| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Johnno75
Joined: 07 Oct 2010
Location: Wantirna
|
|
|
|
 |
Lazza
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Yep, about bloody time. The sub rule was bullshit right from the start.
_________________
Don't confuse your current path with your final destination. Just because it's dark and stormy now doesn't meant that you aren't headed for glorious sunshine! |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
That's an improvement, but I still think the AFL will re-visit this again in a year or two and reduce the allowable subs to around 60 if they really want to have an impact.
My solution would be to limit the use of substitutions to only after a goal has been scored, as well as after each quarter. This is when there is a natural halt in the play. Even then though, I'd limit it to no more than 2 players to be substituted at a time. This would end the constant running on and off of players during play. |
|
|
|
|
themonk
Joined: 02 Mar 2004
|
| Post subject: Re: Sub rule gone, rotations capped at 90 | |
|
Remember when this was for player safety by reducing injuries?
120 down to 90.
The AFL making sure they eliminate and drive a stake through the heart of the successful rotation system used to win us a flag.
I do understand the need for it now, but the original reasoning was rubbish. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Congratulations, Steele Sidebottom - your elite endurance has just made you the most valuable footballer in the AFL.
Wait until they reduce the cap to 60 - they'll make a special rule requiring Steele to play with his legs tied together. |
|
|
|
|
Lazza
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | That's an improvement, but I still think the AFL will re-visit this again in a year or two and reduce the allowable subs to around 60 if they really want to have an impact.
My solution would be to limit the use of substitutions to only after a goal has been scored, as well as after each quarter. This is when there is a natural halt in the play. Even then though, I'd limit it to no more than 2 players to be substituted at a time. This would end the constant running on and off of players during play. |
Not too sure about this RB. Many low scoring games in terrible weather have almost goalless quarters. You'll have players falling down exhausted out on the ground mate. This is not at all feasible in my humble view.
And I don’t think anyone really worries about these interchanges happening during the quarter because they are done so very quickly.
_________________
Don't confuse your current path with your final destination. Just because it's dark and stormy now doesn't meant that you aren't headed for glorious sunshine! |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man 
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
So the AFL is finally admitting what a Joke of a Rule this was 
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
doriswilgus
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Location: the great southern land
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Wasn't the sub rule brought in to slow the game down and ease congestion on the field?Well,that went well,didn't it?  |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Lazza wrote: | | RudeBoy wrote: | That's an improvement, but I still think the AFL will re-visit this again in a year or two and reduce the allowable subs to around 60 if they really want to have an impact.
My solution would be to limit the use of substitutions to only after a goal has been scored, as well as after each quarter. This is when there is a natural halt in the play. Even then though, I'd limit it to no more than 2 players to be substituted at a time. This would end the constant running on and off of players during play. |
Not too sure about this RB. Many low scoring games in terrible weather have almost goalless quarters. You'll have players falling down exhausted out on the ground mate. This is not at all feasible in my humble view.
And I don’t think anyone really worries about these interchanges happening during the quarter because they are done so very quickly. |
People forget that for over 100 years we played the game without any rotations. We just had 2 interchange and once they were off, they could not come back on. The game seemed to be pretty good to me back then. Still wtfwik?  |
|
|
|
|
Dangles
Balmey Army
Joined: 14 May 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Should make it easier to play both Grundy and Witts. Now we can rotate them between the ruck and bench. Should help develop both of them. |
|
|
|
|
Lazza
Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: Bendigo, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| RudeBoy wrote: | | Lazza wrote: | | RudeBoy wrote: | That's an improvement, but I still think the AFL will re-visit this again in a year or two and reduce the allowable subs to around 60 if they really want to have an impact.
My solution would be to limit the use of substitutions to only after a goal has been scored, as well as after each quarter. This is when there is a natural halt in the play. Even then though, I'd limit it to no more than 2 players to be substituted at a time. This would end the constant running on and off of players during play. |
Not too sure about this RB. Many low scoring games in terrible weather have almost goalless quarters. You'll have players falling down exhausted out on the ground mate. This is not at all feasible in my humble view.
And I don’t think anyone really worries about these interchanges happening during the quarter because they are done so very quickly. |
People forget that for over 100 years we played the game without any rotations. We just had 2 interchange and once they were off, they could not come back on. The game seemed to be pretty good to me back then. Still wtfwik? |
Easy answer for that RB. Different game these days mate. Just watch any game from even the 80's and you plainly see that the speed/pace of the game now is incredible in comparison. The enormous efforts and fitness levels now required would make the then "stars" from the VFL just about bloody useless. I was speaking to Rene Kink on Tuesday night at a Collingwood function in Bendigo and he said he would have struggled to get a game these days due to the pace of the game and the fitness levels required. Peter McCormack who was also present thought he could play at full back but not at full forward. It was interesting to hear from them how much the pace of the game has changed over the past 20 - 30 years.
_________________
Don't confuse your current path with your final destination. Just because it's dark and stormy now doesn't meant that you aren't headed for glorious sunshine! |
|
|
|
|
RudeBoy
Joined: 28 Nov 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Lazza wrote: | | RudeBoy wrote: | | Lazza wrote: | | RudeBoy wrote: | That's an improvement, but I still think the AFL will re-visit this again in a year or two and reduce the allowable subs to around 60 if they really want to have an impact.
My solution would be to limit the use of substitutions to only after a goal has been scored, as well as after each quarter. This is when there is a natural halt in the play. Even then though, I'd limit it to no more than 2 players to be substituted at a time. This would end the constant running on and off of players during play. |
Not too sure about this RB. Many low scoring games in terrible weather have almost goalless quarters. You'll have players falling down exhausted out on the ground mate. This is not at all feasible in my humble view.
And I don’t think anyone really worries about these interchanges happening during the quarter because they are done so very quickly. |
People forget that for over 100 years we played the game without any rotations. We just had 2 interchange and once they were off, they could not come back on. The game seemed to be pretty good to me back then. Still wtfwik? |
Easy answer for that RB. Different game these days mate. Just watch any game from even the 80's and you plainly see that the speed/pace of the game now is incredible in comparison. The enormous efforts and fitness levels now required would make the then "stars" from the VFL just about bloody useless. I was speaking to Rene Kink on Tuesday night at a Collingwood function in Bendigo and he said he would have struggled to get a game these days due to the pace of the game and the fitness levels required. Peter McCormack who was also present thought he could play at full back but not at full forward. It was interesting to hear from them how much the pace of the game has changed over the past 20 - 30 years. |
Yes, but that's the very reason the game is in such strife. The speed of players running forward and back, crowding around ball-ups, flooding defences etc, has destroyed positional play completely. That's why there's no great full forwards any more. It's the constant rotations which enables players to run flat out all the time. The AFL's obsession with making the game faster over the past 20 yrs has just about f*cked the game imo. Reduce the rotations so players have to pace themselves, so they play more of a positional game instead of having everyone running after the ball like a flock of bees, leading to massive congestion and ball up after ball up. You reap what you sow. |
|
|
|
|
Cuthbert Collingwood 
Once was on fire, now all at sea
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Location: The BBC (Brunswick Bowling Club)
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I feel that 90 is a bit of a cop out by the AFL, obviously kow-towing to the AFLCA and AFLPA. 80 would have been a more effective way to see the impact of the rule, personally feel it should come down to 60. Though I'm incrediy happy about the stupid sub rule, what a crock
_________________
McRae for Governor-General! |
|
|
|
|
King Monkey
Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Location: On a journey to seek the scriptures of enlightenment....
|
| Post subject: | |
|
If this is accurate - it's half-arsed at best.
90 will not do a great deal to change the status-quo.
To make an actual difference, 40 needed to be the maximum number.
And the answer to any whinging from the Coaches and/or the Players' Association: adapt your game style to fit.
_________________
"I am a great sage, equal of heaven.
Grow stick, grow.
Fly cloud, fly.
Oh you are a dee-mon, I love to fiiight." |
|
|
|
|
melliot
Joined: 07 Apr 2006
Location: Bendigo
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I'm happy with the change. Good riddence to the sub I say. Hated the rule when it came in. Still hate it. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
