Limited interchange

[Q...]

Originally posted by Guzzitza


"AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou has forecast restrictions to the interchange bench in a bid to reduce collision injuries.

.........

I don't have the stats so I'm just going to make stuff up to support my view.

That's just stoopid. There are more knee and soft tissue injuries in AFL than lateral high impact ones. Wouldn't increased lethargy in players increase the likelyhood of knee injuries? Probably not soft tissue ones as the players wouldn't be pushing as hard. Although, it might lead to more stop start play by the players which would increase the likelyhood of hamstring injuries.

Can anyone remember a lateral high impact injury that would've been lessened if the players were a little slower? I would've thought that most serious impact injuries are caused by tackling with strength (think Johncock on Williams).

[FredFlintstone]

Bench restrictions are on the cards
By Samantha Lane
August 21, 2005

"AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou has forecast restrictions to the interchange bench in a bid to reduce collision injuries.

"Because there are a number of rotations, what we are seeing is the players are just as fit . . . at the end of the game as they are at the start of the game. It is causing the game to be played at breakneck speed."
......... [/B][/QUOTE]


Someone please correct me if i am wrong, but i always thought Aussie Rules was supposed to be a fast paced game

[Sanecow]

Originally posted by FredFlintstone
"Because there are a number of rotations, what we are seeing is the players are just as fit . . . at the end of the game as they are at the start of the game. It is causing the game to be played at breakneck speed."
.........

The most retarded thing I have ever heard. Perhaps the players should run 20 laps before the game to tire them out and make the game safer. x 100

[Norris Lurker]

When some refer to flooding as a blight on the game, it certainly makes a contrast to other sports where an offside rule is in place to force teams to flood. Flooding is nothing more than a voluntarily self-imposed offside rule.
Some of the talk on BigFooty is just ridiculous ? suggestions that the Swans? and others have permanently changed the face of the game for the worse. I don?t think that?s the case at all ? there?s probably an effective way to beat flooding, and it?s up to the football brains at other clubs to work it out. If 10 clubs flood next year, and one club works out how to beat the flood, that club will win the premiership.
It was less than 20 years ago that commentators were lamenting the demise of spin bowling and suggesting the West Indian dominance with a battery of 4 fast bowlers while batting teams chugged along at 2 runs per over was the future of cricket. It wasn?t regulation that changed it, more like a trend to more attacking batting and the rise of Warne and Murali. Even by the end of their careers, Curtly Ambrose and Courtney Walsh were nowhere near as effective as they were earlier ? teams had worked out how to play them. Same as AFL teams will work out how to beat the flood. It doesn?t need regulation, just football smarts from opposition coaches.

[Guzzitza]

Originally posted by Norris Lurker
If 10 clubs flood next year

EVERY CLUB FLOODS. This is the stupid thing. EVERY GAME YOU WATCH, AT SOME POINT DURING THE GAME, THEY WILL FLOOD.

This what i find so frustrating, people point fingers when the reality is it is an effective method of reducing a teams scoring chances, and for this reason EVERY COACH has used it, in EVERY GAME (perhaps unless they are 50 - 60 points ahead.
I mean heck, you only have to watch and see the 3mins before the end of a quarter, whether it be the final or the first, the team defending always floods to stop the attacking team getting a final kick on the board before the break. It is so blaring obvious. Yet apparently we are the only ones, oh and i think people say the the Bulldogs are at it too.
Pfft. Really gives the @@@@s big-time.

[Nico]

The average winning score of all games played since inception is about 10 goals 12 points.

I recall back in the 70's when it was a close checking and low scoring thriller the commentators marvelled at what a tough hard game it was . "That's what footy is all about" they would say.

To say that flooding has changed the game for ever is folly. People who say that we have lost the high scoring shootout have short memories or really haven't followed the game closely.

They bring up a GF between Carlton and Richmond that Carlton won 28 goals to 22. I bet the fans were screaming at their backlines to man up. From what I know of the game it was over early on because Carlton got a good break and Richmond were playing catch up in a shootout, and were never going to win. Must have been a power of tackling. Last quarter was a real yawn. Great footy though.

[Sanecow]

Sheedy on the limited interchange trialled in the Wiz Cup. The coaches aren't in love with the idea.

Sheedy said the new rule, one of several to be trialled during the knock-out tournament, had been devised by people who sat in air-conditioned offices, had been in the job for "five minutes" and who would hold the game back by trying too hard to control it.

"I think it's a bit of a joke really. Five moves off the interchange bench is just ridiculous," he said yesterday.

"I just think it's a restraint on how coaches want to coach, and we go to a coaches' meeting and they want us to take the Wizard Cup seriously.

Source

[SimonH]

The idea that if players are forced to stay on the ground all (or almost all) of the game, they'll be more exhausted and there'll be fewer injuries, is hilarious. It seems to be 'Genius' Demetriou's bait to the AFLPA to start some kind of industrial action if these rule changes were ever brought in.

Two points that may not have been made yet:
1. Flooding 2005 is far more sophisticated than the Henny Penny days of Flooding 2002. It's a combination of zone defence, manning up and canny placement of those forwards (if any) who remain ahead of the ball. In the days when it was first invented, it was just 'everyone get a kick behind the play as soon as the opposition gets it'.
2. There is nothing more horrid-- frankly, soccer-like-- than a player pretending to be injured for some perceived tactical advantage to the team. Any rule limiting interchanges would have to make allowance for injured players over the limit. Hence-- voila!-- the ugly sight of tired players pretending to go down injured in the 3rd and 4th quarters. Of course, there is some acting now, but it's purely momentary (you get the free or you don't), and nowhere near the proportions that would be encouraged by a limited interchange. Umpires have got plenty of better things to do than have to adjudge whether a player is 'genuinely' injured.

No-one seriously wants Aussie Rules to go down this path.

[Guzzitza]

Originally posted by SimonH

2. There is nothing more horrid-- frankly, soccer-like-- than a player pretending to be injured for some perceived tactical advantage to the team. Any rule limiting interchanges would have to make allowance for injured players over the limit. Hence-- voila!-- the ugly sight of tired players pretending to go down injured in the 3rd and 4th quarters.

Keep in mind soccer players only feign injury to get a free kick or their opposition player sent off, its not so they can have a rest! If a soccer player is injured and requires treatment he must either be substituted (and therefore cannot return to play - and this uses up on of your allocated subs) OR he can have treatment off the field of play, but your team will play one man down until he returns. So there is no advantage to faking to get a rest in soccer - as u dont get one. As much as people like to bag it, the sport isnt THAT dumb.
And as you've already mentioned, players lready fakes for frees, so I guess AFL is already like soccer in that respect - its amazing to see an AFL player being hit and miraculously his head flies back and grabs and eye or an ear crying, despite replays show there was no contact.
So although I love AFL, i wouldnt get too strong on your criticisms of soccer, cos although soccer watches like a soap opera sometimes, reality is, your being a tad hypocritical!

[goswannie14]

Re: Re: Limited interchange

Originally posted by AussieAnge
Thanks for reminding me, I had forgotten that the Swans are the only team in the comp that floods.

That's right...all of the other teams get numbers behind the ball

Seriously though at the Hawthorn game there were numerous occasions when they had all of their players in the defensive fifty, I have never seen anything like it