ground for longer when the rotations are capped at a lower amount.
120 minutes game time / 120 rotations = 1 minute bench time
120 minutes game time / 80 rotations = 1minute 30 sec bench time
That's just a simplistic equation obviously but you get the idea. |
Actually mate, if rotations go from 120 per quarter with three on the bench to 80 per quarter with 4 on the bench, the average time off the ground will increase even more than you think since there is an extra spot in the rotation.
Under the 3 bench/120 system - assuming a 30 minute quarter, a player will spend on average 0.75 minutes or 45 seconds on the bench.
Going to 4 bench/80 system - assuming same 30 minute quarter, a player will spend 1.5 minutes on the bench (90 seconds)!
So under this system, players will spend twice as long on the bench as they did before.
The question is "what is the optimal time to spend on the bench so you can come back on and gut run again". I suppose if it is 45 seconds, as appears to be the case given that teams like 120 rotations with a three person bench.
My own opinipon, is that going to a 4 person bench and 80 rotations might allow teams with 2 fantastic ruckman to play them both (as it wont hurt the team too much if they rest on the bench.
If only we had 2 fantastic young up and coming ruckmen!
_________________
Ohhh, the Premiership's a cakewalk ....... |
|
|
|
|
thompsoc
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The question should be - what do we
want to achieve with rotations and sub rule?
The answer would be a better and fairer quality game.
Myself - i don't like 32 guys around the ball the majority
of the time. It is boring. How do we change this if that is what
the AFL wants?
This is really about the direction of the game.
_________________
we don't eat our own at collingwood we just allow them to foul our nest. |
|
|
|
|
The-Den 
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Any chance of the sub rule gone this year? Or can we expect it to be next year? |
|
|
|
|
John Wren 
"Look after the game. It means so much to so many."
Joined: 15 Jul 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
irrespective of whatever mechanisms are adopted the coaches will find a way to exploit and overcome them.
_________________
Purveyor of sanctimonious twaddle. |
|
|
|
|
yin-YANG
Joined: 03 Oct 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The sub rule is horrible.
A bigger bench means losing a player or two with injuries is not as big an impact to the team. Of course footy involves an element of luck so a totally fair playing field cannot be guaranteed - and nor should it be - that is part of the drama of football.
Rotations allow players to rest - the game requires lots of running and players who are more tired etc are more prone to injuries. DO we want the best players exhibiting the best of AFL - of course we do!
Does the extra rotations allow for more running - yes. So a cap will fatigue players more.
A lower cap and bigger bench seems to be the best compromise. Changing rules to affect the style of footy is a waste of time because the style can change very quickly. I personally love the congestion and contested footy - it becomes a skill and even an art form by some of the players who do it well.
Just get rid of the sub rule and that terrible vest - De Goey's first game was such a fizzier when it could have been a much better experience for him and the fans if he was able to come off the bench and rotate into the game.
The players have spoken - the fans and now the AFL need to respond and I would suggest they do it ASAP - get rid of it before the end of the season - why hang onto a failed rule that no-one wants?
_________________
Love us or Hate us... we are Collingwood - you can't ignore the Mighty Magpies!!! |
|
|
|
|
Museman
Joined: 06 Jul 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Keep the sub rule, matter of fact have 6 if you want.
Just scrap interchange.
Kb is right for one of the first times in his life.
It's only about fatigue as in so far as it's about creating change. Our game has become under 9's with a bit more cerebral capacity, 36 players around the ball with about 20 of them actually knowing where to stand a zone, if you're a fan of this you are obviously a fan of both Basketball and Union. It's not unique any more in fact it's outright ugly a good % of the time.
The idea is to stop players from the forward half flooding into the defensive half and clogging both stoppages and space, and conversely stop the defensive half flooding the forward half (the press), tinkering will not achieve this and others are right it will create injuries, because coaches god bless their hearts, will still push the physical limits of players, demand an even higher level of aerobic capacity and drive drafting even further away from the pure footballer, you know the one that does it with his brain and skills rather than the one who can make the most contests.
The current version is so far removed from the old as to be hardly recognizable, rule changes and coaching have driven it here, the answer would seem a simple fix.... remove the directing factors, rule changes? this game started out all those years ago with no interchange and 2 or 3 substitutions and has somehow matured into a conveyer belt rotational blitz, given what they have to work with coaches have brought it here, now you cannot remove coaching but you can force it's hand
How anyone could love the current model is beyond me, though I suppose even fat chicks in lycra have their fans. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| didick wrote: | | E wrote: | i actually think if a player simply stood still for the 90 seconds after a goal was scored rather than sprinting to the bench, a player would get his 90 second rest.
It seems exhausting to sprint 100 meters every time you want to go to the bench!
Maybe that will help.
Less rotations following a goal should soak up the loss of 30 rotations a quarter.
dont think you will see much of a change. |
Exactly. Sammy D kicked a goal on Saturday and expended more energy getting to the bench than the act of being in position, getting the ball, and kicking it. |
And, being the sub, he'd only been on the ground for long enough to spit, adjust his protector, and wave to his mum. If those few minutes made him tired, he'd need to take a taxi 300 yards to the bus stop on Monday mornings 'coz it's too far to walk.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Museman wrote: | Keep the sub rule, matter of fact have 6 if you want.
Just scrap interchange.
Kb is right for one of the first times in his life.
It's only about fatigue as in so far as it's about creating change. Our game has become under 9's with a bit more cerebral capacity, 36 players around the ball with about 20 of them actually knowing where to stand a zone, if you're a fan of this you are obviously a fan of both Basketball and Union. It's not unique any more in fact it's outright ugly a good % of the time.
The idea is to stop players from the forward half flooding into the defensive half and clogging both stoppages and space, and conversely stop the defensive half flooding the forward half (the press), tinkering will not achieve this and others are right it will create injuries, because coaches god bless their hearts, will still push the physical limits of players, demand an even higher level of aerobic capacity and drive drafting even further away from the pure footballer, you know the one that does it with his brain and skills rather than the one who can make the most contests.
The current version is so far removed from the old as to be hardly recognizable, rule changes and coaching have driven it here, the answer would seem a simple fix.... remove the directing factors, rule changes? this game started out all those years ago with no interchange and 2 or 3 substitutions and has somehow matured into a conveyer belt rotational blitz, given what they have to work with coaches have brought it here, now you cannot remove coaching but you can force it's hand
How anyone could love the current model is beyond me, though I suppose even fat chicks in lycra have their fans. |
One of the truly great posts. Agree with every word.
But hmmm ... fat chicks in lycra ... Well, OK then. I mean, you can always take the lycra off and turn the light out.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
