Sub rule abolished, interchange cap reduced for 2016

[rb4x]

Just been posted on the AFL site that the sub is being abolished next year and interchanges will be capped at 90.

[Mug Punter]

Just been posted on the AFL site that the sub is being abolished next year and interchanges will be capped at 90.

A step in the right direction

Long term I'd like to see the bench extended to six players and interchanges capped at a maximum of 10 per quarter. If a player is subbed and the club elects that they will play no further part in the game (for injury or for strategic reasons) then they should be allowed to add that sub back

[mcs]

Just been posted on the AFL site that the sub is being abolished next year and interchanges will be capped at 90.

Thank goodness for that.... a stupid rule when they bought it in, such a shame its lasted this long to be honest.

[Primmy]

We are of the same mind mcs....

[Triple B]

NOTHING has frustrated me more over the X number of years that stupid sub rule has been in place than seeing young fellas you've watched in the seconds from the time they were drafted/rookied, cool their heels with the vest and get a run with 20 minutes to go with little opportunity to impress.

Hated it.

[aardvark]

Hated it.

Agree totally. About time the VFL got something right.

[CureTheSane]

Can live without the sub, but i like the rotations.

What I'd love to see is any player who plays say 14 or more finals and/or H&A games for the year receives a medallion.
Seeing it's a team game and all.
Not sure if other codes in other countries do this, but I see no reason not to implement it.

[Ampersand]

Not a fan of the sub rule but one thing it was good for was not disadvantaging a team when a player went off for a concussion test or down with an early injury.

In such cases both teams maintain 3 players on the interchange. Now we'll have cases where teams could be playing 3 versus 4 rotations for extended periods of the match. I hope it doesn't lead to players putting themselves at risk by insisting on staying on the park after a head knock.

- - - Updated - - -

Can live without the sub, but i like the rotations.

What I'd love to see is any player who plays say 14 or more finals and/or H&A games for the year receives a medallion.
Seeing it's a team game and all.
Not sure if other codes in other countries do this, but I see no reason not to implement it.

Like... a participation award?

[goswannies]

What I'd love to see is any player who plays say 14 or more finals and/or H&A games for the year receives a medallion.
Seeing it's a team game and all.
Not sure if other codes in other countries do this, but I see no reason not to implement it.

In North American professional sports (NFL's Super Bowl, the NBA Championship, MLB's World Series, and the NHL's Stanley Cup) teams produce their own rings for "significant contributors to a championship team". I think in one extreme case about 500 rings were made for one championship team & were even given to office workers of the team. That's a little over the top to me & perhaps cheapens the ring's sentiment.

While I personally like to see the sanctity of premiership medals being awarded to the players & coach who participate on the day, I have always advocated a second (different) medallion produced by the league (or club) to be given to each player in the premiership squad, assistant coaches etc as (in their own way) they have contributed ... eg the bottom player on the list drives the second bottom player to be better etc.

They could be presented at the club's B&F, and would be a recognition of their contribution to a premiership team.

[Triple B]

What I'd love to see is any player who plays say 14 or more finals and/or H&A games for the year receives a medallion.
Seeing it's a team game and all.
Not sure if other codes in other countries do this, but I see no reason not to implement it.

I would guess the biggest opposition to that idea would be the players themselves. Players strive to play in a winning GF side, not be sitting on the sideline for whatever reason watching their club win it. Matt Spangher would have a drawer full if they just handed them out for being on the list.

I doubt Ben McGlynn feels like a Premiership player...

[Primmy]

I would guess the biggest opposition to that idea would be the players themselves. Players strive to play in a winning GF side, not be sitting on the sideline for whatever reason watching their club win it. Matt Spangher would have a drawer full if they just handed them out for being on the list.

I doubt Ben McGlynn feels like a Premiership player...

Agree. But Benny feels like a Premiership player to me.

[RogueSwan]

... Matt Spangher would have a drawer full if they just handed them out for being on the list.

I doubt Ben McGlynn feels like a Premiership player...

Hence a minimum number of games requirement.

[Dosser]

I am constantly in awe of the timing of AFL announcements. As soon as there is some negative press about the Commission, they announce something to the media in the hope that it will starve the negative press of air time. It has happened several times this year and it is within 24-48 hours that the AFL then says something sensational. Two days ago it was the AFL giving the rights for GPS data to their own interests and they immediately announce the sub and interchange changes. How long were they sitting on this announcement for?

[magic.merkin]

probably weeks Dosser

In regards to rings. Pretty sure every player I've heard comment on it has said you never feel apart of it unless you were on the ground on the last day.

good bye sub rule! die in a fire. happy to monitor the rotations. Would have preferred to lose sub and remain at 120 for a year.

with regards to disadvantages due to injuries/concussion, that's life, that's footy always had been. it's not a perfect science, we need to not fiddle with everything! No better victory's are the ones that are snatched from the jaws of defeat when we overcome adversity and the odds ala Pies win a few weeks ago.

It's going to be interesting 2016. Fingers crossed teams are successful with leaving players deeper forward. As opposed to dropping men back to rest.

[Nico]

It allows players to rest a bit longer and give coaches more flexibility. It may very well change how the game is played. To me the sub rule signaled more defensive footy. Under Roos our 3rd quarters were usually our worst as it appears he rested key players for longer, so they could finish the game off well. eg Jude Bolton always seemed to finish well in the last quarter.