Posted: 3 Weeks, 1 Day ago
Sub Rule
|
#375002 |
|
Upon implementation Adrian Anderson said that he was open to the idea of going to two subs if the current rule did not achieve it's stated purpose.
Whilst I can't remember if the stated purpose was to slow the game down or reduce injuries (or was it to reduce injuries by slowing the game down), I always felt these reasons were ostensible and it was all about more one on one contests.
I loved the way the last half of the season played out when everyone did away with that press nonsense and we saw great football. This GF was so completely different to the last one in terms of style.
Are we going to two subs next year, a massive game changer?
And has the sub in fact been a good rule, and did Morgan actually get something right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3 Weeks, 1 Day ago
Re:Sub Rule
|
#375004 |
|
It was a stinker - too many knees went this year to keep it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3 Weeks, 1 Day ago
Re:Sub Rule
|
#375012 |
|
Wasn't that keen on the rule either. Still think they should've just capped the interchanges and left it at that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3 Weeks, 1 Day ago
Re:Sub Rule
|
#375014 |
|
Yep bad rule. Also, teams have had a bit more time to come to terms with the press (in all it's incarnations) - that may have been a factor in the change in tactics also.
Wouldn't it be funny if heaps of teams traded out quality true ruckmen and high picks for versatile ruckmen/forwards and the AWFL changed the rule again ina year or two ...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3 Weeks, 1 Day ago
Re:Sub Rule
|
#375015 |
|
Was the football in second half of the season better, worse or the same?
And if you think it was better, then why?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3 Weeks, 1 Day ago
Re:Sub Rule
|
#375017 |
|
The second half of the season's always better. Who's ever said, Wow! the first 10 rounds of 1932 ... you should have been there?
The second half's 'better' because that's what we remember, because that's when stakes are higher (or at least clearer) and games are closer for that reason and also because of a certain levelling factor due to fatigue, injuries and (unless you're Collingwood) effects of travel. As the season wears on, you get more contests because players have less space because coaches have figured out each other's game plans, players are more tired (many of them are carrying injuries, some of them are first yrs because of injuries to senior players), rada rada rada.
The second half of the season's always 'better'.
Squat to do with Eyebrows.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3 Weeks, 1 Day ago
Re:Sub Rule
|
#375018 |
|
The last third of the season sucked arse.
Might have liked it if we'd won a few more games.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3 Weeks, 1 Day ago
Re:Sub Rule
|
#375019 |
|
The second half of the year was crap, for Freo - there was none of the 9-game-without-a-loss-inspired-by-Jeff's-brilliant-55-goal-year streak, it was a 7 game straight bum out leading into a more-active-than-not head lopping season that will have blood spattered everywhere from late September through to November.
Plus, who would want to sit there on the bench with that red vest on, which basically says 'this guy is 75% crap and we'll only play him if one of the good 'uns goes down'. Then, like some kind of strategic masterstroke, the 75% crap guy comes on has 2 handballs, squibbles one kick into open space, guzzles more than his fair share of free Gatorade before hiding himself in the pack of players that go down the race at the end of the game knowing that he hasn't added one bloody thing to the team for the result.
I reckon it has no more use than a 'wear and shame' thing - Campbell Brown's Pappy would've loved using it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3 Weeks, 1 Day ago
Re:Sub Rule
|
#375020 |
|
If you look at the home and away finals series the games were a lot more open. I actually enjoyed the GF as a game of football for once!
Something changed, maybe people just woke up to the folly of the fwd press or opponents worked it out...........but maybe teams found they couldn't sustain it with only three on the bench.
I honestly don't know. But I thought the game changed in latter part of the year. for the better.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3 Weeks, 1 Day ago
Re:Sub Rule
|
#375021 |
|
I"m pretty much with you there, Poll. No one could argue with your assessment of the second half of 06 (come back, Jeff ... come back) and the idea that we've all now got a fully fit player sitting on the bench who can't play is something even Monty Python wouldn't have dared suggest for fear of stretching credibility.
And you're absolutely right about the 'strategic' bollocks.
Eff, we're getting belted! Bring on the sub.
Eff, we've had an injury! Bring on the sub.
There are things that are beyond stupid ... and then there's the sub rule.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3 Weeks, 1 Day ago
Re:Sub Rule
|
#375023 |
|
I'm with you, Wiz. The Sub Rule works well until it doesn't, and those circumstances arise when you have a fit bloke sitting on the pine with three other blokes and he is not allowed to participate only because Lapdog said he can't.
But the other three can. And so can the other eighteen.
And of course a tactical change combined with a stroke of bad luck in the form of injury results in one Club having two fewer players to take the field than their opposition.
Either ban the interchange of players and make all the players who sit on the bench take on the role of the traditional reserves, or set a limit on the number of rotations each team can utilise each quarter.
The current rule is a blight on the game. It is a cack-handed way to tackle what is perceived to be too many interchanges.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3 Weeks, 1 Day ago
Re:Sub Rule
|
#375024 |
|
Not a fan of the sub rule at all and it did nothing to slow the game down or reduce injuries.
A fully functioning sub rule, IMHO, would be one where they add an extra player (making a team of 23) to the bench who can come on in case of injury, etc.
Would ensure a team hit by a couple of injuries (happened more than once this year, and not just to us!) would still have 3-4 fit players on the bench.
What seemed to happened a bit this year is that as soon as the sub was activated - another player went down injured - leaving a max of 2 on the bench.
Or maybe there needs to be some flexibility to bring a 'subbed' player back on if another gets injured??
I believe the AFL originally brought in the 4 man bench to cover injuries and fatigue - and now they have in effect pulled it back to a 3 man bench and there is more injuries and fatigue than ever before.
|
|
|
|
|
