Scrap interchange: Lethal

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Mr_Juicy
    Warming the Bench
    • Mar 2007
    • 397

    #46
    Originally posted by hammo
    And how would that win you any games??
    Aaaaah! Therein lies the message.

    Comment

    • NMWBloods
      Taking Refuge!!
      • Jan 2003
      • 15819

      #47
      So that means the answer is 'no'.
      Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.

      "[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."

      Comment

      • Mr_Juicy
        Warming the Bench
        • Mar 2007
        • 397

        #48
        derrr

        Comment

        • NMWBloods
          Taking Refuge!!
          • Jan 2003
          • 15819

          #49
          Hence what was the point of your original post?
          Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.

          "[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."

          Comment

          • Chow-Chicker
            Senior Player
            • Jun 2006
            • 1602

            #50
            Originally posted by Bloody Hell
            No, I'm not blind...and I can read too.


            Flooding does cause fatigue. Case in point round one vs WC. We'd all like to believe the true Bloods spirit came through to get us to within a point from nowhere, but the simple fact is WC ran themselves into the ground into the first half. Limited interchange would have magnified this problem for them.

            All your arguments hinge on BOTH teams and ALL players being fatigued. This would not happen.
            Football causes fatigue.

            And not being able to interchange players that are on the field would make them more fatigued.

            Comment

            • Chow-Chicker
              Senior Player
              • Jun 2006
              • 1602

              #51
              Originally posted by NMWBloods
              Hence what was the point of your original post?
              To me it suggests the game would just revert to crap.

              Comment

              • NMWBloods
                Taking Refuge!!
                • Jan 2003
                • 15819

                #52
                Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
                To me it suggests the game would just revert to crap.
                Firstly - why? Football wasn't crap before there were four interchange.

                Secondly, his post and follow up combined do not suggest that.
                Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.

                "[T]here are things that matter more and he's reading and thinking about them: heaven, reincarnation. Life and death are the only things that are truly a matter of life and death. Not football."

                Comment

                • Mr_Juicy
                  Warming the Bench
                  • Mar 2007
                  • 397

                  #53
                  Originally posted by NMWBloods
                  Hence what was the point of your original post?
                  I can't remember

                  Comment

                  • DeadlyAkkuret
                    Veterans List
                    • Oct 2006
                    • 4547

                    #54
                    Originally posted by NMWBloods
                    Read it again...

                    Quality of football was fine when there were only one or two interchange players.
                    The game was also slower "back in the day", and not just because of the interchange rules, but there are many rules that have made the game faster today.

                    Lethal is starting to think he's a football sensei, that he's some wise old man, i call it Sheedy syndrome. Rotating players keeps them fresh, helps them recover from any niggles, and keeps the level of football at it's optimum. I can't see any rational reason for Leigh's ideas, and don't see a problem with the current interchange rules.

                    Comment

                    • Chow-Chicker
                      Senior Player
                      • Jun 2006
                      • 1602

                      #55
                      Originally posted by DeadlyAkkuret
                      The game was also slower "back in the day", and not just because of the interchange rules, but there are many rules that have made the game faster today.

                      Lethal is starting to think he's a football sensei, that he's some wise old man, i call it Sheedy syndrome. Rotating players keeps them fresh, helps them recover from any niggles, and keeps the level of football at it's optimum. I can't see any rational reason for Leigh's ideas, and don't see a problem with the current interchange rules.
                      Exactly. It's fine for the AFL to introduce the "kick in" rule, the "30 second" rule etc to make the game quicker, but they want to limit the use of the interchange bench. Can't have it both ways. "Back in those days" I don't recall having to play in conditions where teperatures were in the mid to high twenties and travelling interstate regularly. It does make a bit of a mockery of their previously introduced rules to try and slow things down now...

                      Comment

                      • Chow-Chicker
                        Senior Player
                        • Jun 2006
                        • 1602

                        #56
                        Originally posted by NMWBloods
                        Firstly - why? Football wasn't crap before there were four interchange.

                        Secondly, his post and follow up combined do not suggest that.
                        It wasn't as good as it is today.

                        That's the way I interpreted the combined posts....

                        Comment

                        • ROK Lobster
                          RWO Life Member
                          • Aug 2004
                          • 8658

                          #57
                          Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
                          It does make a bit of a mockery of their previously introduced rules to try and slow things down now...
                          I agree with that 100%. Those rules are stupid anyway.

                          What I like about the idea of a reduced or removed interchange is that players have to be a bit more versatile, and match day coaching is emphasised a little more. I also agree that because the 22 are all effectively players, with no real reserves, an injury or 2 really disadvantages the injured side.

                          Comment

                          • Chow-Chicker
                            Senior Player
                            • Jun 2006
                            • 1602

                            #58
                            Originally posted by ROK Lobster
                            I agree with that 100%. Those rules are stupid anyway.

                            What I like about the idea of a reduced or removed interchange is that players have to be a bit more versatile, and match day coaching is emphasised a little more. I also agree that because the 22 are all effectively players, with no real reserves, an injury or 2 really disadvantages the injured side.
                            If anything, then a reduced rotation of the interchange is probably the best solution. My personal view is that the AFL have a duty of care to players welfare and removing the ability to interchange players during the game may increase their chances of injury and undue health risks. A team travelling to Brisbane early in the season may be exposed to conditions of high temperatures and humidity. The Brisbane team may be acclimatised to those conditions but the travelling team may be flown into a "steam room" and then have to endure those conditions for the entire match without the possibility of interchange. Unfortunately, all things aren't equal in this competition....

                            Comment

                            • Mr_Juicy
                              Warming the Bench
                              • Mar 2007
                              • 397

                              #59
                              Originally posted by Chow-Chicker
                              It wasn't as good as it is today.

                              That's the way I interpreted the combined posts....
                              Actually I think you interpreted correctly from memory. Going back to the old days would crucify all the players playing under todays rules. Face it, the game is much quicker today than what it used to be. Making the bench smaller is farcical, limiting the number of interchanges is just making another rule for a rules sake. Hey why don't we split our ground into three zones and only allow a certain number of people in each zone at any one time?

                              Comment

                              • Mr_Juicy
                                Warming the Bench
                                • Mar 2007
                                • 397

                                #60
                                Originally posted by ROK Lobster
                                What I like about the idea of a reduced or removed interchange is that players have to be a bit more versatile,
                                agreed.
                                ...and match day coaching is emphasised a little more.
                                how? I would have thought that the management of player fatigue through rotational means was a huge part of match day coaching.

                                Comment

                                Working...