http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/109244/default.aspx Here we go already. <blockquote>"In the second half we had players come off and we had to leave injured players on the ground because we've used our substitution and can't get him back" Scott said.</blockquote>The disaster isn't the sub rule, it is the strategy to use the substitutes for players who aren't injured at the time. I have absolutely no sympathy for this sort of crap. You roll the dice, you take the consequences. Quit sooking and taking up headline space Mr Scott.
The thing i don't like about it, is that it seems to make injuries more hurtful for the team. If they don't sub in case of an injury, they lose that fresh pair of legs, and if they do, and they get an injury, they are still screwed. The team still has to sacrifice a fair bit in case of injury, so makes the rule redundant unless the injury is in the first half.
@Ruddy Rather the point is, that it only makes the rule redundant if the coach chooses to make a substitution before an injury occurs. Nobody is forcing clubs to do this. Which is why they shouldn't cry foul if an injury occurs and they are caught out.
<blockquote>Quote from Jason on March 13, 2011, 12:49 @Ruddy Rather the point is, that it only makes the rule redundant if the coach chooses to make a substitution before an injury occurs. Nobody is forcing clubs to do this. Which is why they shouldn't cry foul if an injury occurs and they are caught out.</blockquote> If we gave them 3 subs, they'd bring them all on at half time, too.
But if you don't use a sub until there is an injury, and then there is no injury, you get disadvantaged. The whole purpose of this rule is to eliminate the advantage that one team gets when the other has an injury. All it does is advantage the team who uses their sub around half time, and then is lucky enough to not get an injury. So basically if you get an injury, you are still disadvantaged, only now, if you don't get an injury, you will still be disadvantaged if you keep your sub for an injury. As Scott said, it is a stupid rule and coaches shouldn't have to try their luck at using it before an injury, or save it in case there is an injury. IMO, the rule is basically just covering the AFL's ass. If the coach uses it too early, the coach, not the AFL is blamed, however the AFL will never get blamed if a coach doesn't use it for an entire game, even when using it would have won them the game. Dumb rule made by dumb people.
I'm with Jason on this one. The aim was to stop the 20 second rotation, but still give clubs some cover for injury. If clubs want to use it tactically that's fine, just don't bitch about it later. Any side who has 3 game-ending injuries is going to be stuffed either way, but at least if they use their sub for one, they still have 2 on the bench - exactly the same as last year. The other option that was seriously considered is just going back to 3 interchange. I don't see how this would be any better.
Like any new rule they'll take a while to get the best use of it down pat. But Scott had no case to groan imo as if he thinks 1/2 a game of footy is a lock for no injuries then he's kiddin himself. Scott was carrying on like the sub IS and interchange which, of course, it's not. Anytime you sub a fit player you are rolling the dice and when it doesn't work ........Suck it up sunshine...
<blockquote>Quote from crew on March 13, 2011, 14:04 Like any new rule they'll take a while to get the best use of it down pat. But Scott had no case to groan imo as if he thinks 1/2 a game of footy is a lock for no injuries then he's kiddin himself. Scott was carrying on like the sub IS and interchange which, of course, it's not. Anytime you sub a fit player you are rolling the dice and when it doesn't work ........Suck it up sunshine...</blockquote> Couldn't agree more! I heard from the Hawthorn camp awhile ago that were considering having a ruck/tall as there sub and effectively rotating there big men more. At the time it made me cringe and think "what if a midfielder/small gets injured, they can only be replaced by someone like Baily/Hale?!" Thankfully I haven't heard anything like this since.
<blockquote>Quote from Corks on March 13, 2011, 14:04 If clubs want to use it tactically that's fine, just don't bitch about it later.</blockquote> The problem with the rule, is that if a club doesn't use it tactically, then they are losing out, because the other team will have a fresh pair of legs.
Just out of complete curiosity is anyone "For" the Sub Rule or is it unanimously considered ridiculous. Maybe when a few of our teams lose as a result of its implemenation we might start an email hate campaign. Maybe the publishing of AA's mobile number if the Tigers lose as a result of it might be an option.
Limo23 - don't really care either way when it comes to the games, I don't reckon it will make that much of a difference. But I hate it for SC. The Bye is worse though.
<blockquote>Quote from Limo23 on March 13, 2011, 15:46 Just out of complete curiosity is anyone "For" the Sub Rule or is it unanimously considered ridiculous. Maybe when a few of our teams lose as a result of its implemenation we might start an email hate campaign. Maybe the publishing of AA's mobile number if the Tigers lose as a result of it might be an option.</blockquote> Sub rule already blows...Just ANOTHER way for supercoaches to get fingered as if byes, injuries, rookies, sackings, droppings and underperforming weren't enough (( lol.