Limited interchange

[barry]

I'm fairly convinced that the AFL will introduce a limited interchange into the game within the next 3 years to combat flooding.

The swans are the ones most likely to be hurt by this rule as our interchange is a revolving door of move after move.

Anyone know how the NRL limits interchange ? Whats the case when a player is injured after all the interchanges have taken place ?

[Charlie]

It simply can't be done.

Midfielders run 15-20km a game. The AFLPA would start a lockout if the AFL tried to restrict access to having a rest during the game. It's a health issue, plain and simple.

[barry]

Originally posted by Charlie
It simply can't be done.

Midfielders run 15-20km a game. The AFLPA would start a lockout if the AFL tried to restrict access to having a rest during the game. It's a health issue, plain and simple.

I think the idea is to stop them running 20km a game by not giving them a break. If they choose to run 20km, then thats their problem, not the AFL's.

[Norris Lurker]

Can't see it happening. The current system is working well - it's sure an improvement on the days when there were only 2-3 interchange players and games were sometimes decided by a team running out of fit players.
If there were interchange limits, and injured players were forced to play on and risk worsening their injury while there were fit players on the sidelines, there'd be a stink kicked up; and so there should be. Such players would need to get treatment on the field to not use up an interchange, so you'd get a lot more soccer-style diving and hold-ups in play for medical treatment.

[BayesysLeftBoot]

What about increasing the number of players on the bench to 5 or 6 and limiting changes to 25 - 30 per game?

[Sanecow]

Must be April Fool's day, but I agree with Charlie. Use of the interchange is very much a health and safety issue. Besides, teams that rotate their midfield on and off the bench keep their players running and a fast game is a good game. Speed sells.

Besides, bombing the ball long out of a flood can result in a spectacular chase and goal as we saw earlier this year!

[BayesysLeftBoot]

I think the only way the flood can really be stopped is by introducing the Kevin Sheedy Zone system. I really hate knee-jerk reactions and drastic changes to the rules of the game but if it will stop flooding I would be all for it.

[garethb83]

Re: Limited interchange

Originally posted by barry
Anyone know how the NRL limits interchange ? Whats the case when a player is injured after all the interchanges have taken place ?

The NRL system works on a 4-man bench, and there are 12 changes allowed per game. If by chance the 12 changes have occurred and a player gets hurt, its too bad. If the player can't go on, then the side plays a man down.

Obviously this sort of situation will never happen in the AFL, just answering your question.

[Young Blood]

I wouldn't be surprised if something like this were trialled. Gerard Healy has suggested it often. They might look at two interchange and two substitutes (or three and one). If a player went off for a substitute, they'd be off for the rest of the game. Don't think this would present OH&S issues.

In theory, this would limit teams' capacity to maintain a 'flooding' style of play through a full game, and would promote more one-on-one contests. Good for football!

[Sanecow]

One-on-one contests these days seem to lead to a boring game of maintaining possession by short-kicks up the boundary to a leading player, followed by a long range shot at goal from outside 50m, repeat.

[Young Blood]

Originally posted by Sanecow
One-on-one contests these days seem to lead to a boring game of maintaining possession by short-kicks up the boundary to a leading player, followed by a long range shot at goal from outside 50m, repeat.

Only when players don't trust their teammates to beat their opponent in a contest.

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by Young Blood
Only when players don't trust their teammates to beat their opponent in a contest.

A leading player with a guaranteed mark is better than a contested situation without it being a question of trust.

[swansrule100]

frig a boot i hope not

I love footy right now and think its great, whys there always this constant need for the experts to call for changes?

[Young Blood]

Originally posted by Sanecow
A leading player with a guaranteed mark is better than a contested situation without it being a question of trust.

Not so simple. Teams kick goals more often when they move the ball quickly. If you can do that with a series of uncontested possessions, that's fine. But particularly in the forward half, it's better to go quickly to a one-on-one contest than to wait and wait for someone to get free to take an uncontested mark.

[Thunder Shaker]

The way to beat the flood - build an ark, place two of each kind of animal on board, and ride out the flood waters for forty days and forty nights.

Seriously, I don't think the flood is a problem. No flood can stop a long bomb for goal, and if you've got marking talls in the goalsqaure they have to be a chance to take a grab if it falls short. The torp is one option, but the place kick (yes! the place kick!) can travel a similar distance to a torp with greater accuracy.