Scrap interchange: Lethal

[NMWBloods]

Much harder to flood if you don't have a big interchange as the players can't run all over the ground all day.

The Swans have more interchanges than any other side and do more flooding/congesting/clogging.

[Chow-Chicker]

Yes, but not all clubs do it. You are still only allowed 18 players on the field at any one time. Flooding will occur if the coaches want to employ those tactics. To suggest that players will be too tired to flood back is a bit wishful. Because of the tactics employed, there will be constant ball ups, boundary throw ins, time watsed etc, so the likelihood of player fatigue in a slow moving game is minimal.

An interesting stat McAvaney said during the Freo game 10 minutes from full time was that there were only 2 boundary throw ins since half time. That's a mind blowing stat and it was evident by the top quality football game that it was.

[NMWBloods]

I'm really not sure what you are arguing.

You are saying that is at stands now, team don't have to flood - that's a coach's choice. Yes, that is the case. However, I don't see the relevance.

My point is that some teams still do flood, but without the ability to rotate players through the bench they will not be able to flood, hence we should get a more open game. Why is it wishful thinking? Players can't run all over the ground without being rested through the bench. It certainly seems less likely there would be flooding without the large interchange bench.

[Chow-Chicker]

What I'm saying is, that in my opinion, flooding will not be stopped if you simply remove the interchange bench.

Teams that are coached in this manner will continue to do so. Loose men in defence have been employed for decades, when the need arises. The interchange bench makes no difference to that.

Keepings off is another tactic that is used in games (Wallace again), but I don't see how the interchange bench makes any difference to that whatsoever. If this is such a problem, introduce the rule that the VFL have employed (and in the NAB cup), that kicking backwards is play on....

I don't see how removing the interchange bench will rectify these problems. In fact, no-one has suggested (other than banning it) how you would use the interchange bench in the circumstance of the blood rule?

[hammo]

In fact, no-one has suggested (other than banning it) how you would use the interchange bench in the circumstance of the blood rule?

He can be interchanged with another player but is allowed to return to the field. When he does, he must replace the player who came on in his place.

[NMWBloods]

What I'm saying is, that in my opinion, flooding will not be stopped if you simply remove the interchange bench.

Teams that are coached in this manner will continue to do so. Loose men in defence have been employed for decades, when the need arises. The interchange bench makes no difference to that.

Loose man in defence is not the same thing as 30 players chasing the ball wherever it goes. I can't see how teams will be able to do that effectively if players have to run out the whole game.

Keepings off is another tactic that is used in games (Wallace again), but I don't see how the interchange bench makes any difference to that whatsoever. If this is such a problem, introduce the rule that the VFL have employed (and in the NAB cup), that kicking backwards is play on....

I guess the argument is that if teams don't run back in packs they will spend more time in position on their man, as they used to, hence there will be less open space to play the possession game.

I don't see how removing the interchange bench will rectify these problems.

It rectifies the problem of flooding by reducing the ability of players to run around all game.
However, one of the key reasons Matthews seems to have suggested the change is that he thinks teams that lose one or two players are massively disadvantaged not being able to run rotations.

In fact, no-one has suggested (other than banning it) how you would use the interchange bench in the circumstance of the blood rule?

I'm sure that could be addressed.

[Chow-Chicker]

The other thing that needs to be said is that flooding doesn't occur for 100 minutes of the game. It is a tactic mainly used to close out each quarter to hold on to any lead that the team may have - or to be employed to prevent they other team from getting a "run on".

[Old Royboy]

I agree with Matthews for the reasons NMW has clearly stated. But, I would not like to see interchange scrapped totally, as this means the poor bastards on the bench stand a good chance of warming the pine for the whole game - as often happened to the 19th and 20th men (as they were called then) in the old days. I favour retaining 4 on the bench, and a more limited number of interchanges. The 30 per game mooted is far too many: 8-10 per game plus blood bins would give the bench warmers a better chance of a run, but would also ensure that at least a 3/4 of the 18 starters would be forced to play the whole 100 minutes.

This is one area where the NRL got it right, but the AFL got it wrong. In the NRL the interchange has been restricted to 12 for a few years now.

[Bloody Hell]

Yes, but not all clubs do it. You are still only allowed 18 players on the field at any one time. Flooding will occur if the coaches want to employ those tactics. To suggest that players will be too tired to flood back is a bit wishful.

So I'm guessing you can run all day...???

To suggest there is no such thing in the universe as fatigue is more than a bit wishful.

[Chow-Chicker]

So I'm guessing you can run all day...???

To suggest there is no such thing in the universe as fatigue is more than a bit wishful.

Are you blind?

Go back a few posts and see what I said about fatigue...

[ROK Lobster]

I agree with Matthews for the reasons NMW has clearly stated. But, I would not like to see interchange scrapped totally, as this means the poor bastards on the bench stand a good chance of warming the pine for the whole game - as often happened to the 19th and 20th men (as they were called then) in the old days.

Both points are excellent. I would love to see the interchange scrapped, but I would not like to see blokes on the bench all day.

I think that getting rid of the interchange would make gameday coaching much more challenging, as it would naming the team. I don't think that it would favour the Swans style of play too much, but a limited i/c is on the way it seems.

[Chow-Chicker]

I dunno, I just reckon if a coach fully utilizes the interchange bench then good on him. It's all about tactics and positional moves and if he manages to maximize full use of the bench and implements a better game plan than his opposition coach, so be it.

How would it be if you had a bench full of players all named in the premiership team, but didn't get one piece of the action? It would be like missing selection all together.

[Bloody Hell]

Are you blind?

Go back a few posts and see what I said about fatigue...

No, I'm not blind...and I can read too.

To suggest that players will be too tired to flood back is a bit wishful.

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.

[Mr_Juicy]

Do you think with the implementation of Lethal's rules, that each team will sit back in their defensive halves and just play kick to kick?

[hammo]

Do you think with the implementation of Lethal's rules, that each team will sit back in their defensive halves and just play kick to kick?

And how would that win you any games??