Tweet
The injury to Jarred Roughhead last night is a direct consequence of the Sub-Rule. If Roughhead, a KPP, had not had to do ruck duties the probability is he would not have this injury now. Using players who are not specialist ruckmen to do ruck duties not only upsets team ballance but poses other problems. When players are set position players they are used to playing a certain way, running toward the ball etc. When going into the ruck they have to move differently & take on a far greater aerobic role & are not trained for it being set posie players. I believe we will see a lot more injuries before the end of the season. I wish teams would go back to playing 2 ruckmen & leave their forward set up stable. The Hawks had an almost unbeatable set up when on song but now they are probably gone.
-
-
What about Mumford? He was rucked until he broke down after we were lambasted by the press for having Seaby as the sub in the first round. -
I don't like the sub rule and I don't think it is doing anything to produce better quality football late in games as players are clearly more fatigued than they were a year ago.
But I don't think that Roughead's injury is proof. Who knows whether he'd have done the same thing had he not been playing in the ruck. It wasn't an impact injury directly attributable to rucking. And he's not the first player to rupture an achilles.
I also don't quite see why so many coaches seem to have decided that the second proper ruckman should be a casualty of the rule. If a team has two good rucks, why not play them and get an advantage over other teams who are playing a mediocre pinch hitter in the ruck. I suspect they've been as much influenced by the success of Leigh Brown as a mobile pinch hitter as they've been persuaded by the sub rule. If you have a pinch hitter who can provide a decent contest and then give you something around the ground as a mobile ruckman it makes sense to go this route. But if you don't have such a player, it seems pointless to try and create one out of a player not up to it.Comment
-
I did see Roughhead go down. he was running for a contest and fell over. He immediately put his hand up and literally within seconds a trainer ran on from the GSS side of the ground. The trainer immediately signalled for a stretcher as Roughead must have told him what had happened.
Amazing, he went off the ground without the slightest expression of pain or discomfort. It was amazing as he just sat there looking around.
I don't understand why the 2nd ruckman gets the chop either. What happened to resting people in the forward pocket like the old days.
An early injury to a player in a game doesn't really make any difference to the status quo from before the sub rule. Early injury previously resulted in a 3 man bench.In memory of my little Staffy - Dicey, 17.06.2005 to 1.12.2011- I'll miss you mate.Comment
-
-
I don't like the sub rule but you can bet the AFL (Vlad & Anderson) won't back down because they made such a hooha about it being bought in without warning on "scientific" evidence, that's just frog spawn!
I've got no doubt that it killed the chances of 18-20 ruckman of ever getting a crack at playing AFL. When you played two ruckmen you always needed at least two as back ups or in development. Now only one genuine ruckman is played, as we are finding three is too many!
Pissed off that at a time we finally get three genuine ready to go ruckmen the AFL change the rule on us :-(Comment
-
With two new clubs starting up I don't think you can argue that would-be players aren't going to get an opportunity. Each club will require a dozen talls including four or five ruckmen.
Back to injuries: ruckman are injury-prone. I count 11 out right now: Jolly, Sandilands, Charman, Blake, Roughead, Renouf McIntosh, and Gardiner. Jamar, Mumford and Pyke might play this week.
The man who laughs has not yet heard the terrible newsComment
-
I dislike the sub rule because it disrupts fantasy sides and it is frustrating when young players are making their debut, but sit on the pine for 3 quarters. Just a personal opinion.Driver of the Dan Hannebery bandwagon....all aboard. 4th April 09Comment
-
SMH; Players Risk Burn Out with new Sub Rule
This is a very interesting article & it is the reason I don't like the sub rule. Why not just cap the amount of interchanges a team can have instead just like the NRL. We would need far more than them but not as many as were happening and it might stop this stupid resting of players every time they kick a goal. It would mean we still retain four interchange who all can go onto the ground not one who sits cold on the bench for most of the game.Comment
Comment